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

I rise today because I believe that we all have the right to die with dignity. There are no easy decisions at the end of life, and they are decisions that no-one makes lightly. They are the most personal of decisions. I want to be clear from the outset, I support legislative reform to enable voluntary assisted dying under certain circumstances.

When terminal illness has already taken away so much from someone, I don't believe that it's our place to then take away their ability to choose their final moments. This bill does not ask us to consider how best to proceed with such a reform, nor does it commit this parliament to such a reform. This bill merely asks us to remove the prohibitions introduced in the nineties which prevent the ACT and the Northern Territory from undertaking these reforms. I support the rights of the territories in this regard. I note that debates about voluntary assisted dying have taken place in a number of state jurisdictions, with varying outcomes, and I see no reason to deny the territories the right to conduct the same debate. Nonetheless, I wish to place on record some views about voluntary assisted dying.

All of us have heard heartbreaking stories about people whose final decisions have been denied to them. These stories are powerful and they speak for themselves. They form the basis for my conviction that voluntary assisted dying ought to be available to those who truly suffer and for whom there is no meaningful pathway to ease suffering as they approach death. In my own life I've been close to those who've suffered through terminal illness over long periods of time. Both of my grandmothers passed away after long struggles with dementia. I don't know how either of them viewed their choices as they struggled with this bitter disease, but these experiences have certainly shaped my own views about the end of life and the way that we support those who are dying.

A far greater range of choices needs to be available to those facing death, and I do not restrict my remarks to voluntary assisted dying. Indeed, I think it's essential that we view this as part of a spectrum of end-of-life choices. People should have a right to choose how they spend their final moments, but I also think that people should have the right to choose how to spend their final months. In order for this to be a real and meaningful choice we need to make palliative and at-home care available, affordable and accessible, and at the moment it really isn't. Australians are not spending their final days where or how they wish. Our intentions are clear. Surveys show that around 70 per cent of Australians want to die at home—however, just under 15 per cent of us will get to do that. It is one of the lowest rates in the OECD. Instead, half of Australians will die in hospitals, with another third dying in aged-care facilities.

It doesn't have to be this way. These deaths are not unexpected. Somewhere in the region of 150,000 Australians die every year, and most of these people are between the ages of 75 and 95. Their deaths come often after a marked period of physical and mental decline. It is only the precise timing of these deaths that is unpredictable. When death is robbed of the element of surprise, we have the chance to choose how to meet it, and we should give people the opportunity to make these decisions. This means listening with empathy. It means having honest conversations with people who are facing the end of their lives about what it is that they want.

I know that many health professionals already navigate this very difficult terrain with sensitivity and with empathy. But there needs to be a capacity for our health system as a whole to recognise and accommodate the wide range of needs and desires that different people may have. On being diagnosed with a terminal illness, some people may want to avail themselves of every treatment that modern medicine can offer them. Others may prefer to spend their final weeks at home, even at the cost of some treatment and care options. We need to accept that there is no standard answer to the final question. Instead, we need to listen carefully to people who by reason of illness or old age are facing the end stages of their lives and we need to accept with compassion what they say.

I don't pretend that this is easy. It involves all of us accepting the decisions that are made by our loved ones—decisions not to be resuscitated or decisions to refuse treatment. It also involves doctors and care providers having honest and skilful conversations with patients about the options they have in circumstances where not a single one of those options is good. It will involve us as a society providing the funding to allow people to have the choices that they want, building and funding the healthcare infrastructure that will allow the 70 per cent of us who want to die at home to do so with dignity. These are ambitions to be realised through another piece of legislation—quite possibly, in some regards, in a separate parliament.

I said earlier that this bill does not require us to debate or construct the exact mechanism by which euthanasia may be offered, nor does it require us to remodel how hospitals, hospices and palliative care facilities interact with patients. But we shouldn't lose sight of context: we should have the choice to die with dignity. But it is not only the end-of-life decision we should be allowed to make. Our challenge is to craft a health system that is built with humanity and compassion and that gives all of us autonomy over our final months, not just our final moments.

I too would like to make a brief contribution to this debate. Whilst this bill's explanatory memorandum states the bill's purpose is fourfold, it is really about two things: the right of the ACT and Northern Territory parliaments to enact their own legislation without federal intervention, and the right of either to legislate for assisted suicide in their jurisdictions. This bill will restore the right which was removed 21 years ago under a private member's bill introduced by conservative Liberal MP Kevin Andrews. Kevin Andrews's Big Brother stance was an insult to the people in parliaments of the Northern Territory and the ACT. He had a moral objection to euthanasia, and so he used the biggest stick he could find to impose his will, the Constitution. At the time of the Commonwealth's interference, the Northern Territory had enjoyed self-governance for about 19 years and the ACT for nine years but, conveniently, the Commonwealth retained the constitutional right to make laws on their behalf. I would argue that this is a misuse of powers and the time has now come to make amends. The Northern Territory and ACT parliaments can and should be trusted to govern in the best interests of their constituents and they should be able to express the will of their constituents without such undue interference from the Commonwealth, just as the states do.

But back to what this bill is all about. Ultimately, it is about the right or otherwise of a person of sound mind with a terminal illness to choose the time and place of their death. This goes against the doctrine of many faiths, in the main because some see it as God's will to determine how and when a person dies and some see death and the process of death as being a cleansing of the soul. Others fear the process: how can we be sure that this is truly the will of and the right thing to do for the person? I too had all of these fears, but in the end I have faith that none of us, no matter our upbringing or faith, desire to see people, particularly those close to us, suffer a distressing death. On this, palliative care, when available, is a very effective option for some. But for many in the late stages of life their final weeks, days and hours often place them in a drugged out state. It is distressing for many and often has very little dignity.

Like many in this place, I have seen family and friends experience an excruciating end-of-life experience over their final days and weeks. I have also seen the opposite. Eighteen months ago my elderly mother, who had significant health issues, made a decision that she would die at 4 am the next day, and she successfully willed herself to do just that. The problem was that we didn't actually believe her at the time. She was able to do what many other terminally ill people wish they could do: die on her own terms. She individually called my kids, freaking out the whole family, called her close friends, stated that she'd had a good life with no regrets and wished us well. And, like most parents, she continued to offer me and my kids advice, and also quite a lot of political advice at the time. We didn't believe her, but she did die on her own terms around 4 am the next morning.

We come into this world to shape it in some way. Whether we live a privileged life or not, our actions, our footprints, impact those close to us and the greater community. We all have a purpose. In their final days, those with a terminal illness deserve the right to exit this world in a dignified manner and at a time and place that enables them to reflect on their life and to say their goodbyes to those they love. We owe them this for their contribution to humanity, and we should have a compassionate approach to their end-of-life choice.

So, yes, I support legalising voluntary assisted dying for the terminally ill, and I emphasise the word 'voluntary'. This is all about the terminally ill person making their own choice to end the suffering caused by their terminal illness. It is not about others using the system to end the life of an otherwise healthy person. I commend the Victorian parliament for becoming the first state to legalise voluntary assisted dying for the terminally ill. Their legislation, whilst considered to be the toughest in the world, is well thought out and responsible. It has a significant number of safeguards and introduces criminal offences to protect vulnerable people from abuse and coercion. In my view, it is model legislation that, over time, all states should adopt. I trust that, should this bill pass, the Northern Territory and, over time, other states and the ACT should consider adopting its content.

Life is precious; death is final. A good death is one where the dying person has that opportunity to reconcile their life and to save their goodbyes to loved ones on their terms. This bill is about compassion, and I truly hope fellow senators understand this and will support its passage.

I rise to speak on the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 and make it clear that, as I said to my parish priest, Father Joe, last Saturday week, I will not be supporting the bill.

In some ways, I take offence at the term 'dying with dignity'. When my father died at home he had cancer. I totally supported the drugs he was using. He was on morphine and painkillers. I don't care if it's medicinal marijuana, I support all sorts of drugs to make more comfortable those people who are terminally ill and suffering in pain. People say this bill is about dying with dignity. Does that imply that my father, or my mother in her old age, did not die with dignity? I do take offence to some of these slogans that are tagged on to some of these bills.

I believe that where there is life there is hope. I'm glad to see a media release today from the President of Right to Life Australia, Margaret Tighe. She says:

The bottom line in this debate is that the bill is designed to unleash into the Australian community legalised physician-assisted suicide. Would those same Senators who claim to be more concerned about so-called 'territory rights' be willing to give rights to the territories to legalise capital punishment?

She goes on to say:

Last official figures from the Netherlands—

where euthanasia has been in for a while—

in 2015 reveal that 431 euthanasia deaths occurred without the patient's consent!

This concerns me. What will change down the road? I'd like to talk about what the doctors have to say here and quote from today's TheAustralian newspaper:

St Vincent's Hospital emergency physician Stephen Parnis said that it was a "furphy" to say the bill was about territory rights.

The former Australian Medical Association Victoria president and federal vice-president said there was no way to comply with the safeguards. He said there should be more money spent on palliative care rather than a debate about assisted suicide.

“It is about state-sanctioned killing, even if it is killing of self; it is about the law and the values of our society, saying a number of people are better off dead and some lives are worth living and others are not …

…   …   …

The Australian Christian Lobby said polling it commissioned found support for euthanasia fell when respondents were asked to consider the question again after being told the AMA was opposed to it.

On 28 October 2017 the AMA President, Dr Michael Gannon, said:

The AMA's Position Statement is largely in line with the WMA—

World Medical Association—

policy in stating that 'doctors should not be involved in interventions that have as their primary intention the ending of a person's life'.

I agree with that. The doctors we know are about making people better, not ending their lives. I am concerned about what may change in time. It is a sad fact that one in two Australians, when they reach the age of 80, suffer some sort of memory loss—dementia, Alzheimer's or whatever. My mother suffered severely from it. I am concerned that those with enduring power of attorney, guardians, may want to hasten the death of their ancestor if there is money involved. This might be a selfish attitude I'm bringing to this point, but, if an elderly person living in Sydney owns their house, it could be worth millions of dollars. Sure, they're not going to get any better, but their life may be shortened because of that. As I said, where there is life there is hope. So I will not be supporting this legislation, on those grounds. I will not support it, on a religious basis. I will support the AMA and Right to Life.

But I do support all sorts of drugs to make life easier, more comfortable, for those with terminal illness. I wonder what happened a couple of hundred years ago when people had cancer and all sorts of terminal illnesses inflicting enormous pain. We didn't have those drugs to make life easier and more comfortable for them in their dying days. I'm certainly glad they are here these days. I saw what the morphine medication did for my father in his dying days, when we kept him at home and he died in his bed, which was amazing. When my mother said, 'I'm keeping him at home to die,' I was quite shocked. Usually people get very sick and they're taken off to hospital. Mum did a great job keeping dad at home in his dying days, along with Judy Grills, one of the nurses in town, who would come up regularly and look after my father's medication and see if he was going okay, along with my good friend Father Joe, who visited my father, Reg, on numerous occasions. My father died with dignity. He wasn't euthanised, and I'm glad that he wasn't and that he died from his illness, as comfortably as we could make it. I will not be supporting this legislation.

I rise to speak on the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 introduced by Senator Leyonhjelm. First I will speak on my views on euthanasia and then I will speak to this legislation specifically. I do not have an in-principle opposition to euthanasia. However, I've always been concerned, and remain so, about how any particular piece of legislation could be crafted to legalise euthanasia and also provide adequate legal protections for vulnerable people. I also believe we can do more as a nation to enhance palliative care. I remain concerned that we might move to support the legalisation of euthanasia before we consider the adequacy of palliative care in Australia.

Further, I believe that all legislators should tread carefully and thoughtfully when dealing with decisions that could put vulnerable people in harm's way. As legislators, we have an obligation to ensure that any laws we enact protect the most vulnerable in the community.

However, the legislation that Senator Leyonhjelm has introduced does not ask senators to approve or disapprove of euthanasia. This bill asks if the legislatures in the territories should have the powers to determine that question for themselves. This power was taken away from the territories by the Euthanasia Laws Act in 1997. I respect that Labor MPs had a conscience vote at the time, and I understand that Labor MPs will do so again on this occasion.

If this legislation proposed by Senator Leyonhjelm were to pass this parliament, it would not immediately restore euthanasia as a legal practice in the Northern Territory. It would simply restore the power of the territories to make laws regarding euthanasia and allow the territories to revisit this question if or when they wished to do so. I agree that this decision-making power should be rightfully returned to the legislatures in the territories. It is my view that the democratic chambers and the elected representatives are able to make this decision for their constituents, as they make decisions on so many other areas of economic and social policy. As such, I will be supporting this legislation.

I want to share with the Senate the story of my dear friend Harry. Harry Gardner passed away on 18 February this year, aged 91. He'd had prostate cancer for the last 13 years, and his health had been in decline over those 13 years. He'd done everything he could over those 13 years to keep himself healthy, and in fact people often thought that Harry was a bit odd for his focus on his health—baking his own bread and turning vegetarian in his later years.

Harry was a humanist; he was a scientist; he was a musician. He made the decision in his last years that, as somebody who had been focused on trying to make the world a better place, the last campaign that he would be involved in would be for voluntary assisted dying. I remembering him ringing me up and saying: 'Right, Janet, what can we do to make this a reality, both federally and in the Victorian parliament?' He lobbied Victorian MPs across the spectrum. He played a very important role in the passage of the legislation that passed through the Victorian parliament in November last year, just by being himself—by presenting himself as an older person who knew that he was going to die and who wanted to have the choice to be able to die in the manner of his choosing and not to have to die with the suffering and pain of a death that he would have preferred to have had brought forward so that it could be peaceful and a good death.

Harry died in February, after the legislation was passed, but he died with the satisfaction of knowing that he had played an important role in seeing it passed. I saw Harry only a few days before he died, and my most delightful memory of him, having known him for all of my life, essentially, was to do with playing my violin. When I arrived at the hospital that he was in, he was sleeping, and his son, Henry, was there. Henry and I have played violin together numerous times over the years and played with Harry, obviously, many times. So I got my violin out, and Henry and I proceeded to play a beautiful folk piece, 'Ashokan Farewell'. Harry woke while we were playing, and he just had this beautiful look on his face as he heard us playing 'Ashokan Farewell'. He was quite lucid, and in fact Henry, and Henry's sisters, Jenny and Gayle, told me that, in that time that we had with him, he was the most lucid that he'd been for the last week.

It was such a privilege to be there for part of the last days of Harry's life. As I said, he died too early to be able to benefit from the voluntary assisted dying legislation in Victoria, and, fortunately or not, he was not able to make use of it. I think he probably wouldn't have made use of it, because he ended up dying reasonably quickly, without too much pain and suffering. He was determined. The reason he put so much effort into campaigning was that he wanted to have the choice. It was appropriate for him to have the choice. All Australians should be able to choose to go gently, to have a good death and to not have prolonged suffering. This legislation today is about all Australians having the choice. In particular it is about the people who live in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory having the same rights as the rest of us and at least being able to have the debate.

In Victoria we had very extensive debate that covered all of the issues that are being discussed in the debate we are having today. There were all the concerns that people have about voluntary assisted dying—the issue of it being a slippery slope, the issue of elder abuse, the issue of coercion, the issue of people not being in sound mind and in particular how voluntary assisted dying and palliative care operate side by side. After that debate Victoria passed the legislation. Of the jurisdictions that now have voluntary assisted dying, Victoria has some of the most stringent legislation in the world. There are so many checks and balances in place to address all of the issues that people are rightly concerned about. The Victorian legislation doesn't come into play until the middle of next year. I want to see all Australians able to benefit from that experience and debate and to be able to have the same debate themselves. It is not right that the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory don't even have the opportunity to debate this legislation like we were able to in Victoria.

I am proud to be a Green and part of a party that has led the way for more than 10 years on the issue of voluntary assisted dying. In Victoria our Greens MPs played a critical role in the passage of that legislation. I give a big shout out to former state MP Colleen Hartland and in particular Samantha Dunn, the current state MP. I want to thank them for the massive work they did on leading the debate and being part of the debate in Victoria. Here in our federal parliament we had Bob Brown's private member's bill back in 1997 and we had Richard Di Natale's bill on restoring territory rights, which is the basis for this bill that has now been proposed by Senator Leyonhjelm. Senator Leyonhjelm's bill that we are debating today is essentially a rewritten Greens bill. To ensure that we get the outcomes for the community that we know they deserve, the Greens will be supporting it. The Greens will continue to further efforts in every state and territory. We know the level of support for voluntary assisted dying right across the Australian community. You can be assured that we will be working across party lines to make sure that all Australians have access to compassionate end-of-life laws.

I want to finish with my thoughts and love going out to Harry's family—his son, Henry, and his daughters, Gayle and Jenny—and all of his friends and going out to all people who through this debate are thinking about their loved ones, the death of their loved ones and their loved ones who are currently suffering. I hope the passage of this legislation is another step forward so that all Australians are going to have the choice to die a peaceful and good death.

I rise today to speak on the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, which was introduced into this place by our colleague from the Liberal Democratic Party Senator Leyonhjelm. I'd like to start by saying that I will be opposing the bill today. I have said in the past that I will consider any proposal to legislate for the right of a person to end their life provided that there are adequate safeguards in place to protect them from being guilted into doing so. I'm not confident that the bill today offers those safeguards. Indeed, it doesn't offer a model at all. I also appreciate the views expressed by some that this bill is ultimately about where federal legislative authority ends and where that of the territories begins. However, I do not believe that what is ultimately a discussion on assisted suicide is the appropriate forum for discussion on state rights versus territory rights.

Before I go any further, I cannot stress enough the sensitivity and the personal nature of this issue. It is encouraging that previous speakers on this bill are respecting that. I acknowledge the sincere words of Senator Rice, who spoke just before I rose. All of us in this place have the best intentions. But this is not a debate about intentions. It is, in fact, a debate about the decisions that we as lawmakers make and the implications of those decisions. So this is not a question of whether we should allow people to die with dignity. Indeed, as lawmakers, we take it as a given that everyone—and most of all us, the parliamentarians—wants to ensure Australians have dignity at all phases of their lives, including when they die. Rather, this debate is more about whether we should give the territories the unfettered ability to legislate for assisted suicide.

The legislation before us today provides no guarantees that those choosing to end their lives won't be guilted into doing so, and neither does the system of government employed by the territories. The respective legislatures affected by the proposed legislation are unicameral; like Queensland, they lack an upper house of review. The Northern Territory experience of the 1990s demonstrates very clearly just how easy it is to get the law on this issue wrong and why it can't be repeated again. When the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 was enacted, it was accompanied by a number of 'safeguards' that advocates of assisted suicide claimed would protect vulnerable people. In practice, they failed to do so.

Let me outline the implications of that. Two doctors both verify the existence and the terminal nature of a patient's illness. The second practitioner was required to have special expertise in the illness and fellowship in a specialist college in Australia. That was one of the safeguards. If the first doctor did not have a specialist qualification in palliative care, a third doctor, with palliative care expertise, was required to give the patient information on the availability of palliative care. And then, finally, a psychiatrist was required to examine the patient to certify that he or she did not have treatable clinical depression. We were told time and time again that these protocols would protect the most vulnerable members of our society from terminating their lives unless they were of sound mind and did not want to receive palliative care. No matter how well intentioned it may have been, the nine months during which euthanasia was practised—it was practised in the Northern Territory from July 1996 to March 1997—should in fact serve as a sufficient deterrent. That is because all the goodwill in the world could not have prevented the tragic implications of this legislation; it shows why we must get the law right.

In October 1998, a paper entitled 'Seven Deaths in Darwin: Case Studies under the Rights of The Terminally Ill Act Northern Territory of Australia' was published in TheLancet. This paper examined the cases of seven people who made formal use of the ROTI Act, four of whom died from assisted suicide. One of the authors of this paper was Philip Nitschke, a fervently pro assisted dying physician and activist. So it is not as if this paper was a blatant partisan exercise in criticising the practice of assisted suicide—far from it. As was expected would happen by many before the enactment of this act, despite only seven cases falling within its ambit, the Northern Territory still did not effectively apply its own law. As was identified by the paper published in The Lancet, three of the seven patients were socially isolated with depressive symptoms present in four of the seven. This depression clouded their judgement meaning that they were not of sound mind when they were requesting to end their lives through assisted suicide. The paper also said that when it came to pain management, four of the seven patients had controlled pain and the remaining three did not have prominent pain, and yet the law was intended to put an end to prolonged suffering. But perhaps most alarmingly, the requirement for there to be a consensus terminal diagnosis, arguably the most straightforward safeguard to implement, proved too difficult to administer for the Northern Territory government who allowed access to euthanasia for two patients who lacked a consensus terminal diagnosis. Even worse, one patient who was granted euthanasia did not have a terminal condition at all. The safeguards simply weren't in place.

I fully appreciate the sentiment of those who passionately support this bill and who view this bill as one that is meant to secure the dignity of the small number of people who suffer from terminal illness with refractory pain. The intentions of the territories, then and now, are not in question. But what the Northern Territory situation has proven is the need to ensure that the law is developed properly and in a manner that has far more than just adequate safeguards.

Much like the Northern Territory, overseas experiences of assisted suicide offer little comfort. Nowhere that has legalised euthanasia has demonstrated a viable model with those adequate safeguards. It sounds promising in theory but it is, in practice, quite insidious. In all major jurisdictions where euthanasia or assisted suicide is legal, there has been a sharp and sustained upward trend in the number of deaths over a long period of time. In no case, is there a sign of the frequency of the practice plateauing—it increases year on year on year.

In 2016, the Victorian parliament held an inquiry into end-of-life choices. Daniel Mulino, of the Legislative Council, the Labor Party member for Eastern Victoria, dissented from the majority report. Putting partisan allegiances aside for just one moment, this was an immensely valuable piece of research and one that will no doubt become a seminal work on the case against euthanasia.

In his dissenting report, Mr Mulino examined prominent cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia in major jurisdictions that have legalised either procedure. His findings were disquieting to say the least. In each of the three European countries that have legalised assisted suicide—Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland—there have been vast year-on-year increases in the number of people who have accessed euthanasia services, and this growth has been sustained over many years. In Switzerland, for instance, over the 16-year period of 1998 to 2014, the compound annual growth rate in cases was 19.2 per cent. I will say that again: the compound annual growth rate in assisted dying was 19.2 per cent year on year, compared to a meagre 0.3 per cent annual growth rate in deaths.

Similar results were observed over a 12-year period in Belgium, which has an identical annual growth rate in total deaths. To look at it another way, the total number of cases in Belgium increased by 756 per cent over that 12-year period. That is striking. That is striking indeed. In the Netherlands, the annual growth rate was lower at 13.1 per cent over a seven-year period but this is, nevertheless, a marked increase that occurred despite the total number of annual deaths decreasing year on year. Likewise, across the Atlantic Ocean in Oregon and in Washington, there has been strong, sustained year-on-year growth in the number of cases of euthanasia and assisted dying. And, again, annual growth in deaths in the USA is a mere 0.5 per cent.

I do not dare to do the individuals or the families involved the disrespect of questioning their decision, but the trend indicated by the evidence here really cannot be ignored when, as lawmakers, we are confronted with legislation akin to the one that we are presented with today.

How can we explain this phenomenon? It is certainly not plausible to attribute it to a growing awareness of end-of-life options. One only has to take a cursory glance at the graphical representations of the data from overseas to see that there has been no abatement in the growth rates in any of those five jurisdictions that I have discussed today. This strongly suggests that sustained growth is due to factors other than simply community awareness.

As I have discussed already, such a phenomenon cannot simply be dismissed by attributing it to an increase in the ageing population of the respective jurisdictions. There is evidence of scope creep in at least some jurisdictions, and this is particularly concerning. This has occurred both via legislative expansion of categories, such as in Belgium, and also non-legislative and informal extensions within an existing framework, such as in the Netherlands. Once the initial legislation is in place, it becomes that bit easier to justify liberalising the practice. One could ask many questions about whether the initial scope was appropriate in the first place. Is physical pain necessary to trigger justifiable action or is psychological pain also sufficient? Is explicit consent required? If assisted suicide is justified only for people suffering a terminal condition, what exactly does 'terminal' mean?

As Mr Mulino notes, the reason why the slippery slope argument has credibility in this context is that once euthanasia or assisted suicide are accepted for a limited subset of situations, there is very little by way of logical or philosophical argument to stop the expansion of those categories. Furthermore, the argument is that, once legalised, there will be a tendency for euthanasia and assisted suicide schemes to expand in scope since the logical and philosophical boundaries between the different types of proactive hastening of death are far weaker than the boundary between omissions and actions. Indeed, Senator Leyonhjelm himself noted in his opinion piece in The Australian Financial Review of 3 August this year that some people ought to have the option to end their lives when life has become merely 'unsatisfactory'. No doubt many of us will have some considerable concerns about a proposal such as that.

The slippery slope is, in fact, comprised of two slippery slopes. The first involves loosening the legislative criteria that one must satisfy to access euthanasia services. The second and, in my mind, far more concerning slope, involves the broad reinterpretation of existing legislative criteria by those outside the judicial and legislative arms of government. For instance, amendments to legalise physician assisted dying were introduced but ultimately rejected by the Belgian legislature. Nevertheless, physician assisted dying is now widely practised in Belgium, despite legislation that intentionally outlaws this practice.

As you can see, once legislation is enacted there really is no turning back. This is not—I think this is important for the chamber to recognise—an issue of federalism. The Federation of Australia was the process by which the six British self-governing colonies agreed to unite and form the Commonwealth of Australia. Neither the Northern Territory, nor the Australian Capital Territory nor any other territory was party to this. Section 122 of the Australian Constitution, regarding the government of territories, reads as follows:

The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

As it is abundantly clear, and set out in the Constitution, the territories do not have the same rights as states. They are different from states. They do not have the same rights.

They are self-governed only by virtue of acts of the Commonwealth parliament. Of particular importance are the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 and the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988. The extent of the purview of such acts is determined at the sole discretion of the Commonwealth parliament. That can be amended by a majority vote of both this place and the other place at any time. The territories' legislative assemblies govern only by delegation of power of the Commonwealth government. They do not govern by way of constitutional right. As was their legal right at the time, the Northern Territory parliament enacted the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995, which legalised euthanasia in the Northern Territory. And as was their right, the Commonwealth parliament enacted the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, the so-called Andrews bill, which amended the territories' self-government acts to remove their powers to legalise euthanasia. This is how the territories have always been governed. As a conservative, it is my firm belief that this is how they always should be governed and should continue to be governed. I need not remind my Senate colleagues that in the year immediately following the enactment of the Andrews bill, the Northern Territory voted against becoming a state. The Northern Territory voted against becoming a state.

The legislation produced in the 1990s allowing territories an exemption to legislate on assisted suicide did not work. I am sad to say, and sad to see, that 20 years on we are here again merely revisiting the battles of the past in exactly the same manner, with a bill offering practically the same legal effect. Again, I cannot stress enough the personal connection that so many of us have on this issue, myself included. I respect that deeply, as I'm sure all of us in the chamber do, but we can have no confidence that we are producing legislation that ensures adequate safeguards for Australians who elect to end their own life or that we are getting the law right on this issue. That is why I will not be voting for this bill today. I thank the chamber for its indulgence.

I'm pleased to be able to speak on this issue. This is probably the second time that I've indicated my support for people's right to die a dignified death and, on that basis, I support this bill.

The bill has four elements to it. The first is to reduce the extent of Commonwealth interference with the laws of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. I take that as a correct statement. What this parliament did was interfere in the decision-making process of both of those territories.

The bill, secondly, is said to encourage competitive federalism—the process whereby each state enacts laws in competition with the others—thereby refining and improving law making. That's an assertion, I think, that has been made by Senator Leyonhjelm on this bill. I don't particularly support competitive federalism. Competitive federalism had a lot to answer for around this country in years past. It's been bad for the economy. It's been bad for productivity. I think competitive federalism is a nonsense in some aspects. So I don't support that proposition.

The third area is that it recognises the right of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to legislate for assisted suicide in their respective jurisdictions. For the life of me, I can't understand why, if you give rights to these territories to make decisions—the decision about helping some of their constituents, or some of the citizens, in those territories—they should have second-class rights compared to the states. This is about ensuring that everyone, whether you reside in a state or in a territory, has got the same access to the law and the same access to rights—as we have everywhere else. That's an important part of this bill.

Fourthly, it ensures that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, Northern Territory, is not automatically revivified, allowing the parliament of the Northern Territory to revisit the issue in a time and manner of its choosing. So we are not really here voting on what should happen in the Northern Territory. We are not voting on what should happen in the ACT. We are simply saying that they should have the same rights to make laws for their citizens that the states around the country have to make laws for their citizens. There should be no second-class citizens in this country.

I have been engaged in the removal of asbestos for many years, both as a union official and as a parliamentarian. I just think that, if you watch someone die an excruciatingly painful death from mesothelioma, that may change your views on how you deal with this issue. In fact, I have just come from the Parliamentary Group on Asbestos Related Disease. They are meeting as this debate is taking place. They are trying to stop asbestos being used around this country in a way that creates this excruciating death for an individual. When I indicated that I had to leave that meeting to come down here, two of the Queensland delegates to the meeting approached me and said that, only in the last 12 months, two of their members whom they were trying to assist to manage their asbestos disease, mesothelioma, have committed suicide.

I don't know if many people here have witnessed anyone dying of mesothelioma, but it is an absolutely vicious and terrible disease. You can, for about 12 months prior to your death, not be able to breathe effectively. It's been described to me as having a block of concrete on your chest, crushing your chest. Your body just disintegrates around you with the cancer. Both as a union official and a blue-collar worker, I have witnessed two of my close friends die of this. I worked at Liddell Power Station in the Hunter Valley for seven years. When I first worked there, very little concern was given to the question of asbestos exposure, but thankfully during that period of time, because of the activities and the strikes that unions engaged in—the refusal to work with asbestos—we ended up in a situation where we had checks and balances and proper controls over the exposure of workers to asbestos.

But there have been many, many workers in the power industry, in the maritime industry, in the building industry and in other industries who have been exposed to asbestos and ended up with mesothelioma. If you end up with mesothelioma, I'll tell you, you will want relief from what you are being put through. Not only is it a terrible, excruciating disease for the individual but it's terrible for the family to witness their loved ones ending up in the situation that they are in. So my views on this    have been certainly decided after watching my friends die in this terrible situation.

I had another good friend. He emigrated from Scotland in the same year as I did. In fact, we went to the equivalent of TAFE in Scotland together. We didn't work together. He worked in one job; I worked in another. But we had been friends for nearly 40 years in Australia. He ended up with pancreatic cancer. This was a tough guy. He still had his grandchildren before him. He had still a lot of life to lead. The pancreatic cancer meant that he was left lying in St Vincent's Hospital in nappies because he had no control over his bowels. He had no control over what was happening. He was medicated to the highest degree possible. I think that St Vincent's Hospital gave him the best palliative care they possibly could, but his was still an excruciatingly bad death. His family had indicated to me that they just wished there was something that could be done about it.

We heard earlier the contribution from Senator Hume, who raised the slippery-slope argument. If more people in Belgium are being saved from going through a horrible death, an excruciatingly painful death, I don't think that's a slippery slope. I think that's a good thing. I think that they should be saved from that. To simply look at statistics and say this is a slippery slope is something that I don't understand. I thought that argument would come up in this debate, because this debate has been in this place before, so I had a look at some of the academic analysis, rather than the material from religious organisations or atheist organisations. I thought I'd have a look at what the academics are saying about the situation in Belgium. There's a paper by Bernheim, Deschepper and Deliens that rejects the slippery-slope argument. These are academics actually looking at the statistics and how this is working and dealing with the issues. One of them is a medical oncologist, one of them is an anthropologist and the other is a medical sociologist, so they are trained to analyse these issues. They say the slippery-slope argument used in Belgium—they don't talk about anywhere else—has no merit. They say:

Palliative care and legalisation of euthanasia are widely viewed as antagonistic societal developments and causes.

They say they should not be, because euthanasia and palliative care can work together and do work together in Belgium. They say:

Belgium was the second country to legalise euthanasia but also has among the best developed palliative care—

in the world. It's not one thing or the other. You can access palliative care in Belgium, but if you end up like my friends ended up you can be put out of what is a miserable, terrible death. Many of the advocates for legalisation in Belgium actually worked in palliative care. They had seen that palliative care does not diminish the suffering of many people and they became advocates for euthanasia in Belgium. Bernheim, Deschepper and Deliens say:

The development of palliative care and the process of legalisation of euthanasia can be mutually reinforcing.

These are the academics who are working in this area and who have taken the time to actually sit down and look at what is happening in the country. They are not senators in Australia picking up some piece of information that they can run in here with and use to talk about slippery slopes. They say that argument is not correct, that it is not the situation.

So I am very strongly of the view that this legislation should be passed. What we have to remember once this legislation is passed is that there are no euthanasia laws existing in the ACT or in the Northern Territory. These are issues that will have to be debated in those parliaments, in the areas where they should be debated. The citizens of both the ACT and the Northern Territory will then be able to lobby their parliamentary representatives. They will be able to put their points of view. The churches will be able to put their points of view. Medical practitioners will be able to put their points of view. Families will be able to put their points of view. I think that's what democracy is all about.

Democracy was not properly effected when John Howard, in the parliament that he was in, denied the citizens of the ACT and the Northern Territory the same rights that exist for other jurisdictions. Some states have not passed any laws on euthanasia. Victoria recently has. I think it's inevitable that these laws will be passed around the country, and I think it's a good thing that these laws be passed. We would not subject animals to the agony and pain that victims of mesothelioma go through after they contract that disease. They are treated with a more commonsense approach than some of these victims of mesothelioma or pancreatic cancer are.

I take the view that we'll hear all the arguments here. This is a matter of common sense and it will come down to the individuals. Individuals will make choices. Individuals will make that choice on the basis of checks and balances within the legislation that is passed within the ACT or within the Northern Territory.

The reason there is no detail about any legislation on euthanasia in this bill is that we've got no power to determine what happens in the ACT or the Northern Territory on this issue. We've got no power to determine that euthanasia should apply across the country, but we do have the power to remove the restrictions on the ACT and the Northern Territory that were put in place by John Howard and his government some years ago on the basis of what were seen to be strong arguments. Many members had strong views on this. They took a view and that was the decision the parliament made, but things have moved on, just as they have moved on in a whole range of areas. Things have moved on since the days of John Howard, his conservatism and his approach on these issues.

I think we should listen to academics, doctors, families and the individuals who are stricken by terrible disease and who want to end their life. We should stop having the position that people with incurable disease should be forced to suffer. Their families are forced to suffer the ignominy of watching them lying in a nappy, with no control over their bodily functions, while dying an excruciatingly painful death. We need to change this approach.

I think things have changed. What I've seen recently is that many more people accept the proposition that people should have the right to choose how they die when they have these terrible diseases. What we've seen recently is that, when the Australian public are asked about their views on this, overwhelmingly they have moved on from the days of the John Howard government and have come to the view that people should be able to make those choices, subject to the checks and balances that are put in place to ensure that the person suffering is making the decision and that they have got a terminal illness that they will not recover from.

These are big issues that should be before the states and territories. These issues cannot be debated at the territorial parliamentary level unless we make this decision to restore to the territories the rights that states have. What I'm arguing here is that this bill does no more than restore their rights. The debate about whether legislation should be passed in the ACT or the Northern Territory and whether it should happen there is a matter for Territorians and Canberrans. They're the people who, through their territorial assemblies, should make those decisions. That's the argument that I put forward here. I think that if they want to bring those issues before their parliaments, it is now time for us to allow those parliaments to deal with them in the way they see fit.

I think everyone knows that palliative care is extremely important. Palliative care is fantastic to help people die in a painless way, as much as they possibly can. In Belgium, the people who administer palliative care have got another option, under certain checks and balances, and that is: if the individual has indicated that they want to end their life—perhaps because their illness is so excruciatingly bad for them—then they have got the right to end their life with dignity. What I'm arguing for here is the right of the individual to make the choice, the capacity for checks and balances to be put in place, and the rights of both the Northern Territory and the ACT to be able to pass legislation after consulting properly with the electorate. I think there should not be two rights in this country: one for those who, by chance, just happen to live in a territory and another for those who live in a state. You could move from New South Wales to the ACT and your rights would change. I think that's a nonsense. I take the view that this is the right thing to do. I don't agree with much that Senator Leyonhjelm brings before this parliament but I certainly agree with this, and I commend him for bringing this forward.

I rise today in support of the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. Before I get onto the merits of the bill, I want to talk a little bit about the issue of euthanasia. As Senator Cameron has just stated, I believe that this bill before us today is about restoring territory rights; it is not about euthanasia. The bill that it's repealing is the Andrews legislation of some years back, which was about euthanasia, so I can understand many senators in this place putting their views about euthanasia, and I intend to put mine.

I have to say, at the outset, it is not something I'm completely comfortable with. I think what we need to do in this country is be far more open and far more progressive about how we discuss dying. We really don't discuss it in families as much as we should. We often get to a point where we have to deal with a relative who is no longer able to make decisions for themselves. The question of whether to increase the drug regime, which is the norm in Australia, hastening that person's death, is often left to relatives who have little or no understanding of what the life choice of the relative would have been.

My mum died about 40 years ago. It was a painful death, and for most of the time that she lingered—it was probably about a month in hospital—she was unconscious. I wasn't that old at the time. Obviously, the hospital had her on a high drug regime. I don't know what my mum would have chosen at that point. Certainly, she got ill very quickly. But there she was in the hands of medical practitioners for the last month of her life, mostly unconscious. My nanna died at the age of 100. She didn't ever want to enter a nursing home. Unfortunately, that's where she ended up. I knew that my nanna didn't want to prolong her life but, again, I had to make that decision to increase my nanna's drugs. It was a decision I wasn't comfortable making. I would have been much better off if Nanna had left explicit instructions, perhaps written instructions. She'd had explicit discussions in conversations with me, but I would have felt much more comfortable if Nanna, at some point, had been able to make that decision for herself.

My father died last year. He didn't want to die. My dad had every intention, at the age of 94, to keep on living. Thankfully, he didn't linger and, thankfully, I think he chose his time of dying. It was melanoma that took him in the end, but he died a very quick death and a painless death. For that I'm really grateful, but he wouldn't have chosen assisted suicide if he'd been able to. Nevertheless, my dad, my mum and my nanna should have been able to make that decision in a legal way and should have been able to clearly pass on their wishes to me as their daughter and their granddaughter.

I do support euthanasia, but it's not the job of this parliament to do that. It is not the job of this parliament. This bill before us today is about restoring territories' rights.

I want to talk about what's happening in Western Australia right now. My good friend the member for Morley, Amber-Jade Sanderson, moved a motion last year in the Western Australian parliament to set up a select committee to look at changing Western Australian laws so that the concept of end-of-life choices could be explored. That committee has been having public hearings. It has travelled all over the state over the last 12 months. It's due to report fairly soon. All sorts of people in Western Australia—organisations, individuals, terminally ill people, children—have been able to go to that committee and have their say. Very clearly, over the 12-month period, after exhaustive consultations, that committee will be able to come up with a report and say, with a fair degree of confidence, 'These are the views of a wide range of Western Australians.' I don't know which way that committee will end up reporting, but it's very clear that that committee has been able to consult in Western Australia.

Of course, Amber-Jade Sanderson, the member for Morley, was elected by Western Australians. Here I am being asked, potentially, to rule on an issue in the Northern Territory and the ACT when I am an elected senator from Western Australia and don't know the views of territorians. I do not know. I don't have the ability to be on a committee that spends at least 12 months consulting with territorians about their views on euthanasia, and yet, because of the way the Commonwealth has sought to exercise control over certain matters—not all matters but certain matters—in the Northern Territory and the ACT, here I am today being asked to give my view. That's something I feel really strongly about. That's not a position that I should be in.

Interestingly, on researching what happened with the Andrews legislation, I saw there were certain people, senators and MPs, who actually didn't support euthanasia but certainly supported the right of territories to make their own decisions about that. I'm sure there are people in this place who share that view, who aren't in support of euthanasia but absolutely support the right of territorians to have their say.

I believe strongly in one vote, one value. I believe in the concept of democracy. When it comes to the territories, they should have the right to make that decision for themselves. If you're a territorian and you don't agree with a proposition that the government has put forward and that happens time and time again, you have the right at the ballot box to change your vote or to vote for somebody else who more evenly represents your view. The territorians don't have any right about whether they vote for me or not, because I'm a Western Australian senator. That's the right of Western Australians.

I come from a position of saying: this is a matter for territorians. As we've heard, the ACT has said it doesn't actually have a view right now on whether it will go ahead with a bill to introduce euthanasia, but it certainly should be given the opportunity. The rights to decide should rest in the ACT and the Northern Territory.

Indeed, we saw when Paul Keating was the Prime Minister that he could have overridden those euthanasia laws that had been passed in the NT and subsequently the ACT. He chose not to, because he believed in the concept of the territories having rights. We saw that change when John Howard became the Prime Minister. Presumably, he had the view that he didn't support euthanasia, and so we saw that ability for the territories to have that legislation being withdrawn. By any measure, that is not right. Just because it's allowed under the Commonwealth—and I understand that the Andrews legislation was the first time ever that that power had been exercised—we can't have MPs or senators with a particular personal whim such as deeply personal views on euthanasia then use that personal view to simply take what is available under Commonwealth acts to overrule the views of voters in the ACT and the NT.

That's what this bill is about today. It is about restoring the rights. It's paternalistic. It's 2018. We should not be making decisions on behalf of voters in those two territories about what happens in those territories. That properly rests with the territorian governments and not with me as a WA elected senator. Whether or not I support euthanasia is not the point. The point is the vote properly rests not with me but with territorians.

I rise today to speak in support of the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. I say at the outset that this piece of legislation is almost identical to private members' bills previously foreshadowed and introduced by the former Leader of the Greens, Senator Bob Brown. In fact, it was since the Andrews bill, the original bill which overthrew the democratic decisions of the territories to introduce laws in relation to euthanasia, that, in a strong opposition to that original bill, Bob Brown at the time spoke very passionately and really led the charge in trying to stop not just this antidemocratic legislation but, indeed, legislation that was anti-empathy.

That really goes to the heart of this entire issue. This bill before us today gives back choice for people who live in the Northern Territory and the ACT to ensure that they have a right to contribute to the laws that govern them. But, of course, it also gives back the right to those governments and the citizens of the territories to make decisions about whether they believe in assisted dying in the matter of the immense suffering of somebody who is sick and in pain, with no hope or chance of ever getting better—whether those people should have the right to end their own lives.

I fundamentally believe in and support the right of individuals to end their own lives in those circumstances. Yes, of course, in state parliaments where this is being debated, in some places where it's been legislated, there are lots of caveats and lots of checks and balances that are important and essential in making sure that this type of law is governed properly. But, at the end of the day, while we will all vote in this place today, tonight or tomorrow when this debate finishes with a matter of conscience, I also believe we should be voting with a matter of compassion and with a view of empathy. To those members of the Australian community whose families are suffering, it is important for individuals who have terminal illness and disease that will never get better to be able to make their own choice about how they end their lives—with dignity and respect and with choice.

When I was 16, my grandmother died from breast cancer and she suffered immensely, years and years of getting sicker and sicker. The last 12 months of her life were incredibly painful, the last few months in particular. She was unable to move. Drinking a glass of water through a straw was painful for her. She was in so much pain that even having the blankets on her frail body caused her immense suffering. Watching my grandmother—a woman who had been immensely strong and proud my entire life and someone I had looked up to as a beacon of strength—go through this extraordinary suffering and seeing her incapable of making a choice about how to end her own life was not just painful for me as a teenager, as her granddaughter; it was immensely educational. And it just so happened that I was witnessing her suffering at the same time that this parliament was going through a debate about euthanasia and overturning the laws in the ACT and the Northern Territory.

That experience has had an incredible impact on my life. It has given me, from the young age of a teenager, a very strong sense of justice in relation to this issue and a belief that, if we were ever able to right the wrongs of that Andrews bill, this place should do it. Now that I am able to stand here today and participate in this debate and this vote, I do so not just in the shadow of the former senator and leader of the Greens, Bob Brown; I do this for my grandmother, my nan.

There are many, many Australians right across this country who just don't understand why in 2018 this is still an issue of debate. Opinion poll after opinion poll, for over two decades now, has shown that the vast majority of Australians believe we should have a right to choose, in these incredibly hard, painful, suffering circumstances, to end our own lives. For those of us who have nursed our family, friends and loved ones through that end-of-life period, not being able to ensure that they have that choice is in itself incredibly painful. It is no wonder that support for voluntary euthanasia and assisted dying in this country continues to grow.

This bill would correct an immense and shameful wrong that was done back in 1997. This chamber should not have the right to inflict its views on what other state and territory governments do. The immensely undemocratic nature of the law as it is today, as a result of that Andrews bill, remains, and it remains an issue of debate as to whether people in this place support or oppose euthanasia. Why is it that those who live in the ACT or the Northern Territory are somehow second-class citizens? As a South Australian the South Australian parliament has a right to govern for me. It shouldn't matter whether I live in South Australia or Canberra. I should have the same right as an Australian citizen to have my government make decisions and to support those decisions or not.

In a way this bill is all about choice: it is about democratic choice and it is about individual choice. It is about conscience. It is also deeply about compassion. It was heartening in the lead-up to this debate in this place today to hear a number of members in this chamber continue to stand up in support of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide of those who are suffering, with all of those correct checks and balances. It's a pity that it has taken over 20 years to get to the point where the majority of people in this chamber believe that the Senate's shame that was inflicted on the territories back in 1997 should now be overturned. It is an immense step forward. I am grateful for that.

I've been reflecting upon the suffering of my own grandmother when I was 16. I think deeply now as a 36-year-old how I'm going to manage when my parents become sick and elderly. I don't know what their choice will be. Both my parents are pretty sprightly and healthy—touch wood, that that remains so for a long time. When something happens to my mother and father I want them to be able to make their own decision about ending their life, about ending their suffering and pain. I don't want my mum and dad to go through the suffering and pain that my grandmother did.

The mother of my daughter's very good friend died earlier this year. She also died from breast cancer. Susie was a loving mother. She had two little girls—a seven-year-old and a 10-year-old. Susie's suffering was immense. It is beyond me how on earth we cannot allow people to end their lives with dignity and grace. It is able to be done in a safe way. Let's make it able to be done in a legal way as well. I hope that, as those two little girls—friends of my daughter—reflect on the life of their mum and the immense love that she had for them, their memories are not just scarred with the suffering of their mother in the last six months of her life. I hope for those two little girls that, beyond Susie's pain and suffering, they can remember her as the loving, healthy and active mum that she was long before she got sick.

It is for our children and our parents that we debate this legislation today. For me, it is for my parents, my grandmother and my own daughter—that we can progress as a nation to allow a legal mechanism to end suffering and pain in a dignified and compassionate way in this country. I hope that this bill passes this chamber and that the Prime Minister and the government see fit to have it debated fairly in the other place as well. I commend the bill to the Senate.

The Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 deserves to be defeated. It deserves to be defeated on a number of grounds. Firstly, the bill displays a sad misunderstanding of our constitutional arrangements. Secondly, it shows a complete disregard of the general basic ethical foundations of our society, where every single life is valued. Thirdly, it shows a disregard for the sensitivities of our Indigenous community, especially in the Northern Territory.

These three major points were considered by a Senate committee, which I had the privilege of chairing, some time ago, when we looked at the Andrews bill. In the years since, can I simply observe that the Constitution hasn't changed, the ethical foundations of our society haven't changed and the needs of our Indigenous community haven't changed.

Let's be clear on the constitutionality. The Commonwealth parliament only exists because of the states coming together in a federation by a popular vote in 1901. The territories' governmental arrangements are only present because of federal government legislation. Local government, at the state level, only exists because of the will of the state parliament. Local government powers are determined by state legislation. Local governments are suspended, they are amalgamated, they are given fewer powers and they are given extra powers—all at the whim of a state parliament. And so it is with territory governments and the Commonwealth. The legislatures in the territories only exist because of the Commonwealth parliament designating the relevant powers—which, I might add, are specifically limited.

The bill before us erroneously asserts in section 3 certain objectives, and one of them is that the bill is designed to reduce Commonwealth interference. Well, given the fact that the territories and their governments are fully the creatures of Commonwealth legislation, it is somewhat bizarre to then assert that the Commonwealth is interfering in its own creation. Then we are told the bill is designed to 'facilitate competitive federalism'. Well, as I said before, the territories are not states. And might I just interpose at this stage that, after the Andrews bill was passed by this parliament, the people of the Northern Territory were given a specific opportunity at a referendum as to whether or not they wanted to adopt statehood. That would have given the people of the Northern Territory the constitutional and legal right to have assisted suicide legislation. The people of the Northern Territory voted no. Let's be clear: the people of the Northern Territory voted no to the possibility of being granted statehood.

Similarly, here in the ACT, it was the federal parliament that inflicted self-government on the ACT. When it was put to the people of the ACT—'Do you want self-government in the Australian Capital Territory?'—the people of the territory voted no. These people, with respect—my colleagues who come in here and assert that there are somehow fundamental territory rights here that cannot be dealt with in the manner that the Andrews bill dealt with them—overlook the fact that the people in the ACT shunned self-government. They didn't want it when they were asked. Nevertheless, it was imposed. When the people of the Northern Territory were asked, 'Do you want statehood?'—and part of the campaign was, 'If we grant statehood, we can then overturn,' and, legally, they would have been entitled to do so—they voted no. As a result, I think we are clear in the constitutionality of this matter: the issue of so-called states' rights clearly doesn't apply, and, what's more, the people in both territories have deliberately voted against such a possibility.

To those who do say that there should be no interference in the territories' capacity to legislate, I put this proposition: if, for example, the Northern Territory or the ACT sought to reintroduce the death penalty, would they say, 'Let it rip. That's fine. I know we've got constitutional power in the federal parliament to override it, but, oh, it's their right. It's a territory right, so, if they want the death penalty, they can have it'? I trust we would live up to our responsibility in this chamber and, given that we are at the apex of the legislative authority as it relates to the territories, seek to override their powers in that regard. I trust that, for colleagues, this is not a situation where you simply say that territory rights prevail irrespective of the issue. My own view is that you should only intervene in exceptional circumstances, such as life-and-death matters. If the Northern Territory were to seek the death penalty, I would be one of the first to say, 'Let's have legislation to ensure that that legislation is never enacted.'

That deals with the issue, I trust, of constitutionality and territory rights. I ask those that assert that territory rights should prevail over everything to look at themselves in the mirror. If the territory were to legislate for the death penalty, would they still be saying territory rights trump everything? I trust they wouldn't. Similarly, I trust that they will look seriously at the issue of what assisted suicide actually means and how it undermines the very fibre of our society.

Let's be very clear: there are many good men and women, with and without religion, who have expressed very real concern about the concept of state supported suicide. In my own home state of Tasmania, the state government, to its great credit, runs advertisements alerting people to the possibility of elder abuse—financial elder abuse and physical elder abuse. As a lawyer, before I came into this place, I knew that wills were disputed and that people were after the money that might be left behind. On both sides of the argument, you had greatly qualified psychiatrists asserting that the person making the will was of sound mind and equally qualified individuals saying that they were of unsound mind. So when we talk about 'safeguards' for state-supported suicide, I say to you that they don't exist. I will quote somebody that may be of interest to some of my colleagues, especially those on the other side of this chamber. I quote:

Is it possible to reduce to black and white law on the pages of a statue book the circumstances, and the safeguards, in which we would allow the taking of a life? I have spoken to many experts, people engaged on both sides of this argument, and what has shaped my bottom line conclusion is the view that it is not possible to codify in a law the safeguards, the circumstances, in which the extinguishing of a human life would be possible.

So said former Labor Premier Bob Carr—and I agree with him.

A former Supreme Court judge in Tasmania before whom I appeared, rest his soul, the Hon. Henry Cosgrove, said in a very pithy submission to the Senate Committee—and allow me to read the two long-established principles on which he relied—firstly:

Private citizens are not permitted to destroy life—

and the private citizen in this case would, of course, be the doctor—

The state may do so but only in carefully circumscribed circumstances.

And, secondly:

No person can consent to an assault on his person unless the assault is done in order to safe life or health. As soon as we allow the concept to permeate our society which would allow another person to be involved in the death of a fellow human being, we must have come to the conclusion that that life is not worth living. The concept of a life not worth living challenges to the very core our nations of civilisation. As soon as such a concept takes hold within the psyche of our nation, we will demean the value of human life.

I, unfortunately, hear some arguments in the community and, sadly, also in this debate about dying with dignity—that if people suffer from a particular disability, they somehow lose dignity.

It was for that very reason that the disability sector in the state of Victoria so passionately opposed the Victorian legislation in relation to state-supported suicide. They were appalled at the concept that people would start saying, 'Well, if you've got that disability, of course your life isn't worth living'. They were appalled by it. The value of a human life is not dependent upon its particular circumstances. It is an inherent value that can never be taken away from that life and we, as a society, should never, when a person who has come to a consideration that 'My life is not worth living' say, 'Yes, we'll be caring and compassionate; we'll help you get rid of your life.' A caring, compassionate society would say, 'We understand where you're coming from, but, despite your disability, despite the circumstances in which you find yourself, you are a valuable member of our community. We love you dearly and we will do everything we possibly can for you.'

Indeed, the committee that I chaired heard story after story. One person had asked his brother, who was a medical doctor, to assist him to go a week before he died naturally—and a very poignant story it was, because the brother said, no. Within that remaining week of that young man's life, he was able to reconcile himself to his mother and father and, as he was dying, he said to his brother, who was the doctor, 'Thank goodness you did not agree with my request. These past few days have been the most valuable of my life.'

Another example is a young man who went on to marry and become a veterinary surgeon. He had been diagnosed with terminal illness. He was in the palliative care section of the hospital—a young bloke, no attachments at all—and was of the view that chances were, if state-assisted suicide was available to him, he may well have availed himself of it because he was under the misapprehension that he was going to die in a few days anyway. I don't know what occurred, but, to the amazement of the doctors, he walked out of that palliative care unit. He went on to get married; he had children and became a veterinary surgeon.

So for every one story of an alleged painful death, we have another story on the other side of the equation—and that is why these debates have to be determined on fundamental underlying principles and not the anecdotal evidence or assertion of one or the other side of the debate. And can I simply say to those who bring stories from the past: palliative care has come a long, long way. I think we should be celebrating that and acknowledging that. Most people now in the medical profession tell me that you are able to have a pain-free death courtesy of all the treatments that are available.

I wonder how many people know that about five per cent of deaths that are assumed by the medical profession to have been caused by one particular issue are found, post-mortem, to have in fact been caused by a different issue. With the best will in the world, misdiagnosis occurs. So I ask: why is it that in my former profession the vast majority opposed the death penalty? I could regale you with stories of the most heinous crimes, and people may well say, 'Somebody who's committed all these heinous crimes surely has forfeited his right to remain in society.' But we lawyers know that, even with the best will in the world, there are miscarriages of justice. That is why the vast bulk of lawyers are against the death penalty.

Similarly, with the best will in the world, the vast majority of doctors acknowledge that, despite all their training, despite everything they seek to do, misdiagnosis occurs. That is why so many doctors, if not the majority of them—and I think it is a clear majority of them—oppose state-supported suicide. Once you make a mistake with a death penalty, there's no turning back. Once you make a mistake with state-supported suicide, there's no turning back. It is final. It is over.

I will quickly turn to the issue of Indigenous Australians. In the committee inquiry into the Andrews bill, which I had the privilege of chairing, there were more than 12,000 submissions from the community. Some 200 came from the Indigenous community. Without fail, each and every one of them pleaded with the federal parliament to pass the Andrews bill, because within the Indigenous culture the idea of euthanasia was anathema. Also, euthanasia, state-assisted suicide, was a white man's idea. There was very real concern that the Indigenous community, as a result, would stay away from the medical clinics throughout the Northern Territory.

What was very informative was that the committee—I will just read this bit—said:

The Committee also heard evidence from Mr Chips Mackinolty, who was engaged by the Northern Territory Government to provide an unbiased and factual education campaign on euthanasia to Aboriginal communities, following the enactment of the legislation. Mr Mackinolty told the Committee that, even though he personally supported his own right to euthanasia as a non-Aboriginal, his experience in conducting the education campaign had brought him to the view that the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act should be repealed because of its potential to deter Aborigines from seeking prompt medical attention. Mr Mackinolty expressed the view that the very existence of the Northern Territory legislation is a significant threat to Aboriginal health.

Given the blessings we now have in our community with palliative care, there is no need for state-supported suicide. So, in brief, the constitutional arguments asserted by the movers of this bill simply do not hold water. And if we deal with the principle of taking another human life, saying that there is such a concept as a human life not worth living, we undermine and, indeed, threaten the security of each and every one of us as individuals within a civilised society. In particular, given that this seeks to override or allow the Northern Territory parliament to deal with this issue again, the concern of the Indigenous community must also be front and centre. I oppose the bill.

Today I rise to speak very strongly in favour of this legislation, both from the point of view of the rights of territories to legislate on behalf of their citizens and also as a supporter of the right to voluntary assisted euthanasia in controlled circumstances. The territories should be able to make these laws on behalf of their constituents just in the way the states can notwithstanding the false constitutional arguments of Senator Abetz. The reason he is false is not because he has stated the obvious power of the Commonwealth to override the territories on constitutional basis, but the fact is that the citizens of our nation support voluntary assisted euthanasia in our nation.

So if we don't let the ACT legislate on this question then, frankly, we would have to legislate on this question in response to the demand of their citizens. We know that the citizens of the ACT strongly support voluntary assisted euthanasia. We know that states like Victoria and my own state of Western Australia are making progress on those issues. Victoria's now got it. Western Australia's actively debating it at the moment. Even the states are a long way behind the views of the Australian public on this issue.

So the simple fact is, if we don't let the ACT or the Northern Territory, if it wants to, in consultation with its own Indigenous communities, legislate on this question then we would have to work out how to do it ourselves. I am a supporter of the rights of the Northern Territory and the ACT to define those questions for themselves, a supporter of the right of the Northern Territory in its own push towards statehood in time to be able to resolve these questions for itself.

As I highlighted before, there's an active debate on this issue in Western Australia going on at the moment. The Western Australian Joint Select Committee on End of Life Choices is looking into end-of-life choices to see whether there's a need for legislation to allow euthanasia for those suffering a terminal illness. The state of Victoria has now passed legislation based on the recommendations of an expert panel, and Victorians that meet the strict criteria can request access to voluntary assisted dying from June next year. I want to commend the head of the expert panel in Victoria, Professor Brian Owler. He, in fact, has described the model in Victoria as the most conservative model in the world for assisted dying. It is in fact very close to the model of Oregon, in the United States, and that instrument has existed for 20 years on their statute books without amendment.

So it is simply not legitimate for us to stand in the way of the communities of the ACT and the Northern Territory in tackling this question for themselves and in acting on it. Otherwise, as I highlighted before, this parliament would need to respond to the demand of the citizens of the ACT to legislate on this question itself, so that we, in this parliament, would pursue legislation like Victoria has, for example. I don't think that's the preferred way of doing this. We shouldn't override the ACT's right to legislate on this question. They're quite capable of addressing these issues. If we don't let them do it and we simply overrule them, we are putting our heads in the sand as to the views of Australians on this issue.

There have been a lot of opponents on this issue of euthanasia in terms of it being a 'slippery slope', and many would have heard these arguments before. That is simply an argument that conservatives gravitate to when they just plain disagree with something but do not have credible arguments to back up their position. I note, for example, that a study led by the University of Pennsylvania Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy looked at the attitudes and practices of euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada and Europe. It concluded that, despite the fact that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are increasingly being legalised, the practice of them remains relatively rare and primarily involves patients with cancer and that existing data does not at all indicate widespread abuse of these practices.

One of the biggest problems with this debate is that parliaments take too long to decide these things, and in the meantime people are suffering. I'd like to highlight to the chamber this afternoon the case of Clive Deverall. He is a giant in public health in Western Australia. He spent more than 20 years as the head of the Cancer Council between 1977 and 1999. He was a firm advocate for consumer interests and fought tobacco and asbestos companies, solariums and snake-oil sellers selling false cancer treatments. He spent time as the president of Palliative Care WA and was determined in setting up palliative-care services. He was part of building Western Australia's first purpose-built hospice.

In 1994 he was diagnosed with a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but this diagnosis did not stop Clive. He continued as the head of the Cancer Council until 1999 and served on the board from 2007 to 2010. However, towards the end, Clive was living with unbearable pain and suffering, and on 11 March 2017 Clive took his own life. He left with poignant final words. He said:

Suicide is legal, euthanasia is not.

Clive dedicated his life to advocating for palliative-care and cancer patients, but, when the irreversible pain and suffering became too much for him, the reality of palliative care for a very few patients became very clear. In an interview with the ABC, Clive said:

Certainly I still embrace what palliative care stands for, but even with their clinical guidelines, they avoid the elephant in the room which is the very end stage patients where symptoms cannot be controlled …

He said:

The lack of compassionate law in this state—

and he was talking about Western Australia—

will force some people into taking their own lives in a fairly brutal way.

In his testimony to the parliamentary committee in Victoria, state coroner John Olle described the 240 suicides in Victoria as those ending their suffering due to an irreversible decline in their health. Poisoning, hanging and shooting were the main methods.

Order! Senator Pratt, you'll be in continuation when the debate resumes. It being 2 pm, we will now move to questions without notice.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the minister's comments yesterday when he said, 'We are absolutely committed to taking business tax cuts to the next election.' I refer to the manager of government business in the House of Representatives, Mr Pyne, who yesterday said in relation to the business tax cuts, 'There is no point in flogging a dead horse.' Which member of the government's leadership team is speaking on behalf of the government: the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Leader of the House?

The first thing I would say to Senator Wong is: if the horse is truly dead, it won't mind the flogging. If Senator Leyonhjelm were here, as a vet, he would confirm that scientific assessment that I've just shared with the chamber. The second point I would make is that all of us in the government are absolutely united in our commitment to securing the passage of this very important economic reform through the Senate this fortnight. Of course we want to take the company tax cuts, legislated as an important part of our economic achievement, to the next election.

Senator Wong, a supplementary question.

Former Prime Minister Mr Abbott yesterday said, amongst other things, 'There are no votes in company tax cuts.' Given Mr Turnbull has lost his self-declared referendum on his business tax handout in Mayo, Perth, Fremantle, Braddon and Longman, isn't Mr Abbott correct?

(—) (): The reason we get elected to this place is to do the right thing by the Australian people. Those of us on this side of the chamber are committed to making sure that Australians today and into the future have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. That is why we want to ensure that the businesses that employ them and pay their wages have the best possible opportunity to be viable, competitive and profitable into the future. This is something that Bill Shorten once understood. Mr Shorten used to very forcefully argue how we needed a lower, globally more competitive business tax rate to attract more investment, to drive up productivity, to drive up economic growth, to generate more jobs, to drive up wages. Mr Shorten is on the record again and again—Senator Wong is on the record again and again—having made that point. In fact, the shadow Treasurer, even in opposition, as recently as seven months before we put it into the budget, argued in favour of a lower, globally more competitive business tax rate. (Time expired)

Senator Wong, a final supplementary question.

I refer to reports that even the Minister for Home Affairs has gone cool on the Turnbull government's business handout. I ask the minister: when did Mr Dutton first advise him that he was leaving the minister in the lurch on the Enterprise Tax Plan? If Mr Turnbull can't even rely on cabinet ministers like Mr Pyne and Mr Dutton to defend his Enterprise Tax Plan, how can he expect this parliament to vote for it?

What I would say to Senator Wong is: don't you worry about my friend Peter. Mr Dutton, the hardworking and outstanding member for Dickson, walks with me every morning. We meet in the basement garage of the ministerial wing at 5.30 am every morning. Every now and then, I get joined by the Minister for Sport, Senator McKenzie. Let me tell you: I talk a lot to Mr Dutton, and he shares absolutely and unequivocally the government's commitment to securing the passage of a lower, globally more competitive business tax rate for all businesses in Australia through the Senate this fortnight.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 17th delegation from Japan. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

I also draw the attention of senators to the presence in the gallery behind them of the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Marshall Perron. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the Senate as well.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. Following upon her success and the success of her government in creating some 400,000 jobs last year—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I'll reset the clock. Senator Watt, I will ask for silence during questions. Senator Wong.

We haven't heard a question, but we take your point.

Senator Wong, I'm going to ask for silence during questions so that I can take notes and rule on subsequent points of order if they're raised. Senator Macdonald, please recommence the question.

My question was to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation. I ask the minister: following upon her success and the success of her government in creating some 400,000 new jobs last year, could the minister advise how the Turnbull government's tax cuts are helping small and medium-sized businesses to deliver jobs for more Australians?

I thank Senator Macdonald for the question. On this side of the chamber, we know that small and medium businesses are the engine room of the Australian economy. What do they do for us? They create jobs, they grow our economy and they provide valuable goods and services to the Australian community. In Australia, we have approximately 3.3 million small and medium businesses. Those small and medium businesses employ approximately 6.8 million Australians. So what do they do? They give Australians jobs. On this side of the chamber, we know that you need to do everything that you can to ensure that small and medium businesses in Australia have the opportunity to prosper and grow and ultimately to create more jobs for Australians.

But how do you do this? On this side of the chamber, we know you need to put in place the right policy framework, and that is exactly what we have been doing. We know that, by reducing company taxes, businesses are actually investing back into their businesses, into their premises, expanding their facilities and, ultimately, more jobs for Australians. It's no accident that employment is at a record high in Australia. It is no accident that we have seen more than one million jobs created since the coalition was elected to government in 2013. This is because we've put in place the right policy framework.

I was recently in Queensland in the seat of Petrie and I visited Michael Kennedy from Kennedy's Timbers. He has a new machine there and, colleagues, he calls it 'the tax-cut machine' because he was able to invest the money that he received by way of the government's tax cuts back into his business and upgrade his machinery. That's what we on this side of the chamber are all about.

Senator Macdonald, a supplementary question.

I thank the minister for that answer. I ask the minister further: how does having a strong economy and providing tax relief for Australian businesses contribute to the nation's jobs growth?

Ultimately, it is all about growing our businesses and creating jobs: jobs and growth. This is what happens when you have a government that understands you need to put in place the right policy framework to incentivise businesses to prosper and grow. We on this side of the chamber will continue to back policies that do just this.

Why are we opening up export opportunities for our businesses through free trade agreements? Because we want to create more job opportunities for Australians. Why are we investing in our nation's transport infrastructure? It benefits local communities and, ultimately, it creates more jobs for Australians. Why are we investing in our defence community? Why are we investing in science and innovation? Because we know that, when you make these investments, businesses are able to grow and, ultimately, you create more jobs for Australians. That is what the Turnbull government and members of this government are committed to.

Senator Macdonald, a final supplementary question.

Again, my thanks to the minister for a very comprehensive answer. Can I ask the minister if she is aware of any risks to the government's obviously successful plan for job creation?

Those on the other side are actually quite proud of the fact that, if they were ever elected to office, they would openly embrace a war on business. Those opposite—Mr Bill Shorten and Labor—are the greatest risk to job creation in this country. A business that has to close employs no-one. That is a tragedy for the business itself, but it's also a tragedy for the workers who no longer have jobs. Yet, what have Labor promised they will do if they are elected to office? They have openly said they will raise taxes on Australian businesses. Do you know what happens when you raise taxes on Australian businesses? They ultimately have to close down their operations. Small and medium businesses can't cope with this additional burden. But Labor have also said they'll raise taxes on Australian people. How could you go to an election saying you are the side of politics that openly believes in job-destroying policies? (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Less than a year ago the Prime Minister said, 'We have no plans to build a coal-fired power station.' Does the Prime Minister stand by that statement?

Yes.

Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.

A year ago the Treasurer said, 'There is no such thing as new, cheap energy with a coal-fired power station.' Was the Treasurer correct?

The Treasurer was correct at that time, and that is, of course, precisely what we want to address. We want to ensure, through our National Energy Guarantee, that we can deliver lower priced and more reliable electricity. The Labor Party can go to the next election and tell the Australian people that you want higher electricity prices, which are bad for households and bad for business; which will hurt families and pensioners; and which will cost jobs. We'll go to the next election promising lower electricity prices and more reliable energy. It is higher prices versus lower prices. Your 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target and your 45 per cent emissions reduction target—guess what they are going to do? They are going to drive electricity prices up and up and up, which will hurt households and businesses and cost jobs.

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.

This week the Prime Minister capitulated to the hard Right of his party room by promising to build a new coal-fired power station. Despite this, 10 coalition members spoke against the Prime Minister's National Energy Guarantee, and former Prime Minister Abbott, the member for Canning, Andrew Hastie, Senator Abetz and the member for Hughes, Craig Kelly, have reportedly reserved their right to cross the floor. Is the Prime Minister confident that he has satisfied the ideological hard Right or is he worried that the former Prime Minister is correct when he says that the explanation sounds like 'merchant bankers' gobbledegook'? (Time expired)

Firstly, I completely and utterly reject the premise of the question. Secondly, what I would like to confirm is that part of the question which relates to proper policy debate inside the Liberal-National Party party room. That's what we do in our party room: we talk about policy. Perhaps they're all a bunch of robots inside the Labor Party, who get programmed as they walk in and somebody presses the button and they all have the same view. That is the socialist model, I guess.

Senator Cameron, a point of order?

Thank you. It's on relevance. The question was: when Mr Abbott said the Prime Minister's explanation sounds like merchant banker gobbledegook, was he correct?

I didn't hear that, but it was a rather lengthy question and I consider the minister to be directly relevant to part of it, as he's entitled to be.

I'm very happy to confirm that, in the Liberal-National party room, we talk policy. We genuinely assess the issues. We make judgements on the best way forward and, unlike inside the Labor Party, we're not a bunch of robots who come at issues, all with the same view to start off with. The party room has made a decision. We support the National Energy Guarantee and we will seek to implement it as soon as possible in order to bring down electricity prices. (Time expired)

My question is for the Leader of the Government, representing the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Senate ordered the government produce the detailed modelling behind the $550 NEG saving. This morning, the government's non-response confirms what we all suspected: there is absolutely no evidence to support your claims of lower power prices under the NEG; households are still waiting for the $550 that you promised after scrapping the carbon price.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald, I have asked for silence during questions already this question time. Please continue, Senator Di Natale.

An honourable senator interjecting—

You can take a point of order, Senator Macdonald.

This particular senator keeps making a statement and an argument to the Senate in the guise of question time. I've heard what you've said before, Mr President, but that is not asking a question at question time. It is making a political point and an argument that should not be allowed.

Senator Macdonald, the standing orders allow a minute to ask a question. A question is allowed to have a preface but it must have a question. Senator Macdonald, I'm happy to take this up with you after question time. I respect you've been here a lot longer than I, but it's the well-established practice that questions can take time to ask. Senator Di Natale, please continue. I don't think you need to start again. I heard—

I don't know where I was.

Senator Di Natale, please continue.

I rise on a point of order.

What is the point of order?

Senator Macdonald is a serial offender in standing up and interrupting questions while they're being asked. It is disrespectful and, in light of the conversation and your statement yesterday, what I heard from Senator Macdonald was him indeed dissenting to your ruling. It's unacceptable and he does it repeatedly.

Senator Bernardi on this point of order?

Yes. I wonder whether it's in order for a senator to take a point of order on themselves?

I will rule on the point of order. Senator Di Natale, I have called the Senate to order. I've addressed the matter raised by Senator Macdonald. I asked for a question to start earlier before because the noise level was so high and no-one could hear it. This was about one interjection. I could hear the question, as could many others, but I was being consistent in my rulings to ensure a senator was heard in silence. I ask you to continue your question.

Given that households are still waiting for the $550 that you promised after scrapping the carbon price, we know they won't be fooled twice and they know the NEG won't reduce the power prices. Given the energy mix will stay the same over the next decade, how does the NEG magically reduce prices for consumers?

In answer to that last question, if you provide improved certainty for investors and there's increased investment, increased electricity generation and increased supply. It's the basic laws of market economics: if you increase supply, prices will be lower, all other things being equal.

What I would also say is it's a historic fact that the biggest fall in electricity prices was on the back of the abolition of the carbon tax. I know that you are carbon tax related and electricity fall deniers. You are deniers of electricity price falls on the back of the carbon tax repeal. That's fine, you can continue to deny that, but the historical facts are there.

Moving forward, what do you believe? Do you believe that a 50 per cent renewable target and a 45 per cent emissions reduction target is going to bring electricity prices down? How is that going to bring electricity prices down? You want a 100 per cent renewable energy target. It's going to be an auction here. If Bill Shorten were elected to government, we'd end up with a compromise between 50 and 100 per cent. They'd probably end up at 75 per cent. Families, pensioners, businesses and jobs would all be damaged.

Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.

The NEG entrenches the power of the big three energy companies: Origin, Energy Australia and AGL. Given they're the ones gauging households and exploiting prices—incidentally, they're donors to the Liberal Party as well—how will the government giving the big three energy companies—

Order! Senator Di Natale, please pause. There is a point of order from Senator Macdonald.

I draw your attention to standing order 73—I know you know it, but I'll repeat it for everyone—which says:

(1) The following rules shall apply to questions:

questions shall not contain:

…   …   …

(b)   arguments;

(c)   inferences;

(d)   imputations;

That question is clearly an argument, and it's clearly debate about political matters. It is not asking a question. Mr President, you may say other presidents have allowed this, but, if we're not going to stand by the standing orders, why don't we amend them or get rid of them? If they're there, we should follow them.

On the point of order, Senator Macdonald, you quite correctly read out the provisions of the standing order 73(1). The first part of that allows statements of fact and names to render the question intelligible. I take the point that occasionally imputations are being put in questions. I'll come back to the chamber on it, because it has crept in along with people addressing each other individually across the chamber rather than making comments to the chair, which is another thing that is happening more often. I'll ask senators to keep that in mind, but I'll come back to the chamber on that. Senator Di Natale, please continue your question.

From where?

Senator Di Natale, you were halfway through your question.

How will the government, given the big three energy companies are already gouging consumers, reduce power prices, Minister?

I did actually address that in my first answer. It's very simple free-market economics. I know that, in the world of the Greens and the Labor Party, you don't quite understand the basic principles of free-market economics. If you increase the level of investment to increase the supply of a product that is in high demand, you will bring prices down compared to what the prices would otherwise be. Of course, there are measures in our package that go to making sure that, through energy efficiency measures taken by governments over the years, demand is as efficient as possible. But, by the same token, if you increase investment to increase generation and increase supply, you bring down prices. That is as certain as Monday following on from Sunday. You might want to argue against the fact that Monday follows on from Sunday—feel free.

Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question.

Minister, the NEG will deliver just four wind turbines and half a gas plant over 10 years. It'll reduce pollution in the energy sector by just 0.2 per cent a year. Can you explain what your plan to reduce emissions from the agriculture and transport sector by 26 per cent each looks like?

Again, we are committed to bringing the price of electricity down to improve energy reliability and to do so in a way that is appropriately and environmentally efficient. If Senator Di Natale was genuinely interested in all of the specific design features, I would encourage him to address those questions to the minister with the representative portfolio responsibilities in this chamber. But, of course, Senator Di Natale does not appear to be interested in the policy detail, because, if he was interested in the policy detail, he would be supporting a policy framework and a National Energy Guarantee, which is technology agnostic, which is merely focused on increasing the level of investment into energy generation so we can bring down the cost of electricity.

Senator Cameron interjecting —

You're saying Senator Di Natale is on a unity ticket. Is that right? Anyway, I think Senator Di Natale better understands that our approach is technology agnostic. (Time expired)

My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Treasurer. On 30 May at Senate estimates I asked the ATO whether Goldman Sachs Australia entities had filed a tax return between 2000 and 2012. I did so on the basis of information I had with good provenance that suggests that they had not for a large part of that period. The ATO refused to answer the question. There's a motion on today's Notice Paper dealing with that refusal.

The tax commissioner is an independent statutory authority, so his views on this don't necessarily reflect those of the government. Is the government of the view that the tax commissioner should protect financial sector entities that have not complied with tax laws or should a legal tax conduct extinguish the privacy rights of a company?

Obviously I can't confirm or deny the assertion that is made in relation to the conduct that Senator Patrick is asserting there. The tax commissioner is an independent statutory officer, as Senator Patrick rightly points out, and he has the responsibility to enforce our tax laws independently and consistent with our laws. It's not a matter of opinion of the government. The government supports the fact that the commissioner, as an independent statutory office holder, must comply with our tax laws. He has pointed out very clearly in his answer to Senator Patrick:

Tax return lodgement information of the kind sought is 'protected information' under taxation confidentiality laws in division 355 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Provision of this information will harm the public interest by undermining:

- the principles and application of the taxation confidentiality laws

- the taxation self-assessment system

- the Commissioner's administration of the taxation system as a statutory officer independent from government.

What you are asking for, in seeking the disclosure of protected information, in the tax commissioner's view, would undermine the principles and application of our taxation confidentiality laws which have been enacted by this parliament. It would further undermine the taxation commissioner's administration of the taxation system as a statutory officer independent of the government.

Taxpayers provide their information to the Australian Taxation Office in the knowledge that its confidentiality is protected by law, except in very limited and specified circumstances. The Australian Taxation Office has the necessary powers and expertise to ensure that those that should pay tax in Australia are paying tax, that they are paying the right amount of tax and that they're penalised appropriately if they're not. The Senate has by convention respected Australia's tax confidentiality laws and allowed the Australian Taxation Office to fulfil its legislative obligations. (Time expired)

Senator Patrick, a supplementary question.

Thank you, Senator Cormann, although I note you simply read the tax office's answer to the question. I was wondering what the government's view might have been. In answering that question, did the tax commissioner or his office seek advice from either the Treasury or the Prime Minister's office as to how to respond? If so, could you elaborate on the nature of the discussion?

In the time available to me to provide a response to this question, I've been able to ascertain that the tax commissioner did not seek advice on his answer either from the Prime Minister's office or the Treasurer's office. In relation to the Treasury, I'll take that on notice. I would just say that, adding to my first answer, I did very clearly spell out that the government supports the tax commissioner in his independent judgement, as an independent statutory officer, to enforce compliance with our tax laws as he sees fit in his judgement.

Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question.

Noting that I'm referring to Goldman Sachs's tax affairs from 2000-12, and that ASIC records show that the Prime Minister was a managing director and local agent of some of Goldman Sachs's related entities during that period, would either you or the Prime Minister be prepared to make a statement to the effect that the Prime Minister is satisfied that, whilst he was at the helm of those companies, they complied with all taxation laws?

The judgement on compliance with taxation laws is one that is exercised independently, as is appropriate, by the tax commissioner. I will refer this question to the Prime Minister, to the extent that it relates to him, to see whether he has anything to add to that answer. But let me also make the point that, as part of the Turnbull government's strong action on corporate tax avoidance, we introduced a new transparency code to ensure greater tax transparency by large companies. The tax transparency code is a set of principles and minimum standards to guide medium and large businesses on public disclosure of tax information. It was developed by the Board of Taxation and adopted by the government in the 2016-17 budget. Under the Tax Transparency Code, the ATO is mandated to publish tax information for large companies—that is, public and foreign companies—that earn more than $100 million a year gross and Australian private companies that earn more than $200 million a year gross. For each of these companies, the ATO publishes the total income as reported in the tax return— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. When asked yesterday about the Energy Security Board's modelling of the impact of the government's National Energy Guarantee, the minister told the Senate that 'more than 2,800 megawatts of new dispatchable capacity is expected to be built between now and 2030'. Can the minister confirm that none of the 2,800 megawatts he used to defend the National Energy Guarantee actually results from that policy?

Yesterday, the senator or associated senators asked questions about modelling in terms of future energy generation expectations, and, indeed, the government's answered those. We heard from Senator Di Natale before asking questions about the NEG modelling. You can go online and look at the NEG modelling. You can look online at the assumptions that underpin the NEG modelling. You can look at the different data sheets that underpin the National Energy Guarantee modelling. It is all there. The answer that was given to Senator Di Natale earlier today—and Senator Cameron could well look at that too—

Order! Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Cameron, on a point of order?

Yes, the point of order is on relevance. I wasn't asking about what was out there anywhere else in the stratosphere. I asked: can the minister confirm that none of the 2,800 megawatts he used to defend the NEG actually results from that policy? He should be drawn to that question.

Thank you, Senator Cameron. You have reminded the minister of the question, and I note that he has a minute and 21 remaining to answer.

As I was explaining to Senator Cameron, all of that modelling, all of the underpinning assumptions and all of the data spreadsheets related to it are available on the COAG Energy Council website for Senator Cameron, Senator Di Natale and anyone else to have a look at those assumptions, that modelling and the outcomes. That modelling clearly shows that the NEG will work in a way that gives Australia energy reliability and the energy mix that we require for people to have the confidence to invest in businesses; for households to know that, when they flick the switch, the lights will go on; for households to know that their prices will, on average, be around $550 lower than would otherwise be the case, because of the work that the NEG's undertaking; and for businesses to know that wholesale energy prices would be around 20 per cent lower. That's because it works as part of a suite of policy measures.

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This was a very simple question: can the minister confirm that the 2,800 megawatts that he used to defend the NEG actually results from the policy? It's either yes or no. You've drawn his attention to the question and he should answer the question.

Senator Cameron, I can't instruct a minister how to answer a question, but I do take this opportunity to remind the minister of the question that was restated by Senator Cameron.

Mr President, as I pointed out to Senator Cameron—as I did to Senator Di Natale and others—the modelling is all there. The modelling is there for you to see, for you to do your own analysis of, for you to look up—

Senator Carr, on a point of order.

Mr President, on the question of relevance, it is a very specific question. Surely the minister can give a very specific answer to a very specific question.

At this point I consider the minister to be directly relevant. I have reminded him of the question. We have 14 seconds remaining. I will ask him to continue.

I'm not sure whether Senator Carr or Senator Cameron know how to use the internet, but go to Google, look up COAG Energy Council and look up modelling and you'll be able to find all of that information yourselves.

Order! Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Wong.

Perhaps the issue is you don't know your policy. How about that?

Government senators interjecting—

Order on my right!

Mr President, this minister—

Government senators interjecting—

It was very disrespectful. This was a policy question. The point of order is direct relevance—

Government senators interjecting—

If I may—

Order! I'm trying to hear you, Senator Wong. Please continue.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Collins!

The point of order is direct relevance. He was asked a direct question about whether the 2,800 megawatts results from the policy and instead he reverts to abusing senators. Why don't you answer the question? Can't you defend your policy?

Government senators interjecting—

Why don't you answer the question? Defend the policy.

Order around the chamber! Points of order are not opportunities to prosecute a case. Senator Birmingham, I have reminded you of the question, and I note you have four seconds remaining to answer.

I have concluded.

Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.

Let's see if he can do a little bit better on this one. I again refer to the minister, who yesterday, in response to questions about the Energy Security Board's modelling of the government's National Energy Guarantee, named four thermal generation projects. Can the minister confirm that not one of the projects he used to defend the NEG actually results from that policy? Simple.

If Senator Cameron wanted to read all of the Hansard, rather than selectively quoting from the Hansard, he would know that I named those projects as projects that have already been announced—as examples of investment in thermal generation that are already being undertaken. Rather than coming in here, Senator Cameron, and trying to selectively quote and play tricky games, what is very clear is that the coalition has a clear policy to drive down power prices.

What I saw today was Mr Butler come out and reconfirm that the Labor Party policy is for twice the emissions reduction target, or thereabouts, of the coalition, that the Labor Party policy, presumably, is still for the emissions intensity scheme it took to the last election, and that the Labor Party policy, presumably, is still for a 50 per cent renewable energy target—higher prices and lower reliability, compared to the Turnbull government's plan. (Time expired)

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left. Senator Cameron.

Third time lucky, Mr President. Given the minister is trying to use existing energy projects in a vain attempt to defend the Turnbull government's NEG, isn't it clear former Prime Minister Abbott is correct when he says the National Energy Guarantee is 'seriously bad policy'?

Absolutely not. Policy that gives Australians certainty and reliability of their energy generation, policy that drives prices down for Australian households and businesses, is good policy. That's good policy that this government is developing, and it stands in stark contrast to the bad policy of those opposite, who, if they had their way, would leave Australians in a situation where they don't have the reliability guarantee the Turnbull government's policy is delivering. Rather than having prices going down, as the Turnbull government's policy will do, prices would go up under the Labor Party. They have gone up in the past and they would go up again in the future if given the chance, whereas our policy is clear: downward pressure on prices, thanks to the NEG, our retail market reforms, our transmission market reforms and our continued reforms that we will apply as a result of the ACCC recommendations. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Can the minister advise the Senate of the ADF's recent activities and close work with our allies and partners right across the Indo-Pacific?

I thank Senator Reynolds very much for her question. As she is well aware, Australia is very strongly committed to strengthening our ability to work with both our regional partners and allies to ensure the long-term prosperity and stability of the Indo-Pacific region. Currently, for example, the Royal Australian Air Force's Exercise Pitch Black is underway in the Northern Territory. That exercise brings more than 4,000 personnel and 140 aircraft from 17 nations from around the Indo-Pacific and further afield. There was a fabulous open day in Darwin last weekend, as I'm sure Senator Scullion was aware, which was attended by thousands and thousands of visitors. It is our largest and most complex air exercise, and it's a very important opportunity for us to improve our ability to work with those partners, allies and neighbours.

Like Pitch Black, Exercise Kakadu will also be held in the Top End, beginning at the end of this month. It will bring together 27 nations from our region and beyond. Importantly, Exercise Kakadu will include a number of smaller nations from the Pacific, including the Cook Islands, Fiji, Tonga, Timor-Leste and Papua New Guinea, as well as larger allies and partners from across the region.

These are exercises which build mutual understanding, cooperation and interoperability in the region through training exercises and dialogue. They follow on from our very successful recent participation as the second-largest participant in the US-led RIMPAC exercises in Hawaii, which I know Senator Reynolds and others in the chamber and in the other place attended, in which over 1,600 ADF personnel participated with four ships, a submarine and a P-8A maritime surveillance aircraft.

And, of course, the Indo-Pacific Endeavour task force 2018, which participated in RIMPAC, is now heading back into the Pacific to the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and a number of other locations. This demonstrates our ability to work very effectively with our regional partners and neighbours. (Time expired)

Senator Reynolds, a supplementary question.

I thank the minister for her response. Can the minister also outline how we are strengthening our ability to work with our key allies and our partners?

In the last few weeks, the annual Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial Consultations were held in Edinburgh, to further strengthen and consolidate our strategic, our defence and our security relationships. With the selection of the BAE global combat ship as the basis for our new Hunter class frigates, which I spoke about in this place yesterday, the Australia-UK defence relationship is in fact beginning a new chapter. I was very pleased to join my counterpart, the Rt Hon. Gavin Williamson, at the Govan shipyards in Glasgow to see the progress on the UK's Type 26 frigate, to walk the floor of the shipyards—

Good unionists, building the ships!

and to meet the workers and the apprentices, none of whom knew Senator Cameron, happily for them. We welcome global vision, and we look forward to working more closely with the United Kingdom in future years as they increase their activity in our region.

Senator Reynolds.

Can the minister also advise the Senate on what other steps the government has recently taken to further our international defence relationships?

I can, because the annual Australia-United States ministerial meeting directly followed upon the UK meeting I just referred to. It was held in Palo Alto. On the occasion of that AUSMIN, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Mattis, and I signed a memorandum of understanding to deepen our cybersecurity cooperation so that we're able to jointly develop both the tools and the software that we need to both protect and defend against cyberthreats. This is a great example of how we continue to evolve the Australia-US relationship so that we're best placed to respond to those new and emerging threats.

Both Australia and the US are strongly committed to working with our allies and partners throughout the Indo-Pacific to ensure that this is a region that remains open, inclusive, stable and secure. During those AUSMIN meetings, which were held for the first time on the west coast of the United States, we agreed that we will further our cooperation to promote the security, the stability and the resilience of our Pacific island neighbours as well—very important engagements for both countries.

My question is to Minister Fifield, representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton. As everyone in this chamber knows, I've been calling for a national public child sex offender register for about 20 years. It was the passionate issue that got me into politics. I took it to the 2016 federal election. I know it resonates passionately with Australian parents.

Megan's Law has been in place in the US since 1996. I visited her mother, Maureen, in her home in Hamilton, New Jersey. I will be moving a motion this afternoon calling for the establishment of a national public child sex offender registration scheme, which I believe is a crucial and vital step in our fight against child sexual abuse in Australia, and it is a step towards publicly registering all sex offenders. My question: will the government support me?

Thank you, Senator Hinch, for the question. The government is absolutely committed to the protection of all Australians from the horrors of sexual assault and abuse. The violent and repulsive abuse of children in particular is, sadly, becoming more prevalent and has been further compounded by the evolution of technology. It's estimated that, every seven minutes, a webpage shows a child being sexually assaulted.

That's why the government has—I should note—provided $68.6 million in the 2018-19 budget to create the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. What this seeks to do is bring together the expertise of the AFP, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, AUSTRAC, the office of the cybercoordinator, the Australian Border Force, the Australian Institute of Criminology and other areas of the Department of Home Affairs so that we have that capacity focused.

The coalition government is also proud to have passed Carly's Law, which makes it a crime for an adult to use a carriage service to commit an act in preparation or planning to cause harm to or engage in or procure sexual activity with a minor. Further, in a world first, the government has banned registered sex offenders from travelling overseas or holding an Australian passport—something Senator Hinch has been a strong advocate for. But we must do more. Let me assure Senator Hinch that the government is committed to further strengthening measures to protect children from known sex offenders, including considering the merits of a publicly-accessible national child sex offender registration scheme.

Senator Hinch on a supplementary question.

. Lenient jail sentences all over this country do not at all meet acceptable community standards, especially when it comes to perpetrators of heinous sexual offences. Will your government do what it can, in concert with state attorneys-general, to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for such crimes?

Through the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 201 currently before the Senate, the government's seeking to introduce new laws that represent the biggest crackdown on paedophiles in a generation. Current sentencing practices result in manifestly inadequate sentences being handed down to Commonwealth child sex offenders. Since 2012, only around 59 per cent of convicted offenders received a term of imprisonment and, for those that did, the most common period of imprisonment was just six months. To address this, the proposed new laws will see child sex offenders spending longer in jail, being less likely to be granted bail and parole, and they will be more closely supervised following their release, and the most serious Commonwealth sex offenders and repeat offenders will face mandatory minimum sentences. The mandatory minimum sentencing scheme in the bill includes mechanisms for courts to retain appropriate discretion in determining the most suitable sentences for each individual case.

Senator Hinch on a final supplementary question.

For previously espoused reasons about Senate quaintness and time wasting, I forfeit my time for this question.

My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. On Sunday, ABC Insiders program tweeted a comment critical of the government's lack of due diligence prior to handing $440 million of public money to the private Great Barrier Reef Foundation. The tweet was deleted some hours later. Yesterday, it was revealed that the tweet was deleted as a result of a complaint from the office of the Prime Minister to the ABC. Can the minister inform the Senate who in the Prime Minister's office contacted the ABC and on whose direction they acted?

Government senators interjecting—

Senators Abetz and Macdonald, please, there were numerous interjections during that question despite me calling order. I'm insisting on silence during questions. Senator Cormann.

I'm not personally aware so I'll take that question on notice.

Senator Keneally, a supplementary question.

ABC Insiders has said that they removed the tweet because a government spokesperson told them that the government had, in fact, worked with the foundation in March in order to undertake due diligence for the $444 million grant. Does the Prime Minister stand by this claim and the actions of his office?

As I've said in response to the primary question, I'm not aware of the events that Senator Keneally describes, so I'll add that to the question I'm taking on notice.

Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question.

Yesterday the Prime Minister's office's claims about due diligence publicly collapsed within 24 hours and this morning ABC Insiders re-instated the tweet. When the Prime Minister's office contacted the ABC and misled them, was it acting deliberately or incompetently?

It stands to reason, given I've taken the first two questions on notice, that I do not accept the premise of Senator Keneally's question. Senator Keneally, of course, is also aware I have written to the Senate, earlier today, providing detailed information about the process the government followed in making this decision to make a $443.3 million additional investment into the future health of the Great Barrier Reef, an investment that Senator Keneally, in a great show of bipartisanship, supported through this chamber—support for which the government is very grateful. I table this letter again for the benefit of Senator Keneally.

My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. Given that it is National Science Week this week, could the minister please advise what the coalition government is doing to support more Indigenous Australians, particularly Indigenous women, into the STEM industries—sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics—and, of course, the industries of the future?

I thank the senator for her question. How fantastic it is to receive a question this week, during National Science Week, about our new investments in STEM! Careers in the sciences, technology, engineering and maths—more commonly known as STEM—are clearly the careers of the future. I'm very proud to be part of a government that has made innovation and science its top priority. We're all benefitting from the $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda but, because we are trying to close a 200-year-old gap in a few short years so we can get more people off the misery of welfare and into the dignity of work, we are making targeted investments in our First Australians through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy.

Last year, on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, the Prime Minister announced the $138 million Indigenous Education Package. As part of that investment, we recently announced the $25 million Indigenous Girls' STEM Academy, making sure that Indigenous girls and women who have an interest in STEM can make a career in what has traditionally been a male dominated area. The Indigenous Girls' STEM Academy will support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women to pursue careers in STEM. The academy is a $25 million long-term investment from the Indigenous Advancement Strategy that will guide over 1,000 girls and young women through high school and support them through university and into a job in a STEM profession.

The academy, a joint partnership between CSIRO and CareerTrackers, will nurture a passion for STEM and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander girls and young women with things like ongoing individual student support, summer school and, importantly, work placement with industry leaders. As part of this, we are investing $5 million in the Stronger Smarter Institute for scholarships to support more Indigenous STEM teachers. We know having more Indigenous STEM teachers means we will encourage more Indigenous STEM students. (Time expired)

Senator Hume, a supplementary question.

I thank the minister for his answer. That is indeed very encouraging. Could the minister further explain what opportunities a career in STEM offers, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians?

Innovation, underpinned by STEM skills, is going to be the driving force for Australia's continued prosperity, creating new and exciting career opportunities in the coming decades. Jobs will be created in fields and industries that we haven't dreamt of yet. STEM skill sets will open doors to those innovative Australian opportunities.

When I launched this great new initiative, I had the great honour of meeting Kamilaroi woman and astrophysicist Karlie Noon. She's not only a trailblazer and, in fact, an incredibly inspiring and accomplished scientist in her own right but also a champion for all Indigenous women in science. At the launch of this new STEM academy, she said:

Having someone in my corner to guide me when I was unsure of my path gave me the strength to continue my studies and to believe in myself.

That's exactly what this government is doing. A $25 million STEM investment will mean many more Indigenous women can follow in Karlie's footsteps. (Time expired)

Senator Hume, a final supplementary question.

Can the minister explain what other investments the coalition government is making in Indigenous education through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy?

We're investing in a $5 billion commitment to deliver locally led, locally designed, locally controlled services, primarily through Indigenous owned and run organisations and communities across Australia. Our investments are ensuring that children are attending school, adults are in work and communities are safe. This is ensuring record numbers of our First Australians can access world-class education. We've invested more than $400 million so that 25,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students can stay engaged in school and receive training. Indigenous students are taking on higher education. Through the $68 million Indigenous Student Success Program, another 18,000 Indigenous students are assisted through scholarships, tutorial assistance, mentoring and other support services. We're able to make these important investments because this government has brought the budget back under control, and now we can actually invest in things that are important to Australia. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Today's Daily Telegraph reveals that the Great Barrier Reef Foundation treated private sector CEOs and executives from its chairman's panel to a three-day luxury holiday at the qualia resort on Hamilton Island in May, which reportedly charges more than $2,000 a night. This trip was organised by the private foundation just days after the Turnbull government announced in late April its $444 million grant to this private foundation without a grant application or a tender process. Is this what the government means when it says 'the private foundation has a strong record in leveraging private-sector and philanthropic donations'?

I wonder whether the next question is going to be about Mr Shorten's $17,000 freebie where he went snorkelling around the Great Barrier Reef. I think that's where Mr Shorten is alleged to have made certain commitments. He didn't make or did make—we still don't know; he was his typical shifty self.

My point of order is, of course, relevance. The minister knows what the question is. Trying to sledge the Leader of the Opposition is not answering the question.

The minister has a minute and 30 seconds to come to the answer of the question.

I'm not aware of all of the activities undertaken by the particular foundation. What I am aware of, because I happened to watch the interview with Geoff Cousins on the 7.30 Report, is when Mr Cousins laid out in great detail the alleged commitments that Bill Shorten made to him and then reneged on.

Senator Watt on a point of order.

Again, relevance—the minister is answering a question that I haven't even asked. He's anticipating what other questions might be. Perhaps he could actually stick to this question and answer it properly.

The minister is entitled to address part of the question. The minister has a minute and eight seconds left to answer the question.

I don't know why the Labor Party is so obsessed with a $443 million investment in the health of the Great Barrier Reef, which they supported. Minister Shorten goes up to the Great Barrier Reef and goes snorkelling on a $17,000—

I have Senator Cameron on a point of order.

This is on relevance. I know Senator Cormann deals with the miners and the bankers, but $444 million is big money in any of these and it's been given away. He should answer the question.

That wasn't quite a point of order. As you rose to your feet, I considered the minister to be relevant, talking about the grant.

On this side of the chamber, we care about the reef, which is why we're making a $443 million investment. Clearly the Leader of the Opposition does not care about the reef. The only thing he's interested in doing is going on a $17,000 freebie snorkelling tour and making promises to Mr Geoff Cousins which he then reneges on. I would say to the Australian people: you can't trust a word that Mr Shorten promises. Just go and ask Geoff Cousins. Mr Shorten took his freebies, went snorkelling and then dudded Mr Cousins.

Senator Watt, a supplementary question.

I truly thank the minister from the bottom of my heart for that! The luxury weekend away includes a bonfire on the beach and sunset drinks, and the program notes—

Government senators interjecting—

Order on my right!

Am I starting again?

No, I got all the details of your question.

The weekend away also says that, sadly, there is no buggy parking at the helipad. Under the partnership agreement struck by the government, the private foundation can undertake stakeholder engagement and fundraising activities. Isn't it true that the private foundation can now use taxpayers' money to completely spoil the miners and bankers on its chairman's panel?

Order, Senator Watt! I allowed extra time—

That's why you should have allowed him to start again.

Senator Wong, I allowed Senator Watt an extra five seconds to continue asking the question.

Senator Wong interjecting—

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Is the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who has been here long enough to know better, simply able to sit in her chair and shout at you and argue with your rulings? Is that permissible?

Senator Macdonald, I would not describe it thus. I appreciate people drawing things to my attention. I did grant Senator Watt some extra time to ask his question. We are approaching 3 pm. I call Senator Cormann to answer that question from Senator Watt.

The Great Barrier Reef Foundation has had bipartisan support in the past. Mr Burke provided a Commonwealth grant to it in the past, and the Labor Party voted in favour of this particular grant. As the government has said, we want to leverage additional private sector investment. As the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has publicly stated in relation to the chairman's panel, its objective is to bring together leading corporate executives and board members with an interest in the reef. The Great Barrier Reef Foundation has 56 members on their chairman's panel from Australia's leading companies, universities and research organisations.

As I say, those opposite don't actually care about the reef at all. We care about the reef, which is why we are making a commitment to it and are trying to attract additional private sector investment. The Labor Party is all about the politics, as always. You vote in favour of it but then you to try to run away from it and somehow hide under the carpet. You can't hide under the carpet—you voted for it; you're on the hook for it.

Senator Watt, a final supplementary question.

Nine News revealed yesterday that $444 million of public funds were transferred from Treasury to the Department of the Environment and Energy on 27 June this year and then transferred from the department to the private foundation 24 hours later. Was the money transferred so fast at the end of June to help the private foundation pay the bills for this luxury weekend holiday a few weeks earlier for its mining and banking mates?

I can't believe that Senator Watt would be so silly as to ask me about a holiday up near the Great Barrier Reef with mates, because it was none other than Mr Shorten who went on a holiday to the reef with a mate—although he is no longer a mate, apparently.

Senator Wong, on a point of order?

The point of order is direct relevance. I understand that the finance minister of this country is having difficulty explaining the logic and probity of a $444 million grant, but that is what the question is about. It is not about Mr Shorten or dishing a bit more dirt; it is about nearly half a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers' money that they are accountable for. There is a legitimate public interest in the question being answered.

Senator Cormann, on the point of order.

On the point of order: firstly, I addressed the legitimate point of public interest, but the question, as I heard it, related to holidays with mates up in a particular part of Australia, and I am responding to 'holidays with mates'.

Senator Wong interjecting—

The minister had been speaking for 14 seconds. I consider him to be relevant to the question in answering it, particularly given that he had only been speaking for 14 seconds.

Thank you very much, Mr President. We make no apologies for the fact that we seek to leverage additional private sector investment into the future health of the Great Barrier Reef. That does involve engaging with business—and, of course, Mr Shorten, does that quite happily. He went up there with Mr Cousins, except Mr Cousins is no longer a mate. He's now accusing Mr Shorten of dancing around the truth and he's attacking him for having turned on commitments that he had made to him in the past. So you have absolutely no credibility when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef. The Labor Party has absolutely no credibility. First, you provide a grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation and then you vote for this one and now, just because the politics suit your strategy and your tactics on the day, you're just—you're pathetic. (Time expired)

Senator Wong interjecting—

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators McAllister and Cameron today relating to energy policy.

Those listening to question time today will have heard a couple of excellent questions, if I do say so myself, asked by senators McAllister and Cameron regarding the shambles that is the government's energy policy. It's worth remembering that everyone I spoke to as I came down to Canberra this week talked about the fact that it was going to a big week in Canberra, and that finally we might see some movement forward from the government in relation to energy policy—one of the running sores of this government for its entire two terms in office.

It's worth reflecting on the fact that under, first, the Abbott government and, now, the Turnbull government, we have seen five years of chaos when it comes to energy policy in Australia. One of the first things the government did when they were elected in 2013 was scrap the former Labor government's emissions trading scheme—its arrangements to try to bring down emissions, increase electricity reliability and keep power prices down. They were so ideologically driven on their election that they got rid of that system without having anything whatsoever to replace it. It is no surprise therefore that the result has been that Australia's emissions have continued to go up and that households and businesses have literally paid the price with wholesale prices for electricity doubling over the last five years under this government.

One of the reasons that this government has been so incapable of actually coming to a resolution on energy policy, to put in place some certainty for everyone involved in the electricity industry, whether it be generators, retailers or households and businesses who actually have to pay their power bills, is the absolute ongoing disunity that has characterised this government. It's hard to think of a better example of that than energy policy. From day one, this government has been tearing itself apart about what it thought about energy policy. Did it want to support coal? Did it want to support renewables? Did it want to bring emissions down? Did it want to have emissions up? Did it want to do anything about power prices? Did it even believe in climate change? We still are aware there are many members of the coalition who still don't even accept climate change is a fact, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that proves that it is.

This disunity over energy policy has spilled into Canberra again this week, with the two former leaders of the coalition, Mr Abbott and Mr Joyce, both threatening to cross the floor to stop this package from going forward. And even today, reports have already surfaced out of the coalition party room that there are up to 10 members of the coalition, including Senator Abetz, who are seriously considering crossing the floor. That might mean he takes some of his Tasmanian senators with him; we'll have to wait and see what they do as well.

One of the tragedies here is that ordinary Australians are paying higher prices for this ongoing disunity within the coalition on energy policy and we are still not solving the very real climate change issues we're facing. There has understandably been a lot of focus in the Australian community over the last couple of weeks on the terrible drought that so many parts of Australia are experiencing at the moment. We are all quite rightly wanting to pitch in to make sure people living on the land and experiencing drought are getting the support they need. The big problem is that if we don't take action on energy policy and climate change, droughts are going to become much more regular, not to mention the cyclones and flooding that we see so often in my own home state of Queensland.

One of the worst aspects of this package now being brought forward by the government is that it is based on a lie—that is, that this government has now wheeled out, in an attempt to pacify the hard right, a Mickey Mouse scheme to prop up coal-fired power into the future. We know for a fact that there is not one electricity generating company in this country that is seriously considering building a new coal-fired power station. There is a whole other issue about preserving and maintaining our existing coal-fired powered stations but there is not one serious proposal on the books where any generator wants to build a new coal-fired power station, and that is because it is becoming increasingly clear the most reliable, cheapest way to supply power is through renewables. The tragedy of this government's package is that, in trying to pacify its hard right, it not only misleads people living in coal communities but it is going to drive prices up further. (Time expired)

For those who aren't aware, today marks day 2 of what is the second half of the parliamentary year. Those of us like Senator Hume and myself who have spent the last five to six weeks travelling around our home states—Victoria for Senator Hume and Western Australia for myself—know that the stand-out issue for Australian electors at the moment is the economy. That manifests itself in a number of different ways. It most definitely manifests itself in the desire for people to have secure jobs for themselves and job opportunities for their children and grandchildren. Importantly, it also manifests itself in the real challenges around cost of living. Where we've seen that most notably demonstrated is in the issue around electricity pricing.

What we could have had today is a very constructive debate, first in question time and now in taking note of answers, about the real policy alternatives for this country in terms of providing electricity that is affordable and reliable, and about an electricity plan or framework that will drive Australia's prosperity into the future. But no—senators on the other side can't avoid the temptation to talk about the politics of energy instead of the policy of energy.

Today what we very clearly have, as a result of the discussion in the coalition party room this morning, is a plan that drives energy reform forward—a plan that will drive energy reform, deliver lower prices, deliver reliability, and, over the long term, deliver real security for businesses but also for Australian families. We've got a plan that is designed by experts, a plan that is backed by industry, a plan that is supported by business and consumer groups, a plan that is supported by independent modelling and a plan that will deliver benefits of up to $550 per household every year. Compare that to what you hear from the other side. You don't hear a plan that is independently supported by experts. You don't hear a plan that is supported by the business and community groups across our country. You don't see any independent modelling. What you do see, or what you could see, is a plan that will drive up energy costs for Australian families.

Just last week we saw the COAG Energy Council—and let's be clear about this: the COAG Energy Council is that forum of state and territory energy ministers—endorsing a framework that will deliver electricity security for Australian businesses and families. It agreed—Labor energy ministers agreed—on plans for better transmission and work towards an integrated system, better cybersecurity for our energy infrastructure, plans for new hydrogen opportunities and, importantly—perhaps even critically—endorsement for the ACCC's most recent report when it comes to electricity prices. This idea that energy policy in our country is stagnating or even invisible is just not true. It is just not true.

The good thing about the momentum that's been achieved this morning, as a result of the coalition party discussion, is that what is now occurring is that Australians will have a very clear and stark choice between an energy plan that will deliver for the now and for the medium and longer terms, and an energy security plan that—good luck if you can find it! Good luck if you can find it! It's only a matter of time before someone on the other side chirps up and says: 'Oh, we've got a plan! We've got a plan!' Do you know what that plan is? Greater reliance on renewables, which will drive up costs, and an emissions reduction plan that is totally out of step with international expectations and will drive down the Australian economy. So, rather than being on the back foot, the government is most clearly on the front foot. We know that cost-of-living pressures are critical to the consideration of Australian families and Australian businesses. You can talk to any coalition member in this place, and they will reel out anecdotes of how electricity price costs are crippling businesses. The coalition has a clear plan. (Time expired)

What Australians want is lower electricity prices, and what we are seeing on the other side is hopeless, deeply divided government and chaotic energy policy. We know that the chair of the Energy Security Board, Kerry Schott, has said, 'there would be absolutely no way that anybody would be financing a new coal-fired generation plant'. Because of this policy uncertainty on the other side, there is no new capacity coming into the system. Because of the uncertainty, business will not invest under the current arrangements. This government, over the past five years, has been at war with itself on energy policy. In that environment, business would have to be crazy to invest long term in coal-fired generation. Because of that lack of new generation capacity coming into the system, we are seeing energy prices go up. It's the economic argument that Senator Cormann got so wrong in question time today.

We are seeing a hopelessly divided government. The Prime Minister used to believe in addressing climate change, but somehow, along the way, he has turned his back on the environment. Former Prime Minister Abbott has trashed energy policy in Australia. He is the great wrecker of Australian politics. He has abolished Labor's work, and the Turnbull government has for five years now failed to provide policy certainty. Through the chaos and infighting, those opposite are now failing to deliver. We know that business needs certainty and the sector needs certainty, and the Liberals and the Nationals can't lift business investment, particularly in energy.

This policy that we're debating is a Frankenstein policy; it is a political fix to keep the coalition party room together. We know that significant parts of the coalition party room deny climate change. We can't even have a sensible policy discussion when climate change isn't seriously on the table. In question time today, the government claimed that $550 on average is going to be taken out of the energy costs of the average consumer. What the government did not say, as part of all that, is that $400 of that $550 saving actually comes from the good work that Labor did in our last couple of years of government, with our Renewable Energy Target, which has driven waves of investment in wind and solar. We are seeing that coming through. So the NEG, in its current form, would only provide a saving of about $150 a year for consumers. We also know that it will basically drive no new investment in renewable energy.

This policy totally lacks ambition. We know that 24 per cent in reductions will happen by 2020-21, so, of the 26 per cent, there will only be a two per cent reduction over the remaining period of the NEG. We on this side have ambition: a 45 per cent emissions reduction target on 2007 levels by 2030 and 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. We've even seen the backbench talking with the Prime Minister about underwriting baseload coal generation. But we know, as I said earlier, business will not invest in coal. The future is in gas, hydro, solar and other renewables. This is where business wants to invest, and the government should be encouraging that.

If the government wants to look for a role model, look at the Queensland Labor government, with a 50 per cent renewable energy target. There are great things happening in the Sunshine State. In recent times, I visited Gladstone and went to a couple of new solar farms that are in the process of being constructed—the Renew Estate solar farm at Bororen, south of Gladstone, and the Acciona solar farm, which is part of the Gladstone State Development Area, in Aldoga. There is a place for coal along with renewables as we transition, and Gladstone is an excellent example of this.

Labor has a strong record on protecting the environment and addressing climate change. We want to work constructively on addressing energy at the state and federal levels. Let's put the politics aside and get some certainty. We know that this is what businesses want. They are crying out for the certainty to get the long-term investment that's needed to get prices down. It's only Labor's energy policies that will get business investment flowing to provide power bill relief to struggling households.

It's not often during taking note of answers that I would say that I agree with those opposite, but I have to admit Senator Ketter made some very important points. Yes, lower prices. Of course lower energy prices are a priority of any energy policy, but most particularly they are the priority of the coalition's policy. And, yes, investor certainty is a priority in energy policy, and it certainly is the priority of the coalition's energy policy. Other than that, Senator Ketter, I feel that your narrative was entirely untethered from the truth, because I cannot see what the Labor Party's energy policy has to do with either of those two priorities—lower prices or investor certainty.

What seems to have been forgotten in this conversation is that wholesale energy prices have in fact already fallen quite significantly over the last 12 months, and that is entirely due to the coalition's energy policy, of which the National Energy Guarantee, which we were discussing today, is only one part. The National Electricity Market spot price fell to $68 last week, compared to $101 last week. On average, spot prices have come down 25 per cent in the last 12 months alone. In fact, future contracts for electricity in 2020 are at the moment being traded around the $50-per-megawatt-hour range. Already there have been significant inroads.

Why have there been significant inroads? Gas prices have fallen dramatically. Why have gas prices fallen dramatically? The ACCC has confirmed that they are down 50 per cent since February 2007 largely because of the Prime Minister's intervention in the gas market to secure the domestic gas supply. We have also abolished the hideous, insidious limited merits review introduced by the Gillard government, which added $6.5 billion to power bills since 2005. Customers have been getting a much better deal out of retailers since the Prime Minister's meeting with retailers in August 2017. In the last 12 months alone, 1.6 million households have been offered better power deals from their retailers. More than half a million households have moved off either their default plans or their expired plans, and another 1.3 million households have switched to get better deals after prompting from the retailers themselves. These are all coalition policies to reduce power prices. The NEG is just one part of the coalition's comprehensive plan to help out consumers, to help out households and to help out businesses with their costs of living and their costs of doing business.

The National Energy Guarantee has six significant features: it lowers prices; it increases reliability; it reduces emissions; it is technology neutral, most importantly; it is recommended by experts; and it is backed by business and consumer groups. So let's not assume that the ignorance of those opposite is emblematic of the population at large. However, we will for the sake of clarity explain just how the NEG works. It increases investment by dealing with policy uncertainty. More investment equals more supply, which equals lower power prices and, as Senator Ketter correctly said, $550 for households and a 20 per cent wholesale decrease for business. That's $550 for households has absolutely nothing to do with any Labor policy ever; it is entirely due to the National Energy Guarantee and the modelling and forecasting that is associated with that.

It increases reliability. For each National Electricity Market state, AEMO has assessed supply and demand over the next 10 years. That's how it confirms reliability. After that, retailers are required to provide their share of dispatchable power in the event of any gap that AEMO identifies. But, most importantly for those opposite, it also adheres to our emissions targets as agreed to in the Paris Agreement. It adheres to our international commitment. The federal government has set a 26 per cent target with emissions intensity decreasing from 0.7 per cent in 2020-21 to 0.6 per cent in 2029-30, and there will be a review in 2024. What is their alternative? There is no alternative. A vote for Labor is a vote for higher power prices; a vote for the coalition is a vote for lower prices.

The remarkable thing we've seen from the contribution of those opposite is that you would think they've only been in government for about six months, the way they're carrying on and talking about, 'We've come up with this fantastic policy'. You've been in government for five years. What's your record? That's what the Australian people will judge them on. Their record after five years is a simple one: prices up, emissions up and reliability down. That is their record after five years in government.

The fact is, we've been talking about this policy for about 12 months. It's taken them 12 months to come up with this and there is still chaos and division on their backbench. The reason they are so divided on this is that, with the policy that they have come up with, they didn't have the Australian people in mind, they didn't have Australian workers in mind and they didn't have Australian businesses in mind; they had their backbench in mind. That was their motivation in coming up with this policy. There are so many flaws in this that they will be responsible for. They will be held to account for this. When you look at their record and you look at their motivation, this isn't about the Australian people; this is about their own internals. And the chaos and division that we've seen for 12 months is only going to continue because of the way that they have been behaving.

Regarding the stance that the Labor Party has taken on the National Energy Guarantee, it's quite amusing that those over there are starting to run a scare campaign against Labor. That's all they've got: a scare campaign. They've been doing it since Tony Abbott. Malcolm Turnbull promised something different as Prime Minister, but we're seeing the same again—they're trotting it out today. They're not defending their policy; they're attacking Labor's policy.

I agree with federal Labor leader, Bill Shorten, and the shadow minister, Mark Butler, who said that we want to work in a bipartisan manner. We understand the importance of the price and reliability of electricity to Australian families and businesses, and to creating jobs. We've been patiently waiting for those opposite to settle their differences so that we can try to come up with a bipartisan solution that the Australian people can have confidence in. But they didn't reach out across the aisle to try to work with Labor on this. They are so divided on their own side that they can't talk to us. Any policy that we could sign up to is obviously too much for their backbench. That is the division we've seen from those opposite.

The fact of the matter is that what they are talking about—I think every one of their speakers has talked about it—is the $550 price reduction. That's exactly what they said when it came to the carbon tax and Tony Abbott said he would abolish it: $550 was the amount prices were going to be reduced by. I challenge any Australian family who pays their electricity bills to say that is true, and that they believe them this time. The reality is that this is a hoax from those opposite in terms of how they are presenting this policy. They proved it when they axed the carbon tax and they are going to prove it on the back of this as well. Australian families will see through what they are purporting to represent.

There are some other consequences from the National Energy Guarantee that Labor will be putting on the record. The government's own modelling in this shows that there will be no large-scale investment in renewables after 2021. The rate of rooftop solar will halve in this time as well. So, in terms of what the Australian people are wanting to see from a new policy and what they want to see from governments, this National Energy Guarantee is actually going to achieve the opposite of what Australian families and businesses are looking for.

It is also worth pointing out that there are still complaints now about the cost of gas and the impact that is having on electricity and also, importantly, on Australian businesses. Those opposite try to claim that they have ticked the box and solved the gas crisis. Well, day after day we are constantly seeing businesses highlight the fact that they are paying exorbitant rates for gas, which is limiting their ability to invest and create more jobs in their businesses.

Coming back to the National Energy Guarantee, there really are some key parts of this that are concerning. One is their record. We know that prices are up, emissions are up and reliability is down. We know that their motivation in pursuing the National Energy Guarantee is all wrong. It's all about trying to appease their backbench and not about delivering for Australian families. We know that some of those opposite are prepared to sign up for what is effectively a hoax on the Australian people, whether it be around the price reductions that they're promising or the coal-fired power generation as well—there is no proposal for that.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to the National Energy Guarantee.

We know the NEG is now a con. This is a con job. It's a dud, and this parliament should vote against it. We put forward a very clear motion yesterday, calling for the modelling that underpins the claim that there will be a $550 saving to electricity prices. It's coincidently exactly the same amount that consumers were promised after the repeal of the carbon price, which—surprise, surprise!—didn't happen. We wanted to see what modelling was used to justify that claim. And what came back? Absolutely nothing. It was a spreadsheet that a year 10 student could have cobbled together in their bedroom. That's what we've got to justify this claim.

Consumers know that the NEG will not bring down prices. People know that this is doing nothing to address our emissions. This is designed to solve a political problem; it is not designed to bring down prices and to bring down emissions. This is a policy designed to appease the climate deniers within the coalition party room. Well, we won't surrender to the climate deniers—we will not. We agree with the criticisms that were made of the policy earlier by opposition energy minister, Mark Butler. Indeed, we've just heard a very articulate critique of this policy from Senator Chisholm.

My message to the Labor Party is: vote against it. I've heard a lot of criticism of the policy, but I've not heard one member of the Labor Party come into this place and say, 'That's why we will not support it. That's why we're voting against it. That's why we will take a stand and make sure that this parliament isn't fooled twice.' Don't take our word for it; take the word of Oliver Yates, the former head of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. He made his views on this very, very clear. His view is that the only thing that this energy plan does is help coal companies to know that they don't have to reduce their pollution over the next 10 years.

We've now seen NEG-plus, which is a dud-plus. It gives an opportunity for the climate deniers within the coalition to purchase coal-fired power when the rest of the world is moving away from coal-fired power, knowing that it's going to increase emissions and that it's a much more expensive form of energy. This policy concentrates power within the hands of the three big gentailers—Origin, AGL and EnergyAustralia—who, in the large part, are responsible for the gouging that's going on of individuals. The big three are now being given more power by the Prime Minister. It seems that the Prime Minister's response, whenever he's in a spot of trouble, is to write a big cheque to his mates at the big end of town. He did it with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation grant. He walks into a room and hands Liberal Party donors half a billion dollars. Here we are, with a huge dilemma where energy prices are continuing to increase. The coalition government have overseen that increase, despite a promise to bring down energy prices. And what's their response? To hand more power to the big three—that is, to hand more power to the companies that are responsible for the price hikes that people are experiencing right now.

We know that we've got a mechanism which might actually mean that the states can't lift their level of ambition for that to be counted. We've got the potential for targets that will mean that the heavy lifting has to be done by the agriculture sector and by the transport sector. We know that the most efficient, low-hanging fruit here is in the energy sector. If we're going to bring down emissions through increasing renewable energy technology, through battery storage technology, through demand management and through energy efficiency, we know that we can do that, at least cost, through the electricity sector. We know it's good for consumers and it's good for emissions, and yet, what this does is say, 'We're going to cave in to the climate deniers. If we're going to meet our Paris targets, we're going to have to let the agricultural sector and transport sector do the heavy lifting.' Well, that's just not going to happen. If this deal gets over the line with these targets, we will effectively be pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. We'd be doing what Donald Trump did, but with a little less fanfare. This is a policy designed to appease the climate deniers in the coalition party room. It does nothing to bring down prices or bring down emissions. All it does is solve a political problem for the Prime Minister, while consumers will be dudded. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Sinodinos from 13 August to 20 September 2018, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That consideration of the business before the Senate on Tuesday, 14 August 2018, be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Anning to make his first speech without any question before the chair.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Wong, I move:

That the Senate:

(a) expresses its serious concerns with Cambodia's 2018 national election and welcomes assurances that the Government has made Australia's concerns known to the Cambodian Government;

(b) notes the election process, which has included the dissolution of the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), the detention of CNRP leader Kem Sokha, and the banning of CNRP parliamentarians and officials from engaging in politics for five years, has reversed more than 25 years of progress towards democracy in Cambodia;

(c) recognises that freedom of expression and association underpin democratic societies and affirms concerns that the election took place in an environment where not all political parties, civil society organisations and media could operate freely;

(d) expresses its disappointment that Cambodian people have been unable to freely choose their representatives and recognises that the development of strong democratic practices and institutions, including a free press and civil society, is crucial to Cambodia's long-term prosperity;

(e) reiterates that, as a longstanding friend of Cambodia, Australia must continue to urge the Cambodian Government to take steps to allow free and open political debate without violence and intimidation;

(f) acknowledges the Australian Cambodian community for its tireless advocacy in support of human rights and democracy in Cambodia;

(g) calls on the Cambodian Government to immediately release opposition leader Kem Sokha;

(h) notes allegations of involvement in illicit activities, including money laundering, by members of the Cambodian People's Party in Australia, and urges full investigation of these claims; and

(i) calls on the Australian Government to consider, in coordination with other partners, additional measures to support democracy in Cambodia.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Australia has serious concerns with the 2018 national election process, and is disappointed that Cambodians were unable to freely choose their representatives. Foreign minister Bishop raised Australia's strong concerns with Cambodia's foreign minister on 4 August and issued a statement on 30 July. Australia also chose not to send election observers. We've repeatedly raised our concerns privately and publicly, including at the United Nations Human Rights Council. We will continue to encourage Cambodia to take steps to allow free and open political debate without violence and intimidation. We are considering all options in response to the political situation in Cambodia.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Greens will support this motion. It's, again, interesting what the government defines as a contentious foreign policy motion. It seems if they agree with it, they're happy for it to be discussed. But let's be clear about this: the Greens support this motion. It is so disappointing—in fact, it's shameful—that, after Cambodia's recent sham elections, we still aren't seeing any action from this government. Other countries have taken a stand. Indeed, eminent Australians right across Australia—people like Michael Kirby—are speaking out and taking action. But it seems the Turnbull government is prepared to sit on its hands.

Not long ago, this Senate passed a motion urging Hun Sen to allow his citizens democratic rights. That was a Greens' motion. We now know that he hasn't allowed democracy in his country. It's time for sanctions against Hun Sen and his cronies—not just mealy-mouthed words of concern. Let's end that shameful refugee deal and let's stand up for the Cambodian people.

Question agreed to.

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

That the Senate:

(a) notes that:

  (i) 8 August 2018 was Dying to Know Day,

  (ii) Dying to Know Day promotes death literacy and meaningful conversations about dying and end-of-life planning, and

  (iii) the subject of death is still to a large extent avoided and considered daunting for many people;

(b) acknowledges:

  (i) the need to break down barriers which limit the way we talk about death and discuss end-of-life care,

  (ii) the importance of having conversations with loved ones about what we do and don't want at the end of life, and

  (iii) that making your wishes known and having a plan in place makes the experience of death, dying and bereavement easier for all involved; and

(c) urges:

  (i) the Federal, state, territory and local Governments to encourage all Australians to start conversations about their wishes and preferences for care at the end of life, and

  (ii) the Turnbull Government to make palliative care a health priority.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, and for related purposes. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Reporting of Gas Reserves) Bill 2018.

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 move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Reporting of Gas Reserves) Bill 2018. This bill aims to address a gaping hole in the accountability of those companies who develop and profit from Australia's offshore resources.

It is not a secret that Australia holds significant wealth in our petroleum reserves. In 2018 alone, Australia is expected to export $35 billion of Liquefied Natural Gas.

It is also not a secret that the industry has become extremely profitable for those companies which have the money and resources to develop Australia's natural resources for production.

With so much at stake, it is imperative that the Australian Government puts in place a regime that effectively and fairly taxes those companies that profit from Australia's natural resources. It is the Australian people, after all, that are the true owners of these resources.

Let me make this point clear – we have a frustratingly weak taxation system in place.

In December 2017 the Australian Tax Office published the Corporate tax transparency report for the 2015–16 income year. It shows a range of petroleum companies with household names, paid little or no tax in 2015-16. Chevron had $2.1bn in revenue, yet paid $0 in tax. ExxonMobil Australia had $6.7bn revenue, yet paid $0 in tax. Origin Energy had $11.9bn revenue, yet paid $0 in tax. Clearly something needs to change.

This bill is not a silver bullet for that change, but it will start the conversation.

Our offshore resources are contained in various "fields". Petroleum production entities can apply for a "retention lease" over those fields. A retention lease grants the right to explore and/or develop the relevant field – to the exclusion of all others.

The problem is this: once a retention lease is granted, the communication with the Australian people stops. We have no real indication of how much petroleum is contained in a given reserve. We have no idea of the value of that reserve, nor what the viability is for production and profit.

That's where this bill comes in. This bill is simply about bringing more information to the Australian people. It requires holders of retention leases, and holders of production licences, to provide a 'taxation transparency report' to the regulator.

The Taxation Transparency Report will include information with respect to the size of any resource field held, the value of the resource field, and a record of all payments made to the State and Federal governments- including licensing fees, royalties, Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, as well as income tax.

The Taxation Transparency Report will provide this information regularly. The bill requires retention lease holders and production licence holders to provide reports 30 days after they receive their lease/licence, and a further report for each successive year thereafter, for the life of the lease or licence.

Having received the information in a Taxation Transparency Report, the regulator will then be required to put it into its Register. Subject to the rules binding the regulator, it is expected this information will be released to the public.

The information will allow for a level of transparency and accountability that the petroleum production sector has never had to face before.

Countries like Canada, the UK and the EU have already forced multi-nationals, like Chevron and Exxon, to report on both payments to their respective governments as well as on production levels. All Australia would be doing is bringing us in line with countries like Canada and the UK.

In conclusion, this bill includes relatively minor, simple, reasonable, reform proposals. The bill will start the ball rolling for a broader change that we desperately need. I trust that the Senate will support this bill, and take responsible measures to protect the interests of the Australian people.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that:

  (i) in contrast to New Zealand's comprehensive GST, Australia's GST does not apply to a significant range of products, such as various healthcare products, essential services including water, and basic food and beverages,

  (ii) healthcare products that are listed as GST-free in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (the GST Act), an Act of the Commonwealth Government, include medical devices and aids such as incontinence pads,

  (iii) the Minister for Health is empowered under section 38 of the GST Act to unilaterally declare additional goods to be GST-free – previous Commonwealth Health Ministers have used this power to make various goods GST-free, including condoms, lubricants, folic acid, sunscreen and nicotine patches and gums,

  (iv) infant formula is GST-free under the basic food and beverage category,

  (v) GST on breastfeeding aids is estimated to contribute less than $2 million to the $63 billion in annual GST revenues,

  (vi) breastfeeding aids are essential healthcare products for many mothers and their babies, and

  (vii) it is therefore inequitable for incontinence pads, condoms, lubricants, folic acid, sunscreen, and nicotine patches and gums to be GST-free on health grounds, for water to be GST-free on the grounds of water being essential, and for infant formula to be GST-free under the basic food and beverage category, but for breastfeeding aids to be subject to GST; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to remove the GST on breastfeeding aids.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations and Commonwealth legislation, a change to the rate or base of the GST would need to be supported by all the states and territories in addition to the passage of relevant legislation by both houses of the Commonwealth parliament. Section 38-47 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 relates to other GST-free health goods. Under this section, a supply of goods is GST-free if it is a supply of goods of a kind that the health minister, by determination in writing, declares to be goods the supply of which is GST-free. The health minister may make a determination under section 38-47. However, the states and territories would need to agree unanimously, and the wider policy implications would need to be considered accordingly.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001, and for related purposes. Intelligence Services Amendment (Enhanced Parliamentary Oversight of Intelligence Agencies) Bill 2018.

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 move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill will amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to extend parliamentary scrutiny to the operations of Australia's national security and intelligence agencies.

The Bill is presented against the backdrop of the steady stream of national security legislation that has come before the parliament over the past two decades. That constant legislative activity has come in response to the threat of terrorism after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, and as a response to broader changes in Australia's national security environment including increased threats of espionage, foreign interference and cyber warfare.

Much of this legislation, advanced by both Coalition and Labor Governments and almost always with bipartisan support, has expanded the powers of those intelligence agencies very significantly. There has also been an absolute revolution in global communications and data processing and storage which has transformed the scope of intelligence collection, turning it into a global enterprise with vastly deeper reach into people's lives.

Australia's ten national security and intelligence agencies employ more than 7,000 people and spend well over $2 billion each year while they accumulate massive amounts of information at home and abroad.

While Australia's intelligence community has grown rapidly over the past two decades, the mechanisms of accountability and review overseeing those agencies have received much less attention, resources and authority.

In particular the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) has been tightly restricted under the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to review the administration and expenditure of Australia's intelligence agencies: Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), Australian Geospatial Intelligence Organisation (AGO), Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO), Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) and the Office of National Assessments (ONA).

The PJCIS is explicitly prohibited from reviewing the operations of Australian intelligence agencies. The PJCIS is prohibited by the Intelligence Services Act 2001 from reviewing intelligence-gathering priorities and operations of Australian intelligence agencies, or the assessments and reports they produce. The committee is further barred from examining sources of information, operational activities and methods, or any operations that have been, are being or are proposed to be undertaken by intelligence and national security agencies.

The PJCIS is also prohibited from reviewing the privacy rules made by ministers that regulate the communication and retention by agencies of intelligence information concerning Australian persons.

These limitations on parliamentary scrutiny have reflected a historical reluctance of past governments and intelligence agency officials to trust Members of Parliament outside the executive with the most sensitive intelligence information.

However the PJCIS can't hold these agencies properly accountable for their activities if the parliament continues to ban its own committee from reviewing their operations and other activities. Nor can expenditure and administration be adequately examined without consideration of operational performance.

Three decades have passed since the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in 1988. Over some thirty years the Parliamentary Joint Committee, supported by its secretariat, has demonstrated its capacity to handle highly sensitive information with absolute confidentiality and security. It is not credible to suggest that senior Members of Parliament, often including former ministers with direct experience overseeing intelligence agencies, serving as members of the Joint Committee, cannot be trusted to inquire into and review the most sensitive intelligence matters, including information relating to intelligence agency operations.

The complete exclusion of intelligence operations from parliamentary committee scrutiny is not an approach followed by some of Australia's closest intelligence partners.

In the United States, Congressional oversight of the intelligence community is spread across several committees, including specialised committees on intelligence in the House of Representatives and the Senate. While each Congressional committee has some limits on what it may examine, taken collectively committees have long enjoyed the ability to inquire into all of the intelligence-related activities of the US Government, including highly sensitive operational matters. Wide ranging Congressional inquiries are accepted by the US intelligence community as necessary and appropriate.

In the United Kingdom, the Intelligence and Security Committee of the British Parliament is empowered by the Justice and Security Act 2013 to oversee the expenditure, administration, policy and operations of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters. The Intelligence and Security Committee can consider operational matters when requested by the Prime Minister and where they do not involve ongoing operations and it is in the national interest.

However the approach taken with the new Canadian National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians provides a good model for Australia to follow.

Canada is another of our "5-eyes" intelligence partners and has an intelligence and national security community in size and structure not dissimilar to our own.

Under section 8 of Canada's National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act 2017, the Canadian parliament's intelligence committee can review:

"any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence, unless that activity is an ongoing operation and the appropriate Minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security"

The Canadian legislation further provides that:

"If the appropriate Minister determines that a review would be injurious to national security, he or she must inform the Committee of his or her determination and the reasons for it."

"If the appropriate Minister determines that the review would no longer be injurious to national security or if the appropriate Minister is informed that the activity is no longer ongoing, he or she must inform the Committee that the review may be conducted."

This Bill broadly adapts the model provided by the Canadian parliamentary oversight legislation with an additional safeguard provided by our own Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

The Bill removes most, though not all, the current legislative constraints on the scope of PJCIS inquiries.

It does retain existing prohibitions on reviewing information provided by a foreign government where that government does not consent to the disclosure of the information.

It also retains the prohibition on conducting inquiries into individual complaints about the activities of designated intelligence and national security agencies as those complaints are appropriately dealt with by the IGIS.

There are details of intelligence operations involving sensitive and vulnerable sources that are best held by the smallest number of people with an absolute need to know.

Accordingly the Bill provides that the relevant minister may certify that a review by the PJCIS relates to an ongoing operation and that the review would interfere with the proper performance by the relevant body of its functions or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations. If this is the case the committee will be required to cease or suspend the review.

However, the committee may refer the Minister's decision to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security who, within 30 days, must review the matter and consider whether the activity is an ongoing operation, and whether it is reasonable to conclude that a review by the committee would interfere with the proper performance by the relevant body of its functions or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations.

If the Inspector-General advises the committee that the activity is not an ongoing operation, or that the review would not cause interference with the proper functioning of the relevant body or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations, the committee may proceed with the review, or commence a new review into the activity.

The Bill thus adapts the Canadian model with the independent Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security able to act, if needed, as an umpire between the Minister responsible for intelligence agencies and the PJCIS.

The need for an expansion of the PJCIS's role to cover intelligence agency operations and other activities has been recognised by others in the Senate. Former Senator John Faulkner strongly urged this broad reform.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Penny Wong, has also rightly observed that parliamentarians cannot outsource their duty to ensure the security of our nation and the people who entrust us with the responsibility of governing.

This is absolutely true.

If democratically elected MPs and senators cannot be trusted to deal directly with these questions, then something is wrong with the relationship between the intelligence community and the parliament that it ultimately means to serve.

Centre Alliance has previously moved the provisions contained in this Bill as amendments to other national security and intelligence related bills.

On those occasions the Coalition Government and the Labor Opposition were not prepared to lend their support, even though the Opposition has indicated in principle support for extension of PJCIS oversight to include operational matters.

The Government for its part announced in May this year the appointment Dennis Richardson, former Director-General of Security and former Secretary of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence, to undertake a wide-ranging review of Australia's intelligence and national security legislation.

This is the latest in a long series of reviews, largely conducted by former intelligence and national security bureaucrats who, at least previously, have had little enthusiasm for parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence community.

According to the Attorney-General, Mr Richardson's review will consider options for "harmonising and modernising the legislative framework that governs the activities of our intelligence agencies to ensure they operate with clear, coherent and consistent powers, protections and oversight."

Against this background, the Government may well be tempted to say that it will await the outcome of Mr Richardson's review before giving any further consideration to these issues.

As Senator Wong has rightly observed, however, the Parliament cannot outsource the question of its own responsibilities in overseeing of our large and expanding intelligence and national security agencies.

Consequently, in introducing this Bill, I also foreshadow that Centre Alliance will in due course seek the Senate's approval to refer the Bill, by means of a resolution in accordance with Section 29(1) (b) of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence Services for inquiry and report.

The PJCIS regularly reviews and produces advisory reports on national security legislation proposed by Government. It would be timely, in this thirtieth anniversary year of the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, for the PJCIS to examine this and report to the Parliament about its own role and functions. It can do so in parallel with the broader inquiry being undertaken for the Government by Mr Richardson.

The Government, and the national security bureaucrats who have long resisted parliamentary scrutiny, will also have to engage positively with the idea that greater parliamentary scrutiny is required to ensure that both national security and our individual liberty and privacy are properly protected.

Australia's intelligence community agencies are not infallible.

In the future their performance will be tested in a much more demanding security environment and the Australian Parliament will need to subject of our intelligence agencies to much closer scrutiny than has been the case previously.

This Bill provides a sensible and secure framework within which to extend parliamentary scrutiny to the operations of Australia's national security and intelligence agencies.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its inquiry into PFAS contamination be extended to 25 October 2018.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee into the obesity epidemic in Australia be extended to 26 November 2018.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

a. notes that:

  i. the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (the Royal Commission) has received more than 6 800 submissions,

  ii. the Royal Commission is underfunded and does not have adequate time to hear submissions from many regional farmers, and

  iii. as reported in The Australian, on 26 June 2018, the Royal Commission's Letters Patent are drafted in a way that excludes receivers, administrators and insolvency professionals who often act unconscionably and unethically towards farmers; and

b. calls on the Federal Government to:

  i. facilitate the amendment of the Letters Patent to include examination of the conduct of administrators, receivers, controllers, restructuring advisors, turnaround advisors, pre-insolvency advisors or insolvency practitioners, particularly when these entities act against farmers,

   ii. facilitate the amendment of the Letters Patent to include the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation,

  iii. facilitate the amendment of the Letters Patent to include the Dispute Resolution Process of financial service entities,

  iv. extend the final reporting period by 12 months to enable the Royal Commission to hear more submissions, and

  v. increase funding to the Royal Commission to enable it to hear more submissions.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

While established by the government, the royal commission is independent of government, and the specific matters that the commission may decide to examine will be the commission's alone. The commissioner may, under provision (a) of the letters patent, consider the actions of anyone acting on behalf of financial service entities. The government would consider any request by the independent royal commission.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that:

  (i) Coles is still advertising $1 per litre milk, and Woolworths $1 per litre milk is shown as temporarily unavailable,

  (ii) both Coles and Woolworths have exerted downward prices on dairy farmers for many years which has damaged the financial resilience of Australian dairy farmers,

  (iii) many dairy farms are family operations which involve long work hours,

  (iv) as dairy farmers are obligated to lock in forward milk sale prices, these forward prices are effectively capped by the pressure exerted by Coles and Woolworths,

  (v) these forward prices could not contemplate the drastic increase in the cost of hay, wheat and other feed products for the dairy cattle, and

  (vi) what Australia grows, grows Australia; and

(b) calls on Coles and Woolworths to:

  (i) increase the price of milk to their customers by 20 cents per litre for the full period of the impacts of drought on feed prices, and

  (ii) pass the full price increase onto dairy farmers.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government understands that dairy farmers are understandably frustrated that the retail price of milk has declined in real terms since retailers adopted their milk-pricing policies. The government notes, however, that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's recent dairy inquiry report found the price set by retailers has no direct relationship with farmgate prices received by farmers. The ACCC noted that if supermarkets were to increase the price of milk, processors would still not pay farmers any more than they have to in securing milk and that the farmgate prices received by farmers would be unlikely to increase. The government is currently considering the report's recommendations.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor acknowledges that many farmers experience severe drought conditions, which in some areas have been ongoing for more than seven years. Coles and Woolworths have donated money to assist farmers, as have many other generous Australians. Labor will not support Senator Burston's motion because it fails to acknowledge the current government's failure to implement the recommendations of the ACCC report into the dairy industry. The ACCC noted that neither the existing provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 nor a voluntary code of conduct sufficiently addressed these market failures. Therefore, the ACCC makes eight recommendations for improved transparency and allocation of risk in the commercial relationship between the Australian dairy processors and farmers. Most significantly, the ACCC recommends that a mandatory code of conduct be introduced to address the market failures we have identified.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

While the Greens appreciate the intent behind this motion, we cannot support it in its current form. Dairy farmers are being hit hard by this awful drought, but it's hard to see how a temporary levy would help. Immediate drought relief through government is critical, and it's clear that the government needs a comprehensive plan for how to support our farmers in the short term and help them to adapt to what will only become a more severe and drought-stricken Australia. Both the ACCC and the Senate economics committee inquiry found that only a mandatory code of conduct would resolve the rolling crisis for our dairy farmers, ending the power of the big processors and the predatory pricing regime that they operate under. I note the Greens' support for bringing in an effects test, as this mechanism would enable a decrease of the power that these big processors have over dairy farmers.

The question is that motion No. 928 be agreed to.

) ( ): I move:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that the United States of America has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement; and

(b) calls upon the Australian Government to also withdraw from the Agreement, and cease taking any steps towards enacting at law or by policy any steps towards the Agreement's targets.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Australia has a strong track record of participating in global emissions reduction agreements and meeting and beating our emissions reduction targets while maintaining economic and population growth. Since the coalition government came to office, Australia's economy has grown by more than $200 million and more than one million jobs have been created. The coalition government's approach to addressing climate change is ensuring that we maintain energy security and affordability, as well as the competitiveness of our industries.

The question is that motion No. 941 be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that 11 August marked the 45th anniversary of the late former Minister for Immigration Mr Al Grassby's launch of multiculturalism at a Melbourne symposium;

(b) further notes the flaws and failures of multiculturalism policy; and

(c) calls upon the Australian Government to desist from promoting multiculturalism and, instead, promote policies that unite Australians and uphold Australian values.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Australia's model of integrated multiculturalism is entirely consistent with Australia's values. It reflects the reality of the make-up of Australian society and who we are: a nation that has grown and evolved over time. This great achievement is different from multiculturalism in other nations.

We want newly arrived migrants to succeed and make the most of the opportunities that this great nation offers, just as previous generations have done. We also want to maintain social cohesion. With rights come responsibilities. Our integrated multicultural model means that a person who comes here shares our values and engages in our community. They must obey the law, participate and uphold our democratic principles.

The question is that motion No. 943 be agreed to.

By the law of diminishing returns, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 942 standing in my name for today, relating to the national emissions guarantee, be taken as a formal motion.

Point of order—it's the National Energy Guarantee, not the national emissions guarantee.

I think Senator Bernardi made an error.

It's guaranteeing emissions. I'm not sure what the problem is.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There being none, Senator Bernardi.

I move:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that parts of Australia have been drought declared for years, including, at present, the whole state of New South Wales;

(b) further notes the public commentary about the National Energy Guarantee and concerns that farmers might bear an increased burden to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from their farming enterprises; and

(c) calls upon the Minister for the Environment and Energy, and other relevant ministers, to ensure that the National Energy Guarantee quarantines farmers from reducing such emissions for the foreseeable future.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

While Labor supports this motion, we note that the National Energy Guarantee is a policy that applies to the National Electricity Market and does not directly cover the agricultural or other non-electricity sectors of the economy. Labor has a longstanding position of exempting Australian farmers from any emissions reduction mechanism applicable to non-electricity sectors of the economy while supporting the land sector to cut emissions and generate new income by taking advantage of opportunities to participate in growing carbon markets.

I seek leave to move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 942, moved by Senator Bernardi.

Leave is not granted.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate:

(a) acknowledges that:

  (i) it has been almost 15 years since Daniel Morcombe, a 13-year-old boy with his entire life ahead of him, was abducted and murdered by a serial predator with an extensive history of sexually abusing children,

  (ii) at the time of committing this heinous crime, this paedophile, Mr Brett Peter Cowan, was out on parole, amongst an unsuspecting community with no knowledge as to the extent of his criminal history, and

  (iii) one child becoming the victim of a known sex offender is a child too many; and

(b) notes that:

  (i) the community deserves strengthened measures aimed at better protecting children from known child sex offenders, including detailed consideration of the merits of a publically accessible National Sex Offender Registration Scheme, and

  (ii) a national registration scheme may act as an increased deterrent to potential sex offenders and may decrease recidivism.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government acknowledges the terrible loss of Daniel Morcombe 15 years ago and the devastating impact his death has had on his family, friends and community. The government supports this motion and will continue to pursue measures that best enhance the protection of Australia's children.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor acknowledges the sentiments driving this motion, including the tragic loss of Daniel Morcombe and the need for all children to be protected from child sex offenders. It was to further this objective that Labor established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2013, which made 409 recommendations for how to better protect our children. The royal commission did not recommend creating a publicly accessible national child sex offenders register, as Senator Hinch is calling for. We in Labor will be guided by the recommendations of the royal commission.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 937 standing in my name for today concerning an order relating to company tax returns.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that:

  (i) on 30 May 2018, at an estimates hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee (the Committee), Senator Patrick asked the Australian Tax Office (ATO) whether Goldman Sachs' Australian entities had filed a tax return between 2000 and 2012,

  (ii) in responding to the Committee, the Commissioner of Taxation submitted that information about identifiable taxpayers is subject to public interest immunity and that tax return lodgement information of the kind sought is "protected information" under taxation confidentiality laws in Division 355 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953,

  (iii) this is not an accepted ground of public interest immunity – the Senate derives its inquiry powers directly from the Constitution,

  (iv) section 355-60 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 places a legislative restraint on information being disclosed by the ATO to ministers "whether or not provided to a Minister in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House of the Parliament or of a committee of one or both Houses of the Parliament", however, that provision includes a note that states "This subsection does not limit the operation of section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 in any other respect" – that section continues to operate, for example, to enable taxation officers to disclose protected information to a committee of one or both Houses of the Parliament, and

  (v) in circumstances where a company does not lodge a tax return, they are in breach of the law, and their entitlement to any "unreasonable invasion of privacy" public interest immunity claim is extinguished; and

(b) orders the Commissioner of Taxation to provide to the Economics Legislation Committee, by 5 pm on 15 August 2018, information regarding which financial sector entities that at some stage between 2000 and 2016 had an annual turnover of $100 million or greater, and any related entities of those financial sector entities regardless of turnover, which:

  (i) did not lodge tax returns during that period, and

  (ii) did not report nil tax payable during that period.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Taxpayers provide their information to the Australian Taxation Office in the knowledge that its confidentiality is protected by law, except in very limited specified circumstances. It has been decades since taxpayer information has been disclosed in parliament. The circumstances at that time involved serious tax evasion and organised crime matters that had been the subject of judicial decision or commentary. The government opposes this motion as it will open the door to ever-present parliamentary speculation and inquiry into taxpayer affairs. The ATO can penalise taxpayers that do not lodge a tax return. The government has increased the penalties on large multinationals that do not lodge a return up to half a million dollars.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor will support this motion as amended. The exchange in Senate estimates between Senator Patrick and the Commissioner of Taxation was isolated to an individual entity. We appreciate the Commissioner of Taxation's position in regards to that specific line of questioning by Senator Patrick. The motion as drafted, however, has a public interest rationale. The motion targets a type of behaviour rather than a specific entity. The motion is targeted at a sector, the financial sector, which is under the scrutiny of a royal commission and remains a topic of public interest. The motion also limits the order to documentation relating to firms that have, at some stage in the past 18 years, had a turnover of $100 million or more. In government, Labor legislated for the public release of tax data for public and private firms with revenue of $100 million or greater. The motion as drafted is similar in spirit to such transparency initiatives and, by being limited to large firms, has a public interest rationale.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I'd like to point out that this motion does not require the disclosure of any information by a company that has behaved lawfully in respect of their taxation. It only requires the tendering of information to the Senate for companies that have not complied with the law.

The question is that motion No. 937, as amended and moved by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate:

  (a) pays tribute to the outgoing Race Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Tim Soutphommasane;

  (b) recognises Dr Soutphommasane's advocacy for multicultural Australia and his defence of the human rights of all Australians during his tenure as the Race Discrimination Commissioner;

  (c) notes with deep concern the:

        (i) resurgence of far-right politics within the Australian political and media landscape, such as comments made by leading politicians including both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs, and

        (ii) commentary on so-called 'African gangs', attacks on Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 , as well as the inflammatory, xenophobic language often used when referring to Australia's migration patterns; and

  (d) calls on the Australian Government to:

        (i) rule out any changes to the current anti-discrimination Act, noting that if we cannot name racial discrimination then we are unable to address it,

        (ii) cease politicising Australia's multicultural community for pure, unabashed, political gain, and

        (iii) affirm its commitment to multicultural Australia by recognising the need for a federal multicultural Act.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Australia is the most successful multicultural country in the world, in part because we are a country that values honest but respectful conversations about the issues confronting our communities. More people from more countries have come here to start a new life than almost any other nation, and we have generally been able to maintain strong social cohesion.

Last year the Prime Minister launched Australia's multicultural statement, 'Multicultural Australia: United, Strong, Successful', which renews and strongly reaffirms the government's commitment to a multicultural Australia. It focuses specifically on our shared values, our shared rights and responsibilities, a safe and secure Australia, encouraging economic and social participation of migrants and building harmonious and socially cohesive communities.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor supports a modern multicultural Australia. We thank the outgoing Race Discrimination Commissioner for his tireless work and advocacy. Labor believes a modern Australia and a multicultural Australia are the same thing. We value and celebrate the 25 million stories in Australia and the richness that diversity brings to our society. Labor is working on multicultural policy over coming months, and this includes consideration of the issues raised in this motion.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. The noes have it. Division required. Ring the bells for four minutes.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

I understand from my Senate management team that the majority of this motion is supported by the Labor Party. So we would be asking—and I apologise to the chamber that this is belated—that paragraph (d) be put separately, which would then enable us to vote in accordance with the wishes of most of the caucus in relation to (a), (b) and (c).

Senators, because the division has commenced, I need leave of the chamber to cease the division and put the motion in the manner requested by Senator Wong. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

The question is that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of motion No. 952, standing in the name of Senator Di Natale, be agreed to.

The question now is that clause (d) of motion No. 952 be agreed to. Senator Wong.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I can indicate—and this may have been indicated by Senator Chisolm previously—that, in fact, the only issue the Labor Party has concerns about is the commitment to a federal multicultural act. We invited the Greens to amend the motion to reflect that; we understand that was not agreed to. I invite Senator Di Natale to do so. If he does so, the Labor Party can vote in favour of this paragraph. We have previously stood against changes to the antidiscrimination legislation, and obviously we support the Australian multicultural community, so we would certainly invite Senator Di Natale to remove the single part that the Labor Party cannot support. I understand from—

We already did. We have.

You're interjecting on your own leader! The rebellion has begun from the manager! I understand that the Clerk's advice is that we cannot seek to have it divided at that level. In other words, I can't seek to divide separately on the placita.

I'm going to put the question that the Senate agree to clause (d) of motion No. 952.

Question negatived.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 950, relating to a censure motion, standing in my name for today be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There is an objection, Senator Bernardi?

Mr President, I'm seeking your advice before you accept this as a formal motion. In my lonely evenings as a senator for the Australian Conservatives, I happen to read Odgers.

It's a good read, Senator Bernardi!

Page 262 of chapter 10 of the 14th edition deals with the matter of sub judice. This motion, in the way it's worded, simply using the term 'defamatory', presumes an element of guilt for a matter that is actually before the courts. So, whilst there is no standing order in this respect, Odgers does give some guidance. It suggests that, if a matter is before the court and debate could perhaps prejudice the outcome of a court case, the matter should be deemed inappropriate for debate in this chamber.

If senators are happy for me to rule on this, I have given the matter some thought. But I'm happy to take submissions. Senator Di Natale?

The visual image of what Senator Bernardi does in his private evening is not something that should be inflicted on any of us. The reality here is—after discussion with you, Mr President—we believe the motion is in order, given that proceedings have not commenced. However, if it would assist in deliberations, we are happy to insert the word 'potentially' before 'defamatory' where it appears in the motion.

Can I take that as you seeking leave to amend the motion in those terms, Senator Di Natale?

Yes.

Leave is not granted. I will take submissions then. Senator Patrick, you were on your feet.

Just to make the point that the Federal Court is a chapter III court in the Constitution. There is a very clear separation of roles between the Senate and a chapter III court, and we should be mindful of that.

In recognition that Senator Di Natale, by seeking to amend the motion, has effectively acknowledged the merit behind the argument that I and Senator Patrick have put, it hasn't been amended and so, in its current form, it should absolutely be deemed to be inappropriate.

I did foresee this matter when I saw the Notice Paper. I would raise a few matters if I could. Firstly, as Odgers points out on page 178:

Senators may be censured by the Senate for misconduct.

That is not an issue that is in question. It is well established, and I have a handful of examples here. What I will go onto with the sub judice issue is that the convention turns on a consideration where the debate in the Senate could involve 'a substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings before a court'. This is balanced against a consideration as to whether there is 'an overriding requirement for the Senate to discuss a matter of public interest'. As Odgers records:

The concept of prejudice to legal proceedings involves an hypothesis that a debate on a matter before a court could influence the court and cause it to make a decision other than on the evidence and submissions before the court. A danger of prejudice would not arise from mere reference to such a matter, but from a canvassing of the issues before the court or a prejudgment of those issues.

I have read the same sections of Odgers as a number of others have, and, with respect to this, I will also refer to page 262 of the current edition of Odgers, which outlines:

… the fact that writs have been issued, which does not necessarily mean that proceedings will ensue, does not give cause for the sub judice convention to be invoked.

That is a selection, and there is some context to it, I concede.

The section also talks about the different risks of the sub judice convention with respect to issues before judges or juries. It is difficult for me to see how the mere use of the word 'defamatory' in the motion, particularly as it appears in the sense of a Senate debate, could involve 'a substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings that may be on foot'. I will listen very closely to any debate on the motion, and, if I sense that there is a reason to invoke convention in relation to that debate, I shall do so. I'm not going to rule the motion out of order, Senator Bernardi. I hope that clarifies the issue of sub judice for the chamber in this regard. Senator Leyonhjelm?

Have you accepted the motion as formal?

No, I was about to put that. Senator Di Natale has asked for the motion to be accepted as formal. Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal? There being none, I call Senator Di Natale.

I move:

That the Senate censures Senator Leyonhjelm for:

(a) humiliating and intimidating a fellow female senator by making derogatory, defamatory and sexist statements about her during a formal division in the Senate;

(b) inflaming the situation by publishing and republishing further derogatory, defamatory and sexist statements concerning the fellow female senator in the media and on social media;

(c) refusing to apologise for his derogatory, defamatory and sexist statements; and

(d) failing to uphold the dignity of the chamber and ensure it is a place where all senators are able to freely and respectfully contribute to debate and deliberations, as expected of senators by the Australian people.

I seek leave to make a statement of some minutes.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Do you want to specify? You're being offered two, Senator Leyonhjelm.

I'm seeking seven.

Is leave granted for Senator Leyonhjelm to make a statement for seven minutes? Senator Di Natale, are you limiting that to two minutes?

Honourable senators interjecting—

I have to go by the unanimous consent of the chamber. Senator Di Natale, do you wish to insist upon that?

Mr President, the opposition will give Senator Leyonhjelm leave. We think, in circumstances where he is the subject of a censure, it is reasonable that he be heard.

I will put that again. Senator Leyonhjelm has sought leave for up to seven minutes. Is leave granted? Leave is granted. Senator Leyonhjelm.

What exactly is the Senate being asked to censure? On the afternoon of 28 June, Senator Hanson-Young made an interjection. I made an interjection in reply. Senator Hanson-Young then approached me and made a face-to-face comment. I then replied. So there were four statements in the Senate. We should know which of these four statements the Senate is being asked to censure. Let's start with the original interjection. Senator Hinch, no supporter of mine on this issue, tweeted in reply to Peter FitzSimons at 11.36 PM on 2 July that Senator Hanson-Young said something like, 'Women wouldn't need pepper spray if men weren't rapists.' If you don't think those words are objectionable, insert a reference to another group of people instead of men and consider what it sounds like. Would it be okay to say, 'Women wouldn't need pepper spray if blacks weren't rapists'? Would it be okay to say, 'Women wouldn't need pepper spray if Muslims weren't rapists'?

Interrogation of Senator Hanson-Young's original interjection has been sadly lacking. Senator Hanson-Young has not acknowledged what she said, and not one journalist in this country has asked Senator Hanson-Young what she said. All we've had is Senator Hanson-Young denying my claim that she said something to the effect that all men are rapists. The failure of journalists to ask Senator Hanson-Young what she actually said is a sad indictment on modern journalism and modern culture. Senator Hanson-Young's failure to outline what she said also reflects poorly on her. It indicates an unwillingness to stand by her comments and be a person of her word. To inform this censure motion, I request that Senator Hanson-Young finally outline her original interjection. Let's not rely on my recollection of what Senator Hanson-Young said, nor on Senator Hinch's recollection. That would be mansplaining. Let's hear it from her. I was scorned in the media for not recounting Senator Hanson-Young's words verbatim. If Senator Hanson-Young is unable to recount her words exactly, I trust she'll be held to the same standard.

Let's move on to my interjection. In response to Senator Hanson-Young's interjection about men as rapists, I interjected to the senator that she should stop shagging men, then. This interjection was a relevant rebuttal to Senator Hanson-Young's interjection, as it makes no sense to consider men in general as rapists yet to still choose to associate with them. The Senate should note that my interjection made no reference to the frequency of sexual partners and that the term shagging has never been considered unparliamentary. The Senate should note that if relevantly pointing out that someone is heterosexual is a personal reflection, it is a particularly benign personal reflection. If such a comment is considered out of order, then much of the debate in the Senate will be out of order.

The Senate should also note the context for Senator Hanson-Young's interjection and my interjection in response. Senator Anning had just moved a motion calling on the Senate to support the right of women to have access to pepper spray if they choose, and Senator Rice from the Australian Greens had been given leave to make a short statement. In that short statement, Senator Rice said:

The last thing that women in Australia need now is another man in power telling us that we are responsible for violence against us.

As an aside, I would ask Senator Rice to reflect on her comment directed to Senator Anning suggesting that he is another man in power telling women that they are responsible for violence against them. Senator Anning did no such thing. It was around the time of Senator Rice's short statement that Senator Hanson-Young doubled down on the hyperbolic anti-male rhetoric with her interjection about man as rapists. This surely is relevant context.

Let's move onto the third statement in the sequence. Senator Hanson-Young came and stood close to me at my desk, where I was seated. She sought and obtained confirmation of my interjection and then called me a creep. Oddly, the Senate is not being asked to deem this stand-over comment as intimidating or to censure this clearly unparliamentary personal reflection. Instead, we moved to the fourth statement, in which I responded by telling the senator to 'eff off' in a quiet voice that nobody else heard. Such language is also unparliamentary, but it is not a personal reflection, and it would be a departure from practice for the Senate to attempt to regulate face-to-face conversation in the chamber unheard by any third party and unrecorded in Hansard.

Senator Hanson-Young spent July saying to friendly media outlets that I had slut-shamed her, that she would see me for defamation because of this and that her legal action was for women everywhere. Yet in August, when I received the statement of claim from Senator Hanson-Young's lawyers, my supposed slut-shaming and sexism was nowhere to be seen. Instead, this statement of claim, which limits what the defamation can be about, is accusing me of calling Senator Hanson-Young a hypocrite and misandrist. So Senator Hanson-Young has misrepresented her legal case and has accumulated significant donations based on this misrepresentation.

This censure motion prejudges my comments as defamatory and in so doing violates the separation of powers. Moreover, this censure motion continues to incorrectly imply that supposedly sexist comments by me are the subject of defamation action. They are not, and the Greens should come clean to their supporters on this misrepresentation.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted.

The President's statement yesterday appropriately addressed this issue. A censure motion is a very serious measure against a senator and is not warranted on this occasion. This motion also asserts defamation, a question that is currently sub judice. This is another reason why the government does not consider it an appropriate course of action for the Senate to take.

Seeing that Senator Leyonhjelm has tried to drag me into his—

I assume you are seeking leave to make a short statement?

Sorry. I seek leave to make a very short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Seeing that Senator Leyonhjelm is now trying to drag me into his pathetic, unapologetic excuse for his behaviour, I just want to disassociate myself totally from him and say that I totally support Senator Hanson-Young's version of what happened on that day.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute, Senator Di Natale.

It seems that Senator Leyonhjelm's defence—

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Sorry. I did not hear that. It's been pointed out by the Clerk. Leave was denied, Senator Di Natale.

An honourable senator: Who denied it?

I think Senator Bernardi has done that. This is now a matter for the chamber. I intend to—

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That the standing orders of the Senate be suspended to give precedence to the general business order of the day.

All I wanted was a couple of minutes. That's all I wanted, and we're done. Mr President, I just want a couple of minutes here. I want to make this point.

Senator Leyonhjelm's defence seems to be that he was provoked. Let's put on the record, firstly, that what Senator Leyonhjelm alleges was said is contested. Senator Hanson-Young and indeed her colleagues who heard what she said contest the nature of what Senator Leyonhjelm says was said to him. But that misses the point. It entirely misses the point. There is never an excuse for the personal, vindictive attack levelled at a colleague of the Senate. There is never an excuse under any circumstances.

What Senator Leyonhjelm did was that he attempted to humiliate and intimidate one of his fellow parliamentary colleagues. He was simply asked to apologise. Instead of apologising, he went as far as to double down. He went on to several radio and television interviews and sought to capitalise on those defamatory and sexist statements.

There is never an excuse to do what Senator Leyonhjelm did. It doesn't matter what was said to him. His response was disgraceful; it was shameful; it was sexist; it was misogynist; and it was personal. Now, we can have robust debate in this place, but there is never an excuse, both within this chamber and outside of it, to exercise so-called free speech in the manner in which Senator Leyonhjelm chose to exercise it—by vilifying, intimidating and smearing the reputation of somebody who has made an enormous contribution to this place. And, at a time when we should be making this an environment that is welcoming to all people so that we have a more representative parliament, those comments undermined everything that needs to change in this place so that we welcome more women and more diversity to ensure that this place is much more representative of the people we seek to represent.

I just want to finish by saying we did not want this to happen. We did not want it to get to this point. All we sought from the outset was an apology from Senator Leyonhjelm. Instead, he chose to besmirch the reputation of somebody who has made an enormous contribution to this country. He chose to use a sexist and derogatory attack on an individual senator, and if we can't censure a senator for those actions then there's no good in having that standing order within the provisions.

I'm opposed to this censure motion and I'm opposed to allowing the Greens to have a further platform to express what are very misleading statements, which have already been addressed, I guess, by Senator Leyonhjelm. I'm opposed to it because it draws us into a realm where, notwithstanding your ruling, it could be contested that the resolutions of this place could be used as a weapon in a court against an opponent in a legal action.

If we go down the path of censuring people for private statements that are made in this place, it opens up a can of worms from which we do not know what will emerge. I've heard a number of vile things. I've heard homophobic slurs and racist slurs from Senator Hanson-Young directed at members of the government in the past. I've called her to account for them. I've asked her to withdraw them. She has refused. She has pretended she hasn't said them. And now here we are with Senator Leyonhjelm, whether you agree with his comments or not, whether they are appropriate or not—I have said on the record it would have been better had they been withdrawn, but he said no, he wasn't going to do it—being taken to court, not on the basis of anything he has said in this chamber but for statements he has made outside of this chamber. What relevance is that to his ability to conduct his role as a senator for New South Wales?

You may think he shouldn't be here. That is up to the voters of New South Wales. You can level that accusation against all of us. But, ultimately, we are being asked to condemn someone and censure someone for making statements in this place which are protected by privilege, because they've hurt the feelings of someone else, who is, using the most polite explanation of it, inconsistent in her approach when she is on the receiving end of interjections and when she's dishing them out.

It is wholly inappropriate for this place to be engaging in the private lives or the personal conflicts between two senators that have happened outside of this place. Senator Leyonhjelm has made a very valid point. It's all good and well to get the kudos of the media and say, 'I've been slut-shamed'—using that term, or however else you want to describe it—and use that as the basis to mount a public attack on your enemies and to justify commencing defamation proceedings, and then suddenly to have those things disappear in your statement of claim which limits the defamation proceedings. I think it is inappropriate for this chamber to be moving motions such as this, because it has zero relevance to actually what happened in this chamber, because that is not part of the allegedly defamatory comments. It is not part of the lawsuit.

If we want to go down this path, we can move censure motion after censure motion about all the private conversations that take place that hurt people's feelings. I can tell you that none of us would come out particularly well from that sort of exposure of our private lives. And I would say this: Senator Hanson-Young would rate lower than most in that regard, because time and time and time again she has refused to withdraw the vile accusations that she has levelled at others. She does it and then pretends she's never done it. And yet her comments have been homophobic and they have been racist; they have belittled and humiliated individuals on the basis of their unemerged sexuality. It has been appalling. So if you want to ask all senators to abide by the same standards that Senator Leyonhjelm is being tagged with today, we are opening ourselves up to a disgraceful way of destroying what the function of this place is. That, I think, would be a great tragedy.

Since Senator Di Natale has provided me an opportunity to add to my earlier comments, I'll do so. I note that Senator Di Natale still cannot—notwithstanding the invitation in my earlier address—say what it is that he thinks is so bad about the exchange that occurred in June on the last day of sitting. Which of the four statements was sexist? Which of the four statements was misogynist? Which of the four statements slut-shamed her? Which of the four statements was demeaning and defamatory? If it wasn't what occurred within the chamber, then what are we talking about here? Are we talking about an exchange that occurred outside; comments I made in the media? Is that what we're referring to here? If we are, they are subject to a court action. We shouldn't even be considering those issues.

If we are really talking about those four expressions that I referred to in my earlier address, let's think about what else, as Senator Bernardi said, Senator Hanson-Young has engaged in. I actually had the Parliamentary Library investigate how many times Senator Hanson-Young has been required to withdraw comments in this chamber.

Big deal. That's nothing.

I acknowledge the interjection of Senator Cameron. Maybe it doesn't mean much—

Because nobody cares!

I know you would say that, because you've had quite a lot of comments of your own that you've been required to—

Senator Leyonhjelm, it is not appropriate to refer to comments that have been withdrawn. I just ask all senators in this debate to recall that.

Okay. So 26 times in her time in this Senate Senator Hanson-Young has been required to withdraw comments—and they're only the ones that were heard and were drawn to the attention of the chair. I haven't been asked to withdraw a comment at any time since I've been in here in this Senate.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Yes; if you don't hear it, you can't very well withdraw it, can you? On the behaviour we are talking about here, first of all, what Senator Di Natale has mentioned is nothing but hyperbole. He won't say what he is talking about that leads to those accusations. Senator Hanson-Young won't say what she thinks she did say—because, clearly, she did say something. If the issue is really all about what was said outside the chamber, why on earth are we talking about it here?

Senator Di Natale, given that you stated the purpose of moving that motion, I was going to ask whether you wish to withdraw the suspension of standing orders at this point.

I'm happy to withdraw now.

Is leave of the chamber granted for Senator Di Natale to withdraw that motion?

Leave granted.

The question is that motion No. 950 be agreed to.

Order! Before I call Senator Anning, I remind honourable senators that this is his first speech; therefore, I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.

Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to advise that this is finally my first speech.

On 6 February 1890, Sir Henry Parkes, the man who was to become the 'Father of our Federation', spoke to assembled delegates at the Federation Conference in Melbourne. He said:

And, in this country of Australia with such ample space, with such inviting varieties of soil and climate … and with a people occupying that soil unequalled in … nation-creating properties, what is there that should be impossible?

… … …

… we know the value of their British origin. We know that we represent a race … for the purposes of settling new colonies, which never had its equal on the face of the earth.

… … …

The crimson thread of kinship runs through us all.

The founding father of our Federation knew that it was not simply a bounteous land that makes a nation, but the common threads of inherited identity that unite its people. And what he was telling delegates and, through them, us today was that a great nation can only be the consequence of the people it comprises.

I come from the bush, born to a cattle-grazing family in far north-west Queensland. I went to school in Brisbane and then returned to the bush where I met and married the love of my life, Fiona, the girl next door—200 kilometres away! We subsequently had two beautiful daughters who, with their husbands and now our two grandchildren, live in the United States, and we miss them. Although my family had been graziers for over a 100 years, having settled in the Charters Towers area in the 1860s before there was a Charters Towers, in my early 20s, drought and predatory banks drove my wife and I off the land. Thereafter, Fiona and I spent our working lives as our children were growing up in and around regional towns over the years covering the length and breadth of the state. I've been a grazier, a builder's labourer, a pilot, a light aircraft manufacturer, a gas industry worker and a hotelier. Most recently, before entering the Senate late last year, my family and I ran a hotel in Gladstone.

Like most blokes from the bush 40 years ago, I was a committed National Party supporter. I was always a Joh man and, to this day, I regard the Joh era as Queensland's golden age. It was only the fact that the National Party abandoned Joh's legacy and moved to the left 25 years ago that led me to switch to One Nation. But that didn't work out so well. I am consequently very happy to have joined Katter's Australian Party, a genuinely democratic party in which senators and members get to vote first and foremost in accordance with their conscience and their constituents' wishes.

KAP to me represents a continuation of the conservative values, commitment to rural and regional development, opposition to migration without assimilation and a focus on economic nationalism of the Joh era Nationals, which strongly reflects my own beliefs. It is a party in which loyalty isn't a one-way street and where leadership is more than a cardboard cut-out.

As a conservative Christian, I strongly support traditional social values, but, as an Australian nationalist, I also believe in Australia and Australians first. I believe in low taxes and personal responsibility and in the virtues of hard work and thrift, reward for effort and the freedom to do and say what you think. I also believe in the right of people to raise their kids in accordance with their own values, without a bunch of nanny state meddlers and cultural Marxists trying to re-engineer them.

I believe that the key role of government is to provide laws for the enforcement of contracts, to provide physical security for businesses and individuals and to build infrastructure. I believe that the priority for government expenditure is not obligation-free handouts but nation building: providing the facilities and infrastructure which businesses and farmers need to develop and grow, which then provides for secure, well-paid jobs. I believe that ordinary working people have the right to expect a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, to keep what they have worked for, to get ahead and have a decent life, to be able to provide for themselves in old age, and to have enough to help their kids have an even better life than themselves. I believe that the unfettered ownership of private property and the right to own and use firearms, including for self-defence, are the God-given rights of free people everywhere. And I believe, as the American revolutionaries did, that government is usually the problem not the solution and that, in order for people to be free, the power of government needs to be constrained.

I remember Queensland as it was in the sixties, seventies and early eighties, when working blokes could get good, well-paying jobs actually making products for us to buy; when people could start small businesses and not be strangled by red tape; when car rego, stamp duty and rates were affordable; when electricity was the cheapest in the world; when, through statutory and orderly marketing, farmers were not bled white by rapacious corporations or forced to sell to Chinese carpetbaggers; when you could say what you thought without being charged with a crime; and when we could all enjoy our leisure time without all the nanny state restrictions and prohibitions.

Fifty years ago Australia was a cohesive, predominantly Anglo-Celtic nation. Most people thought of themselves as Christian of some sort, although most of us didn't go to church all that often. Everyone, from the cleaners to the captains of industry, had a shared vision of who we were as a people and our place in the world. Until the late 1960s, prior to the rise of Whitlam in the Labor Party, there was a broad consensus between the Liberal and Labor parties on the kind of society we were and what we should be in the future.

In the 1960s, both Liberal and Labor parties reflected a common framework of Judeo-Christian values, supporting the family as the basic unit of society. They both supported the principle that marriage was a union between a man and woman, and both parties recognised the sanctity of the lives of the unborn. Both major parties agreed that people should be free to live their own lives and say what they thought without fear of state sanction. Both sides of politics recognised the importance of our manufacturing industries as well as our farming and mining. Both parties recognised the importance of our predominantly European identity.

A key part of this great pre-Whitlam consensus was bipartisan support from both Liberal and Labor for a European based immigration program. The great Labor statesmen Ben Chifley, John Curtin and Arthur Calwell all strongly supported an immigration program that actively discriminated in favour of Europeans. Australia's greatest conservative, Sir Robert Menzies himself, said:

I don't want to see reproduced in Australia the kind of problem they have in South Africa or in America or increasingly in Great Britain. I think—

a European based immigration program has—

… been a very good policy and it's been of great value to us …

This continued until 1973 when Whitlam and his hard Left cronies adopted Soviet inspired UN treaties on discrimination and banned preferential selection of migrants based on their ethnicity.

Yet the end of the pre-Whitlam consensus between the Labor and Liberal Parties has been much more than a political sea change. It has allowed the cultural conquest of our nation. A tectonic shift has occurred in which the previously agreed social and political order has been overthrown in an insidious silent revolution.

To understand fully what has happened to our country, I believe that we must look to the work of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci's insight was to see revolution in cultural rather than economic terms, with 'cultural hegemony' as the key to supposed class dominance. The Marxist state, Gramsci argued, could be achieved by gradual cultural revolution—subverting society via a long march through the institutions. The tactics of latter-day Gramsci-inspired radicals were to disguise degeneracy as liberation and tyranny as compassion. Free speech could be eliminated by appeal to not 'offending' or 'saying things that were hurtful'. This, of course, subtly creates a subjective test by which all criticism of the cultural Marxist agenda can be silenced.

It is my understanding that Gramsci himself coined the term 'political correctness' to describe obedience to the will of the Communist Party. However he made clear that its final purpose was to force concurrence with those things which individuals knew to be false. If an individual could be induced to agree and state to others something they knew to be utterly false such as black being white, then the party had achieved total moral and ethical surrender in the subject. Thus, to describe the so-called 'safe schools' and 'gender fluidity' garbage being peddled in schools as 'cultural Marxism' is not a throwaway line but a literal truth.

Given that everyone knows there are only two genders, if you can be persuaded to agree to and advocate in support of the false claim that there are 'an infinite number of genders', then, without realizing it, you have surrendered your political soul. Today, with so many unwittingly in lock-step, marching to the cultural revolutionaries' tune, options to oppose them politically are increasingly limited. So that's why I joined Katter's Australian Party, the only political force that seeks a return to the pre-Whitlam consensus. I want to see the defeat of the cultural Marxists and their ilk and a rolling back of the subversion of Australian culture and values that they have wrought.

In terms of specifics, my political goals are:

My most immediate concern is saving agriculture in this country. Only this morning, we heard the appalling personal stories of 40 farmers and others whose family businesses were stolen and who were ruined by the criminal behavior of the major banks. This is the reason that I fought, along with my colleague Barry O'Sullivan, for a royal commission into banking. However, it has quickly become clear that the terms of reference are far too narrow and the ability of the commission to hear evidence far too limited. That is the reason that I moved earlier today to increase the time and resources of the royal commission, extend the terms of reference and consider dispute resolution processes. Those lenders and particular liquidators, receivers and administrators who have behaved contrary to any acceptable moral standard must be exposed and made to pay for their crimes. I'm happy to report that that motion got up.

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

Order in the gallery! There'll be an opportunity to congratulate Senator Anning later on.

However, this is only the first step. I also want to see a permanent end to the scourge of usury in rural lending. The banks' criminal treatment of so many farmers, which has led to the loss of family farms—owned for generations—and waves of rural suicides, must be ended once and for all.

I believe that the solution is the re-establishment of rural redevelopment state banks, along the lines of the former Queensland Industry Development Corporation established by Sir Leo Hielscher, the internationally respected former Queensland Treasury undersecretary and the architect of Queensland's Joh-era prosperity. Like the QIDC, a rural development and reconstruction state bank would not be subject to APRA lending guidelines and would be able to make lending judgments based on long-term rural property viability and not just short-term variations of commodity prices or rainfall, just like old country bank managers used to do. The RDRSB would also be empowered to buy up existing so-called 'distressed' loans from banks, saving tens of thousands of farmers from hardship and ruin. In this way, the scourge of usury in rural lending can be ended for all time.

In terms of rebuilding rural incomes, the abolition of statutory marketing boards 20 years ago has generally not seen any meaningful reduction in prices for consumers, just a net wealth transfer from farmers to middlemen and giant supermarket chains. This has driven many farmers to ruin and even suicide. I would like to see the re-establishment of orderly marketing of agricultural products via grower co-ops to allow collective bargaining by farmers for the sale of their produce. This would return to the farmers greater control of their own industries and a greater share of the retail value of their products. Collectively, these measures would go a long way to rebuild our crucial rural industries.

My next biggest concern is rural infrastructure development. First and foremost, my priority is water. Thanks to grossly inadequate water capture and storage, less than one per cent of the rainwater that falls on this continent is captured and used. Nowhere is this infrastructure failure more acute than in the bush. I want to remedy this. My first solution is to build the Bradfield scheme. In 1938, JJC Bradfield, the same civil engineer who designed both the Sydney Harbour and Story bridges, proposed a massive irrigation plan to turn the far northern rivers inland to irrigate vast areas west of the dividing range. The scheme involved diverting water from the upper reaches of the Johnson, Tully, Herbert and Burdekin rivers, which, fed by the annual monsoon, currently flow out into the ocean. Envisaged was the construction of a series of massive dams in north and western Queensland. It would also include raising the wall of the existing Burdekin Falls Dam by 14.6 metres, as intended in the original Joh-era plan, which would increase its capacity by nearly five times and droughtproof Townsville for the next century. Water accumulating was then proposed to be diverted through a tunnel under the Great Dividing Range.

When completed, the Bradfield scheme would be the greatest nation-building project this country has ever seen, totally dwarfing the Snowy scheme, and would, at a stroke, ensure the prosperity of Australia for many generations to come. This would provide employment for many tens of thousands of people and would not only ensure our own food requirements are met but also provide food for many hundreds of thousands in other countries as well. To imagine the benefits of the Bradfield proposal, we only need to see what has been achieved in places like Israel and California, both places in which virtual deserts have been transformed into enormous food bowls which help drive their respective economies.

My second infrastructure priority is ports. A key issue in determining the profitability of exports of mining and primary products is the distance they have to be carried to reach a port. In the UK, there is a port every 65 kilometres. In the most productive parts of India, its 57 kilometres. But in Queensland, it's 1,000 kilometres. Rather than taking the product to the port, the solution is to take the port to the product. Microports constructed along the Queensland coast every 60 to 80 kilometres would greatly increase the viability of exports.

And it goes without saying that I'm an enthusiastic supporter of mining, including coalmine development in the Galilee Basin. I strongly support government building the required railway to allow mining in this area to proceed. It would be the salvation of Townsville. Of course, to more effectively manage our resources with regard to proposals like the Bradfield Scheme, multiple microport construction, Galilee Basin coalmines et cetera, we have to have the political will to remove the obstacles put in the way of progress by extreme left-wing Luddites. Only by following the example of true nation-building leaders like Ben Chifley, Bob Menzies, John Curtin and Joh can we hope to provide for the security and prosperity of generations to come.

The next critical problem that we need to address is immigration. Australia currently has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world. Last Tuesday, Australia's population hit 25 million—22 years ahead of previous government predictions. That means that since 1971 the population of Australia has doubled, with immigrants now around one-third of our population. The huge numbers of people allowed to flood into Australia in recent years are unsustainable, with immigration quotas apparently set by successive governments on a whim and without any regard for the necessary infrastructure that these people would require or the ability of those that came here to assimilate.

Ethnocultural diversity, which is known to undermine social cohesion, has been allowed to rise to dangerous levels in many suburbs. In direct response, self-segregation, including white flight from poorer inner-urban areas, has become the norm. I believe that immigration to our country should be a privilege, not an obligation-free right provided to anyone from the Third World who demands it.

First, 457 visas, which simply steal jobs from Australians, should be abolished unless expressly approved by the immigration minister. This will create more jobs for Australians and end the massive rorting of these for backdoor permanent immigration. Second, 'family reunion' must be restricted to the husband or wife and/or dependent children within a family. Third, student visas should be drastically reduced in number. This will create more university places for Australians, whose parents have actually paid for the universities with their taxes in the first place. Those studying here who decide to apply to immigrate should be required to return to their country of origin after their qualification and to apply as part of the general migration program. Fourth, net immigration must be reduced to a level which can be supported and, therefore, must be set following detailed modelling and planning for the associated necessary accommodation, facilities and infrastructure. Fifth, but most important of all, diversity should be managed to remain compatible with social cohesion and national identity. We as a nation are entitled to insist that those who are allowed to come here predominantly reflect the historic European Christian composition of Australian society and embrace our language, culture and values as a people.

In order for us to remain the nation that we are now, those who come here need to assimilate and integrate. Those who are most similar to the mainstream majority in terms of ethnicity, culture, language and values most readily do so. Historically, however, the one immigrant group here and in other Western nations that has consistently shown itself to be the least able to assimilate and integrate is Muslims. The first terrorist act on Australian soil was in 1915, when two Muslim immigrants opened fire on a picnic train of innocent women and children in Broken Hill—and Muslim immigrants have been a problem ever since. To paraphrase the words of Sir Winston Churchill:

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power …

…   …   …

The influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those that follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

I believe that the reasons for ending all further Muslim immigration are both compelling and self-evident. The record of Muslims who have already come to this country in rates of crime, welfare dependency and terrorism is the worst of any migrants and vastly exceeds any other immigrant groups. A majority of Muslims in Australia of working age do not work and live on welfare. Muslims in New South Wales and Victoria are three times more likely than other groups to be convicted of crimes. We have black African Muslim gangs terrorising Melbourne. We have ISIS-sympathising Muslims trying to go overseas to fight for ISIS and, while all Muslims are not terrorists, certainly all terrorists these days are Muslims. So why would anyone want to bring more of them here?

Finally, it should go without saying that, as a nation, we are entitled to require that those who come here not only have useful work skills and qualifications but also the commitment to work and pay taxes. In truth, it appears that many of those who claim to be asylum seekers are actually just welfare seekers who only come to Australia to live on welfare in public housing at the expense of working Australians. In the days of Menzies, immigrants arriving here were not allowed to apply for welfare and that attracted exactly the right sort of hard-working people this country needed. We should go back to that and ban all immigrants receiving welfare for the first five years after they arrive.

The final solution to the immigration problem is, of course, a popular vote. We don't need a plebiscite to cut immigration numbers; we just need a government that is willing to institute a sustainable population policy, end Australian-job-stealing 457 visas and make student visas conditional on foreign students returning to the country they came from. What we do need a plebiscite for is to decide who comes here. Whitlam didn't ask the Australian people whether they wanted wholesale non-European migration when he introduced it and neither has any subsequent government. Who we allow to come here will determine what sort of nation we will have in the future, so therefore this isn't the right of any one government to decide. It's too important for that. Instead, we need a plebiscite to allow the Australian people to decide whether they want wholesale non-English speaking immigrants from the Third World and, in particular, whether they want any Muslims or whether they want to return to the predominantly European immigration policy of the pre-Whitlam consensus. I for one will be very happy to abide by their decision.

My next political objective is affordable home ownership. Home ownership is a vital social good. It not only steadily improves the net wealth of Australians but provides for a comfortable and secure retirement. It also provides an asset for us all to pass onto our children. However, thanks to foreign property speculators and spiraling demand from excessive immigration, housing prices have been absurdly inflated and, as a result, Australian home ownership levels are starting to fall. Today, first homebuyers see the dream of home ownership receding like a mirage. This disastrous state of affairs must be reversed. I would like to see a return to the policy of earlier decades in which those who were not permanent residents or Australian citizens were barred from buying residential property. In addition to a drastic immigration cut, I want to see a statutory cap on state government fees and charges, which currently make up 50 per cent of land cost, reducing them to no more than 25 per cent.

In industry, I would like to see the re-establishment of Australian manufacturing via a collaborative relationship between pro-business unions and business leaders, as occurred in Germany in the aftermath of World War II. Konrad Adenauer's postwar German economic miracle, which ultimately led to both high wages and high profits for companies, is a model for the re-industrialisation of Australia and a means to return to widespread employment in secondary industry. While Australian wages mean that we cannot compete on price with Third World slave labour manufacturers, we should not need to. First, products of high quality and value can already be produced and sold successfully despite paying reasonable wages. A classic example of this is RM Williams. Second, to help re-establish Australian manufacturing, import restrictions on certain classes of goods should also be considered, following the example of Taiwan, which successfully transitioned from a rural tea-growing province to a manufacturing dynamo with high wage levels. As Australian icon Dick Smith has asked: are Australians prepared to pay a bit more for manufactured goods if it means that their kids will have a job? I think so. That is what I'm asking the Australian people to do so that we can rebuild our manufacturing industries and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing.

I also have fiscal objectives. I'd like to see a drastic cut in government spending and borrowing, but, with around 50 per cent of the budget now consumed by welfare, no spending reform is possible without welfare reform. The age pension should be quarantined from any cuts, however. Instead, reform needs to begin with working-class income replacement welfare. We constantly hear that Australia has less than six per cent unemployment when, in fact, this is simply false. If we count the legions of professional freeloaders who are of working age and have settled into a life without work, on pensions, we actually have around 20 per cent paid unemployment in this country. Welfare needs to be a safety net for those of us who are temporarily in need of income support. If people of working age receive a pension from the state, then they have opted out of the workforce permanently and expect everyone else to carry them for life. I believe this is unsustainable and totally un-Australian. Unless we are going to follow the path of Greece, we need to stop finding new ways to give handouts and start increasing workforce participation. The best form of welfare is a job, and massive investment in nation-building infrastructure is the first step to helping to create jobs.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, I want to see a cultural counter-revolution to restore a central role for traditional values, to redefine our national identity and to create a new social contract between the governing and the governed. So many of the anti-democratic controls on our liberty, on the restriction of free speech, on our ability to decide who comes to this country and on the outpouring of foreign aid have been driven by the gross abuse of the external affairs powers in section 51 of the Constitution. Since Whitlam—and clearly contrary to the intent of our founding fathers—the external affairs powers given to the Commonwealth to sign treaties with other nations has been abused to overrule other provisions of the Constitution and override other laws made by our own democratically elected representatives. I do not only want to withdraw from these UN treaties but want to counter the dictatorial intent of the successors of Whitlam with an amendment to section 51 of the Constitution. This needs to specifically prohibit the signing of any treaty contrary to any other provision of the Constitution or existing Australian laws.

More broadly, however, what we need is a cultural reconquest of our own country to take back Australia from Gramsci-inspired left-wing elites that have subverted the very basis of our society, for in the end what is Australia? What makes Australia a nation is not the happenstance of shared geography but what unites us: our common history, values, language and ethnicity, our common culture and our shared vision of our future as a people. Ethnicity is not just skin-deep. More than anything else, it is our ethnoreligious identity that defines us and shapes our national identity.

Few nations are fortunate enough to have so condensed their national character in so short a space of time that, 60 years after Federation, all who lived here, from children to old men, from paupers to Prime Ministers, could have a shared understanding of who we were that crossed the political divide. But today all that is rapidly unraveling, and we stand now at the turn of the tide. The great cohesive vision of our nation's founding fathers, all that those who came before us struggled to build, all that our fathers and grandfathers fought wars to defend, stands at hazard as the stranglehold of the Gramsci-ite elites on our institutions, political organisations and the media continues to tighten.

Now, on the brink of irreversible change, it is time for us to decide whether we as a people will rise up against this, hold fast to the crimson threads of kinship that define and unite us and strive once more for the light on the hill or concede the field to enemies of Western civilization and see all that we were and all that we might yet have become fall away to ruin.

I present additional information received by committees as listed in item 13 of today's order of business in relation to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and Economics References Committee presentation of documents.

On behalf of Senator Macdonald, chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the 2018-19 budget estimates together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate adjourned.

I don't know if this is going to be helpful, but I think it might be helpful in the bigger picture. There is ongoing confusion around the way documents are listed. When people read documents, they look at all of what's on page 5 and think you can do it there at item 12, consideration of documents. That's where I think we are getting caught up. Perhaps I could make a suggestion about making that a bit clearer on the Red in the future, because I think it happens more often than just this time.

Thank you, Senator Siewert. Just for the benefit of the Senate, it was made clear that we were dealing with item 12, the consideration of documents, which was items 1 to 5 on page 5 of the Notice Paper. We've been through that. Then we were moving to the committee reports, which are items 1 to 15 on pages 5 and 6 of the Notice Paper. The practice is to have all of these reports tabled. Senator Williams had tabled three of them, then there were another two documents to be tabled: one from Senator Singh, one from Senator Ketter. Then there was another one from Senator Di Natale and Senator Smith. Then we can take note of those documents. That's generally how it works. Then we'll move on to taking note of those. What I'm seeking is for the tabling of these additional documents, if someone would like to do that. Senator Ketter, you had one to table. If you can table that, I'll come back to you in a moment.

I present the report of the Economics References Committee on a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker, South Australia, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

On behalf of Senator Smith, the Chair of Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 474, the annual report of 2017-18, as well as executive minutes and responses on various reports. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

On behalf of the Chair of Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present a corrigendum to the report of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement on its inquiry into crystal methamphetamine (ice).

I present the government's response to the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2018. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Australian Government Response to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee report: Inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2018

July 2018

Introduction

The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's (the Committee) report on its Inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2018 (the Bill).

The Bill establishes a two-year trial to randomly drug test 5,000 new recipients of Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance (Other) with the following parameters:

- Mandurah, Western Australia

On 22 March 2018, the Senate referred the provisions of the Bill to the Committee for inquiry with the report tabled on 7 May 2018. The Committee received 52 submissions and held public hearings in Bass Hill, New South Wales on 23 April 2018 and Logan Central, Queensland on 24 April 2018.

Feedback to the Committee raised a range of issues including the evidence base for conducting the trial, consultation with relevant stakeholders, the basis for trial site selection, the availability of treatment services in the trial sites, the operation of the Treatment Fund, Income Management, privacy of information, and methodology of the trial.

Having considered the feedback, in its tabled report the Committee recommended that:

1. The Department of Social Services should establish and publish the evaluation strategy of the drug testing trial prior to the commencement of the trial.

2. The Department of Social Services publish the outcomes of the drug testing trial after it has been completed.

3. The Bill be passed.

The Australian Government supports all of the Committee's recommendations.

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

Inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2018

Recommendations made by the Committee

1. The Committee recommended that the Department of Social Services should establish and publish the evaluation strategy of the drug testing trial prior to the commencement of the trial.

Government Response: Supported.

The Government will establish and publish an evaluation strategy prior to the trial's commencement. The Department of Social Services is preparing to engage and commission an independent consultancy to develop the evaluation strategy, subject to the passage of legislation. The evaluation strategy will provide the framework for the evaluation and will be designed in conjunction with stakeholders through submissions and workshops that will be held in each trial location to facilitate local input. An Evaluation Steering Committee will be established to guide the work of the evaluation and will include representatives with drug and alcohol expertise.

The evaluation strategy will aim to determine which aspects of the trial have been successful in addressing welfare recipients' substance abuse and barriers to employment. Broadly, the evaluation will examine the effect of the trial on identifying income support recipients with illicit drug misuse issues in the three trial sites, and supporting them to address those issues through Income Management and referral to treatment where appropriate.

2. The Committee recommended that the Department of Social Services publish the outcomes of the drug testing trial after it has been completed.

Government Response: Supported.

The Department of Social Services will commission an independent consultancy to conduct an evaluation in parallel with the trial and will publish the findings after the conclusion of the trial.

3. The Committee recommended that the BM be passed.

Government Response: Supported.

The Bill will establish a trial of drug testing for 5,000 new recipients of Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance (other) and will occur in three locations:

The trial will assess the use of drug testing as a means of identifying job seekers with substance abuse issues that may be preventing them from finding a job, and supporting them to address these barriers through interventions such as Income Management and referral to appropriate treatment.

This trial is complemented by other measures that the Government has implemented through the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Act 2018 to address substance misuse, including the removal of exemptions from mutual obligations due to drug and alcohol use and the tightening of reasonable excuses for non-compliance due to drug and alcohol related reasons which commenced on 1 July 2018. Additionally, since 1 January 2018, drug or alcohol addiction treatments/interventions (including rehabilitation) can be undertaken as an approved activity that counts towards Annual Activity Requirements for Streams A and B job seekers. These measures are designed to support individuals with substance abuse issues to seek treatment and address these barriers to employment.

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

Government Response: Noted.

The following addresses key concerns raised in the dissenting reports.

Concerns about evidence to support the trial

The dissenting Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee reports raised concerns about evidence to support the establishment of a trial of drug testing, claiming that the trial is not an evidence-based approach to assisting people with substance abuse disorders. Both dissenting reports criticise the trial as an overly simplistic approach to the complexity of drug use and unemployment.

The Government considers there is no safe level of illicit drug usage, whether recreational or not. Tax-payer funded welfare payments should not be used to fund illicit drug use—occasional or otherwise.

The model proposed in the Bill has not been tried before. This measure has been designed as a trial and a comprehensive evaluation will be undertaken in parallel with the trial to assess the effectiveness of drug testing in the Australian welfare context.

Concerns about the cost of the drug testing trial

The Australian Labor Party dissenting report raised concerns about the cost of drug testing and that the Government has not yet disclosed the cost of the trial.

Due to the commercial sensitivities associated with the procurement activities that will be required to implement the trial, the financial impacts of the drug testing trial are not for publication at this stage. The Government intends to approach the market to engage a suitable drug testing provider or providers to deliver the required range of drug testing methods, and under Government procurement requirements, will seek best value for money. Additionally, the evaluation of the trial will consider the effectiveness of drug testing in the Australian welfare context.

Concerns regarding availability of treatment services and workforce resourcing in trial sites

The dissenting Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee reports raised concerns about the timely access to treatment for job seekers under the trial as well as the resource capability, including funding and staff, of treatment services in the trial sites to meet anticipated additional demand.

In order for the trial to be robust and successful, sites were selected with varying profiles and appropriate support services. Further to this, the Government is committing up to $10 million for a dedicated treatment fund to provide additional funding for support services in the three locations. The $10 million Treatment Fund comprises three elements:

The Australian Greens dissenting report also raised concerns about the expenses of opioid substitution therapy to job seekers as part of the trial. Under the trial, the financial costs of undertaking treatment recommended by a medical professional will not be borne by job seekers, but will be funded by state or Commonwealth funding or via the Treatment Fund in circumstances where services are not able to be accessed in a timely manner.

Concerns about unintended consequences

The dissenting Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee reports raised concerns about unintended consequences as a result of the trial, such as increases in crime and the proliferation of undetectable drugs. The dissenting report by the Australian Greens also raised concerns about a potential increase in stigmatisation and poverty.

As far as possible these risks have been considered and are being managed through the design of the trial. For example, the Secretary must determine that a person should not be subject to Income Management under the trial if the Secretary becomes aware of circumstances that lead them to believe this would pose a serious risk to a person's mental or physical wellbeing.

Additionally, implementation committees involving local stakeholders will be established in each trial location to ensure that any issues are captured and understood in real time as the measure is rolled out. A comprehensive evaluation of the drug testing trial, including impacts and outcomes for job seekers, will commence during the trial period. This approach will capture any unintended consequences in real time, allowing them to be handled promptly. The Evaluation Steering Committee will include representatives with drug and alcohol expertise and will provide additional oversight.

Concerns about stakeholder engagement and lack of community support

The dissenting Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee reports raised concerns about the engagement undertaken by the Government with relevant stakeholders.

The Department of Social Services has engaged with more than 170 stakeholders at more than 60 forums and meetings around Australia and in the three trial sites. Following the announcement of the drug testing trial in the 2017-18 Budget, the Department of Social Services met with local councils in each trial site, the relevant Primary Health Networks, national and state-based peak bodies for the community sector, employment service providers, and the drug and alcohol treatment sector. Public information sessions designed to inform stakeholders about the trial and facilitate feedback were conducted in each trial site by the Department of Social Services in partnership with the Department of Jobs and Small Business and the Department of Human Services. The Government has responded to the feedback received, for example by establishing the $10 million in funding for a Treatment Fund to meet any additional treatment demands as a result of the trial, including the $1 million for case management. This engagement will continue throughout the operation of the trial.

Regarding the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's inquiry into current and future regulatory requirements that impact on the safe, commercial and recreational use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Aerial Systems and associated systems, I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Senator Williams, you've jumped the gun, but leave is granted. I'm going back to Senator Patrick, who requested to make a comment on one of the tabled reports.

Debate adjourned.

by leave—I take note of the report into the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. I'd like to thank the committee for the work it did in relation to this particular inquiry. I'd also like to thank the secretariat, who did a fantastic job behind the scenes. In general, I support the findings of the committee. However, I don't feel that they go far enough. Out of my responsibility to the communities of Kimba and Hawker, I now wish to add to some of the findings of the report.

Centre Alliance accepts that Australia has a responsibility to safely and securely manage radioactive waste from the production of nuclear medicine to a range of nuclear based scientific and industrial purposes. Inherent in that acceptance is the fact we need to have a facility. However, to have a facility we simply have to make sure that that facility comes by way of community consent—that's really, really important.

I think the process we've gone through is flawed for a number of reasons. The government commenced the site selection process with a commitment to obtain broad community support. The National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 does not require that, but the minister made a statement and made a commitment that that's what he would do. However, when they first tested the waters on this, they found that the broad community support was wanting, so they increased their persuasion efforts. They set out to inform the community. I have no problem with that, but they only sent experts that shared the government's perspective. Contrary views from very well respected academics and professionals were not presented. It was sort of a Soviet mode of, 'Please don't think your government will do that for you and then tell you what you need to know.' They then sought to inform by taking people across to ANSTO. I don't mind the fact they did that. That was quite generous of the government. However, they went beyond a reasonable brief when they extended state funded trips to include things like dinner cruises on Sydney Harbour. They sought to encourage the community through a multimillion-dollar community benefit program and then tripled the benefit when they sensed that their encouragement was failing. A fair process must not only be fair; it must be seen to be fair. On this count, it fails.

The minister in some sense also hedged his bet. The department made a submission to this inquiry and made a very strong point that it wasn't a requirement of the act to have broad community support. However, the minister did make that statement, and people repose confidence and trust in what ministers say. If they say something, we anticipate they will honour what they have said.

Unfortunately, we have ended up with a situation where we don't have broad community support in Kimba or in Hawker; we have a very divided community. The minister has sought to, in some sense, alleviate the concerns of the community by running an AEC vote. The AEC, a very reputable entity here in Australia, is in some sense being used to establish legitimacy of the pathway that the government's taking us on. I recall back in this chamber, in March last year, then Senator Xenophon asked the minister at question time what he thought that broad community support was and the minister basically said:

We had taken forward a proposal from the Hawker region—Senator Xenophon might be aware of that—where support was at 65 per cent. We have not put a definitive figure on broader community support, for the reason that it is not just about the overall figure; we would need a figure in the range of the support we received in Hawker.

But the minister appears to have walked away from that now. Broad community support will mean whatever the minister wants it to mean. To twist a phrase from Joseph Stalin, 'It is not the people who vote that count; it is the people who interpret the meaning of the count.' Having visited the communities of both Hawker and Kimba during the inquiry, they are bitterly divided. The process has polarised the community and there's likely to be ill feeling for many years to come. It's my view that, unless a 65 per cent vote in favour of the facility is achieved and all adjoining neighbours are in agreement and the Aboriginal community are on board, the government must look to alternative sites. The distinguishing mark of 'comrade minister' is the AEC vote, the instrument with which he does all his mischief.

The process of finding a permanent solution for storing and disposing of Australia's low-level radioactive waste began in the 1970s. It has taken at least four decades to get to the point where we are now. If one of the Hawker or Kimba sites is selected, the government intends to move intermediate-level waste to any newly-built facility as a temporary measure until an intermediate-level waste disposal facility is built. It is anticipated a similar process will be undertaken to identify and select a site for an intermediate-level waste disposal facility. In reality, that means intermediate-level waste will be at the low-level facility for decades. It's probably reasonable for nuclear scientists, who think in radioactive half-lives, to think 40 years is temporary, but that's not what the community thinks. Intermediate waste can and is being stored at Lucas Heights. ARPANSA's Chief Regulatory Officer, Mr Jim Scott, told the committee that they can't put the waste there because the ANSTO Act doesn't allow that to occur. But he didn't elaborate the fact that the act could be changed. Why do we need to do a double movement here? We have a facility right next to a reactor that could take that waste and store it safely until such time as a facility is available.

In some sense, I think we need to be very honest about what's happening here. We've got a facility that the minister would like to resolve—he said in the media that he'd like to have this whole thing resolved prior to the next election. That indicates there's a political taint to all of this. There is no point in having this facility as a site that will cause so much angst. There are alternatives. There is Crown land, for example. There are a number of places where this facility could go. There's also a proposal before the minister for a site in Western Australia, where the community may well be much happier to take this, and broad community support could be achieved.

The committee have done a very good job with this report. They've laid out all of the facts. They've made some very solid recommendations. But I think we need to be very careful. In my view this process, particularly because the minister simply will not give the criteria by which he will make his decision, has become a sham. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

I rise to add some comments in relation to this committee report as well. Of course, the Australian Greens have had a very proud and long history raising serious concerns about how successive federal governments have intended to impose a national nuclear waste dump on various communities. Let me be absolutely clear: it seems that time and time again the Commonwealth continues to try and put these dumps in areas where there is strong community opposition, particularly from First Australians, with a hope—perhaps a naive hope—that, because it's in the outback, it's out of sight, out of mind. The views of those Aboriginal communities are not as important as, indeed, if the debate were being held about whether the dump was going into the northern, western, eastern or southern suburbs of a capital city.

As a South Australian, I'm extremely concerned about the impact of having a national nuclear waste dump in South Australia, and, particularly when the government has not been up-front with the community about the impact that this dump will have, the type of waste that this dump will hold. For a long time the federal government refused to accept, acknowledge or be honest about the fact that intermediate waste would be stored in these facilities—we now know that is well and truly the case—and even then, despite that, not stored properly. It is temporary storage, which begs the question: where will it go after that? It seems ludicrous to go through this whole process only to be storing intermediate level waste in an inappropriate manner for what is deemed to be 'temporary'. Let's be clear about what 'temporary' means. The minister himself, on ABC Radio in South Australia some weeks ago, said that 'temporary' meant 100 years. For 100 years the outback in South Australia—the Flinders Ranges—could be hosting intermediate level waste above ground. This is just a dangerous and ludicrous proposition.

South Australia has a proud history of beautiful ecotourism and celebrating its outback environment. The idea that we would turn the Flinders Ranges of all places into a nuclear waste dump is just gobsmacking. South Australians won't accept it. We don't like it, we're not going to accept it and we will fight it all the way. This report as tabled by the committee and the dissenting report tabled by me representing the Greens make it very clear that the fight over this location of a nuclear waste dump is far from over.

We know the communities in both Hawker and Kimba have been torn apart by this process. They are hurting. They feel manipulated. They feel undermined. They've had neighbour turn against neighbour in relation to this issue. It has been the absolute opposite of generating community consensus. This issue and the way it has been managed by the federal government—the dishonesty, the mismanagement and the heavy-handedness—have torn families apart. The local traditional owners in both Kimba and Hawker are strongly opposed to having a nuclear waste dump. In fact, when I was out in Hawker some weeks ago visiting locals there, talking to local business owners, tourism operators and members of the Aboriginal communities, it was quite clear how concerned people are. I was shocked to learn that one of the locations where the government wants to put a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges is on a secret women's site. What is even more horrifying is that, of course, the land that has been nominated is part-owned by former Liberal Senator Grant Chapman. He's put up his property for an option to host the dump. There was no consultation with his neighbours.

This hosting of a nuclear waste dump on a sacred women's site in the Flinders Ranges is just abhorrent. I must say it has echoes of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge saga. Of course, it was the same family—the Chapman family in South Australia—who pushed for the creation of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge despite it impacting on a sacred women's site. Fast-forward, and all of these years later we have culturally significant land in the Flinders Ranges, important to the local Indigenous population—particularly women—now being handed up as the place to put radioactive waste. No wonder this is causing extreme angst in the Hawker community.

This is not to mention the impact that it is going to have on the local tourism in that area. The Flinders Ranges are beautiful. It is an untouched wilderness. People come from all over the world to see the Flinders Ranges and to spend time there. It's something that South Australians are extremely proud of. And yet this government wants to turn it into a radioactive waste dump.

The other location that has been flagged in South Australia, of course, is Kimba, smack bang in the middle of prime agricultural land. South Australia has a green, clean grain reputation. The idea of putting a nuclear waste dump—radioactive waste—in the middle of where we export our grain from is a slap in the face to the industry in South Australia and to the communities who rely on it. Again, there is no community consensus and no social licence. There is just heavy-handedness from this government.

The Greens will fight this all the way from the federal perspective and from the state perspective, because we don't want this radioactive waste dumped in the Flinders Ranges. We don't want it dumped on our prime agricultural land. We certainly don't want the ports of Port Pirie, Whyalla and Port Lincoln turned into highways of ships full of radioactive waste. It has now been admitted by this government that this will happen if these dumps are created.

These ports and these port communities in our state have every right to have their say on this issue too, and yet they've been locked out of the process, kept in the dark and told that everything will be A-OK and doesn't affect them. It is simply abhorrent that the South Australian community is being treated like this. We have fought, as a South Australian community, a national waste dump in our backyard before and we won, and we will do it again. Make no mistake, this fight has only just started.

I too rise to take note of this very important report and put some perspective into the South Australian position. Clearly, Senator Hanson-Young has articulated the Greens' party position, but I'd just like to take the opportunity to recommend to senators who are interested in this matter to read the evidence. You need to read the evidence. This is a very challenging process that's been ongoing for some 45 years. Sooner or later we're going to get the solution to it. I do believe that the community that shows broad agreement will be economically beneficial in this process.

On the tourism argument, the simple fact is the most visited place on the planet is the country of France, with 83-odd million tourists per annum and with an increase of eight per cent last year. There are 18 nuclear reactors in operation every day. That's a high level of nuclear waste under the region of Champagne. Last time I looked, people were still buying champagne. The position that we will not have tourism and we will not have agriculture is a really unfortunate one to put, because clearly the evidence is against that.

We can look at the geology. I was startled to be made aware that, despite concerns raised about the geological soundness or appropriateness of the Hawker site, Canberra is actually more geologically unsound—Hawker sits behind Canberra. That's what Geoscience Australia's evidence is saying.

The simple fact is we have 225 radioactive shipments each week in Australia. That's not low-level waste; that's radioactive shipments each week. Our transport industry is more than capable of doing it successfully and safely—that is our lived experience. Eighty per cent of those shipments will be used in better imaging and radioactive isotopes for medical imaging. The other 30 per cent, I believe, is used for cancer treatments. No-one is going to forgo the opportunity to have a better medical outcome or a better cancer treatment.

We, as a country, simply need to deal with this problem. I accept it's a very challenging problem. I was at the hearings. Unfortunately, Senator Hanson-Young's diary didn't allow her to go to Hawker and/or Kimba and hear the evidence directly. I heard the evidence from our Indigenous communities, and it's fair to say they haven't been treated appropriately in the process. That's not shied away from in the report; that's a recommendation of the report.

It's also fair to say that, like the rest of the community, there's a divergence of view in this matter. There are some people in Indigenous communities who support an outcome which will allow training and Indigenous employment and there are other people saying that it's totally abhorrent. I accept that as evidence. The minister's got to work his way through that, and, if there is broad community consultation, then there'll be an acceptable outcome.

I'd like to go to the issue of the dump and the waste. The evidence is this: within two metres of a low-level radioactive shipment, you'll get the same amount of radioactive exposure as you would eating a banana. That's what the evidence says. If you eat a banana or you're two metres away from a radioactive waste shipment, you will get the same level of exposure. So let's not try and pretend that this is going to be an outcome that is detrimental to a community that accepts it. At the moment we do tranship—out of Port Pirie, Whyalla and all of those places in South Australia—extremely volatile mining chemicals. They are probably equally as dangerous as radioactive waste, and the volume is much more, but we do it safely because that's what transport does. There are always appropriate protocols and security. So I don't regard low-level waste—or whatever waste—as being particularly challenging to the transport industry, because that's not the evidence. There are fly ash and acid B-doubles on the road to Roxby Downs 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I used to look after 150 drivers that did it. They got paid well and they did it safely and with very few incidents.

I don't have the same view as the Greens party on this, clearly, but I do have this broad view that wherever it goes, it needs to have good, solid support and it needs to have really good economic outcomes. I think that's achievable and, no matter which government it is, it will have to happen. In South Australia, we shouldn't shy away from the fact that we have four—I think it's four—of the five producers of uranium in the country. If we're going to take the benefits of production, it's a bit rich to say we want nothing to do with the end product. With those few short words, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

I was fortunate enough to be the coalition senator participating on this particular inquiry. It was interesting to listen to Senator Hanson-Young's contribution, because you could think we were in two different places. I did travel to Kimba and I did travel to Hawker, and let me put on record the very warm reception that the committee got. That's not to deny that there were differences of opinion in those particular communities but, can I say, I was particularly surprised by, in some places, the strength of the community support to want to act responsibly in dealing with what is a very, very significant and national issue. So I extend my thanks for the warmth and hospitality that the communities and residents of both Hawker and Kimba showed me and the committee.

For those people who want to know, in a relatively short period of time, why this is absolutely critical, they only have to go to paragraphs 1.10, 1.12 and 1.13 of the committee report. From the coalition's perspective, we have put some additional comments on the record but don't oppose the final view that the committee has come to, as demonstrated in the report. Our additional comments go to the issues of community sentiment, Indigenous support and financial compensation, as well as some general comments around the site selection process.

In response to Senator Hanson-Young's very colourful contributions, it is worth noting that radioactive waste is already spread among more than 100 sites across Australia, including five sites within 200 kilometres of the township of Kimba and eight sites within 200 kilometres of Wallerberdina Station. As was put on the record, and as is demonstrated in the variety of information that was made available to local residents, that has resulted in no impact on local or regional farming products and no impact on local or regional farming pricing or reputation. That, I think, is a very, very critical point.

I totally appreciate—and those of us who have been around Australian politics long enough know—that this is exactly the sort of issue that the Australian Greens like to get colourful about and like to create adverse and cataclysmic environments around. But, can I say, this is a very responsible way to address an issue that is with us already and that is not going away: the two major parties of government, whether the Labor Party or the coalition, are committed to dealing with this issue responsibly. I think this report is an important first step in coming to a resolution on what a final site will look like.

For the record, I will read into the Hansard what paragraphs 1.10, 1.12 and, most particularly, 1.13 say. Paragraph 1.10 states:

While the Australian community benefits from the production—

Already benefits—

of nuclear medicine and nuclear research activities, there is also a responsibility to safely and securely manage the associated radioactive waste products from its generation, through interim storage solutions and ultimately to permanent disposal. The process for finding a permanent solution for storing and disposing of Australia's radioactive waste began in the 1970s and is ongoing.

The question for Senator Hanson-Young is whether or not the Australian Greens want to be involved actively, responsibly, in finding a solution or whether they want to harp from the sidelines. Paragraph 1.12 says:

Presently, there is no disposal pathway for stored Australian radioactive waste, including the waste stored at Lucas Heights. The approach favoured by the Australian Government is to establish a dedicated National Radioactive Waste Management Facility …

The paragraph goes on to quote the department of industry that says:

Successive Australian Governments have recognised the efficiency, safety and security benefits that are derived from the centralised management of our radioactive waste holdings in a state-of-the-art special purpose facility.

Finally, and this is particularly important to put to bed some of the scaremongering that we recently heard from Senator Hanson-Young, paragraph 1.13 says:

A central NRWMF would permanently house the government's legacy and future streams of low-level radioactive waste along with holdings of other entities where these meet strict acceptance criteria. The NRWMF would also store, on an interim basis, Australia's relatively modest holdings of intermediate-level waste. Australia does not produce or store any high-level radioactive waste, and any such waste would not be accepted at the NRWMF. Further, no foreign waste will be accepted at the NRWMF.

This has all the ingredients of an issue that the Greens would love to scaremonger on, create disunity and divide communities over, but the choice is a simple one. They can either engage in a national conversation, a responsible dialogue, to find a suitable answer to this issue that is not going away—it will beset future governments—or they can continue to harp from the sidelines. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I table a nonconforming petition. I advise the chamber that it has been submitted through the normal processes and has been approved by the whips. The petition contains 5,539 signatures of members of the Finance Sector Union of Australia and members of the community. This petition deals with improvement to financial regulation.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to take note of the interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. The committee has been tasked with finding a way to advance the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in ways which could be supported by Australians from all walks of life and contribute to a more unified and reconciled nation. My co-chair, the member for Berowra, Mr Leeser, and I have taken on this responsibility with a shared commitment. We have listened carefully to the repeated ongoing calls for true recognition to empower First Nations communities. In our hearings, we have heard the deep level of frustration in the community about the length of time it has taken to deliver constitutional recognition of our First Nations peoples. We remain committed to working with our colleagues from across the political spectrum to help shape a way forward for the parliament and the Australian people to consider.

I thank my Senate colleagues Senator McCarthy, Senator Duniam, Senator Siewert and Senator Stoker for their contribution and also our colleagues in the other place Ms Ley, Mr Llew O'Brien and Independent member Cathy McGowan. The secretariat have been impressive, and their commitment and dedication is appreciated.

In my view, the interim report takes some small but important steps towards the greater recognition of First Nations peoples. It does three essential things. Firstly, the report highlights that the lack of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative perspectives in policy and legislation formulation is undermining the good intentions aimed at improving education, health, economic and criminal justice outcomes. These persistent failures, highlighted in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, were termed 'the torment of our powerlessness'.

Secondly, it accepts the invitation articulated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart to work together towards the establishment of a First Nations voice to address the structural disempowerment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and enable them to have a greater say in their affairs.

Thirdly, it hears and considers the call to provide a constitutional guarantee by way of referendum to entrench an enabling power to establish a voice to the parliament.

It also outlines the committee's aspirations for our work during the second half of our inquiry and puts some important questions for consideration, particularly in chapter 7.

While the Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for a First Nations voice, it surprised many that it is in keeping with international movements by nation-states and First Nations peoples towards greater self-determination for indigenous populations, as agreed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. International experience tells us that First Nations voices can be a form of recognition with a real potential to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and improve socioeconomic outcomes without challenging the primacy of parliament. In most cases it enhances its capacity and ability towards mutually beneficial outcomes for the nation.

With appropriate design, it would not be a third chamber of the parliament, as some have claimed. Instead, it may enable and empower First Nations peoples to have a chance to provide advice on policies and legislation that we make in this parliament and possibly create better outcomes for the future. It is clear that the effectiveness of and support for a First Nations voice will critically depend on its design and functions. Moving forward on these questions is a major task for our committee.

There is clear support in First Nations communities for a voice grounded in local representation, feeding up advice into regional and national elements. Many of the challenges faced by people in their day-to-day lives, however, do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Australian parliament. To be effective, a First Nations voice, we have been told, should operate at all three levels: local, state and territory, and national. The committee heard that a First Nations voice should be made up of elected representatives with a balance of gender. It should defer to cultural authority and also remain inclusive of those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders displaced from their ancestral homes. The function and operation of the voice will require further fleshing out in the work of the committee.

The Referendum Council recommended that a First Nations voice should advise the parliament in relation to the heads of powers in section 51(xxvi) and section 122 of the Constitution—the race power and the territories power. Others sought a broader advice ambit to formally interact with the policymaking process as early as possible in the cycle. There are mixed views on how to make sure that governments give advice due consideration. They argue that it is not enough to have a voice if the governments continue not to listen. It is clear that the final design of any voice must be built through cooperative co-design.

Our committee have met with First Nations peoples in places across Australia in the last four months, and we have many places we wish to visit yet. In the central west of New South Wales in the town of Dubbo, we heard from Mr Des Jones from the Murdi Paaki Regional Assembly. When asked about the proposed voice, he said:

We have to have a representative body. The voice within that body must come from the people. It must be the people's voice.

One of the major issues facing the committee that we will need to work through over the next months is the question of constitutional entrenchment of the voice. Legislative advisory bodies have a chequered history, with the risk of being abolished should they fall foul of the government of the day. It was the strong view of the Uluru statement that any voice needed to be entrenched in our nation's founding documents through a change in the Constitution agreed through referendum. However, we need to work through the issue of what questions should be put to the people and whether, in order to build support, it would be sensible to legislate first and then, after experience shows the voice to be effective, put the question to the people. Others argued a different view and encouraged that the question of the voice should go to referendum now and be first in the order of things to do. This is an issue that we will continue to work through in the months ahead.

Our interim report also considers the Uluru Statement from the Heart's call for the establishment of a makarrata commission to oversee truth-telling and agreement-making. Such a proposal also has a long history. In 1983, the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs delivered the report Two hundred years later, which looked into the compact, or makarrata, between the Commonwealth government and Australian Aboriginals. I gave evidence to that committee 45 years ago, and we are still trying to achieve this goal.

We cannot honestly be celebrating our shared national history without also acknowledging the depth of our often tragic and bitterly contested past and working together to resolve the issues. The committee has more work to do over the next months. We will be undertaking further consultations and travelling to other parts of Australia to speak to both First Nations peoples and other Australians. In the Kimberley region, where I am from, we met with Neil Carter, from the Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Culture Centre. Neil's words were:

To move forward, we need to heal the past wrongs that have been done to our people and to have a voice in Canberra at the federal level so that we can deal with those past wrongs. That's what our elders are looking at. If you're going to have constitutional recognition of our voice in parliament, that's the sort of thing that can make us all a stronger people, white and black.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to acknowledge and thank everyone who's worked with us on this inquiry to this point and I encourage them to continue their contribution to the work of the committee. By working together, with our different starting points, we may, at long last, reach a landmark on a long and difficult road. I commend the interim report to the Senate.

I too rise to take note of the interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. From the outset, I would like to commend the co-chair, Senator Patrick Dodson, and Julian Leeser MP for their shared commitment in delivering this report. I also commend my other Senate colleagues on the committee and our colleagues in the other house for their work.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge that we are here on the traditional lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples. I believe most sincerely that, with the numerous submissions—over 400 submissions—and the witnesses that have come to the inquiry to date, which heartened me deeply, this parliament of our country, both the Senate and the House, will navigate a way in harnessing the hearts that are coming together, giving advice, giving constructive criticism but also giving a vision for the future of our country in a way that we can reflect on and say, 'Are we bold enough, are we brave enough, to take the steps that can and must unite our country?'

As Senator Dodson said in March this year, the Australian parliament appointed our committee to build on the work—not to replicate the work but to build on the work—of the 2015 joint select committee, the 2012 expert panel, the 2017 referendum council report and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Pinpointing the beginning of the reconciliation movement is difficult, but it includes the 1967 referendum, the Northern Territory Land Rights Act, Vincent Lingiari, the Racial Discrimination Act, the Barunga Statement, the Redfern Statement, Mabo, the Native Title Act, the Bringing them home report, the stolen generations and the Sorry Day marches, Closing the Gap and now constitutional recognition and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. When it is listed like that, it is clear to see the tremendous amount of positive work that generations of Australians, those still with us today and those who've long gone, have contributed to our country. The committee's role is to pull all of that work together to work towards a model for recognition, for truth-telling, for respect and reconciliation. I do commend the members of that committee.

It is wonderful to travel the country with members of all sides and really examine this in a very sincere and genuine way to say to the Australian people, both black and white, that this parliament takes this path very seriously. This decades-long history of work towards recognition, truth-telling and reconciliation shows there is an enormous amount of goodwill in our nation, and our committee is hearing this. We urge Australians in the coming months to continue to come forward to our committee with your submissions to guide our parliament here on the lands of the Ngambri people. This process won't be easy and may not be pretty either, but it certainly will be worth it. It will be worth the hard conversations that challenge people to think truthfully about our nation's history and, even more preciously, about our nation's future.

This report gives an outline as to how a First Nations voice to parliament could fulfil a number of functions, including serving as a representative body or bodies which provide mechanisms to consult and engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on policies, legislation and services which affect them. The voice will advance self-determination and lead to greater local decision-making, economic advancement and improved social outcomes, as well as contribute to a more unified and reconciled nation. What the report does is confirm a First Nations voice to parliament. It's not a third chamber of parliament, which is something that we have heard consistently.

The concept of a representative body to be a voice for First Nations people is not new, in fact, according to the evidence that came through. I urge all senators and members of the House to have a read of this interim report, where we do canvas very honestly the questions around the pros and cons of different organisations, of different structures, of land councils, of the congress, of the national body ATSIC. And it was important to hear men and women come forward from all persuasions, whether they had a full role in ATSIC or not, to speak honestly about what we could learn as a country from that. The committee heard views on the features of ATSIC that could inform the design of the voice, including its relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and its regional boundaries.

It was wonderful to hear from the honourable Amanda Vanstone, who was the federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs at the time of the abolition of ATSIC. In response to questions about ATSIC's regional councils she said:

I didn't have as negative a view of the ATSIC regional structures as of the central one, but if something's going to go, you really have to make a clean job of it. In hindsight, that might have been a mistake.

The honesty in coming forward was important on this journey and continues to be for this committee, because we need to understand what was it about structures like ATSIC that worked. What were the structures or elements of ATSIC that we need to stay away from? It came through consistently in the first couple of months in terms of the regional boundaries, in terms of the elections and how the elections took place. We had people like Bill Gray, who was a former secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and former chief executive officer of ATSIC, pointed out some of the negatives or things we had to watch out for if we were going to go down this path of elections, if we were going to go down this path of influencing, contributing and advising to policies.

How does it work in the mechanics of the cabinet process? How does it work in the mechanical structure of the parliament? At what point could an advisory group be included? These are the sensible, mature conversations, the hard conversations that are being held by this committee. The Hon. Fred Chaney, AO, a former minister for Aboriginal affairs, is another person who noted that the structures of ATSIC brought together regional administration, which he suggested was essential to closing the gap but could also feed up to a national voice. Again, these are men and women of all persuasions—black and white, young and old—who are providing very valuable information to our committee.

The issue that consistently has been raised also as a fairly singular important point—and Senator Dodson spoke about it here—is truth-telling. The voice must be representative of First Nations people, including women, elders, young people, traditional owners and the stolen generations. Additionally, this representation needs to occur across urban, regional and remote areas and be representative of Torres Strait Islander people, both in the Torres Strait and on the mainland. Again, these are concepts and ideas that continually come forward to our committee, and I whole heartedly agree with the statements.

All First Nations people have a right to contribute to the development and implementation of the voice regardless of gender, lineage or socioeconomic status. This report has put the development of the voice squarely back on the political agenda, which is a really good thing for our country. We can make right that step in going forward with the voice. We can do this.

At the 20th anniversary of the Garma Festival this year, the message was clear, as it was last year, when Yolngu elders came together to call on parliamentarians to stand strong. Irrespective of your political persuasion and beliefs, come together in the knowledge that our country has unfinished business. And again that message came through at Garma.

The First Nations people are not giving up on the voice, and this side of the House is certainly not either. Labor remains unwavering in its commitment to honour the views reflected in the Uluru statement and the final report from the Referendum Council that a voice that needs to be enshrined in our constitution and that a truth-telling commission needs to be established. (Time expired)

I'll only spend a few minutes taking note of this report given that two of my colleagues on the committee have made such excellent contributions. I would also like to join in acknowledging and thanking Senator Dodson and Mr Leeser for their excellent co-chairing of the committee. I was particularly heartened, when I was at Garma this year, not only to note the points that Senator McCarthy just made in terms of the community calling for support of the voice but also to hear Noel Pearson say the committee report exceeded his expectations. Given that I don't always see eye-to-eye with Noel, I've got to admit, I think that we are on a unity ticket on this issue in that I think this report—although it's probably a bit rude saying this as part of the committee—has made an excellent contribution to progressing the voice because it has enabled people to very clearly articulate their support for the voice. That's a message that I took on very strongly.

There is very strong support for the voice. You'll note that in chapter 7, under paragraph 7.18, it says some common themes have emerged from evidence and committee, and that is the strong support for the concept of the voice. I can't articulate that strong enough. Support for local and regional structures has also been articulated. It's my personal opinion—and this was reinforced for me last weekend when I was at Garma—that there is strong support out there for constitutional entrenchment of the Indigenous voice. People articulated that really strongly in a lot of the evidence that we heard. They raised ATSIC and the fact that it was there one day and gone another, basically, and they articulated that the power of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to make decisions was taken away. They very strongly want the voice body entrenched in the community. The evidence was also very clear that people didn't see the voice body, whatever it looks like into the future, as a third chamber, and so we should just knock that ridiculous concept on the head.

There is a list of questions that are clearly articulated in chapter 7, and I really urge the community to read this report. If you're really, really interested, go and read the Hansard of the hearings that we had. You will hear the passion of people for the Indigenous voice, and for the makarrata commission encompassing truth-telling and treaties. There is really strong support for those concepts. There was overwhelming support for the fact that these were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, clearly putting the Uluru Statement from the Heart on the table. That was really strongly articulated as well.

What was really strongly articulated, too, was that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples want to be able to determine who goes on that voice body when the structures are eventually put in place. I, for one, am feeling very optimistic about how we can take the work of the committee forward and I have more optimism now about the ability of this place to come together to ensure that we have the change that has been so strongly pursued, as has been articulated by both Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy in their contributions.

I urge Australians to read this report, look at the questions and provide your thoughts to the committee so that we can complete the task that we have been given. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is the Economic References Committee report into the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Given the time and the desire for other business, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

In respect of the government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report Gender segregation in the workplace and its impact on women's economic equality, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I table an addendum to an explanatory memorandum relating to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018.

The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees, as set out in the document available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red.

Education and Employment References Committee—

Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Urquhart to replace Senator Bilyk for the committee's inquiry into the mental health of first responders, emergency workers and volunteers

Electric Vehicles—Select Committee—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Patrick

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—

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (ILLICIT TOBACCO OFFENCES) BILL 2018

The Government is committed to closing down the illicit tobacco market, introducing new and strengthened enforcement measures to deter those who profit from the trade in illicit tobacco.

In the 2016-17 Budget, the Government announced a suite of measures to address the growing trade in illicit tobacco and improve health outcomes for Australians. The Government announced annual increases of 12.5 per cent in tobacco duty that will continue until 2020. It also announced funding for the Australian Border Force (ABF) Tobacco Strike Team. These measures have helped to reduce the harmful impacts illicit tobacco has on society, and the deliberate and highly calculated defrauding of the Australian public by criminal organisations smuggling illicit tobacco into the Australian market.

It is evident, however, that these measures alone are not enough. While an increase in the price of cigarettes has contributed to the wellbeing of the Australian community, it has also fuelled the illegal activities of the black market. Increasing cigarette prices has inadvertently created a profit motive for those involved in smuggling activities due to the "low risk high return" view of criminal groups. This has led to a surge in black market activity.

Illicit tobacco smugglers undermine the Government's strategies to promote good public health outcomes, and threaten the viability of law-abiding, local business operators.

To disrupt these criminal groups, the Government has today introduced the Customs Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill.

The Bill is the final, critical piece of a framework that not only promotes the health of all Australians, but also serves as an effective deterrent to criminals involved in the illicit tobacco trade.

The Bill provides the means by which ABF Officers can investigate and enforce the illicit tobacco offences and strengthened penalties proposed in a related Bill led by the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Together the two Bills create a comprehensive set of offences targeting the importation, possession, purchase, sale and production of illicit tobacco.

The Bill strengthens the illicit tobacco enforcement regime by allowing the ABF to investigate offences in the Treasury-led Bill where the origin of the illicit tobacco is unknown. This will open opportunities to prosecute illicit tobacco offences as it will not be necessary to establish whether the illicit tobacco was imported or illegally manufactured.

Currently, the ABF can only prosecute tobacco smuggling offences under the Customs Act if knowledge or intention to evade customs duties can be proven. While the penalty is high, the standard of proof has created a barrier for enforcement and prosecution and is not an effective deterrent to those involved in the illicit tobacco trade.

This Bill also creates new offences in the Customs Act for those who are reckless as to whether importing tobacco results in the defrauding of revenue. The standard required to establish recklessness entails a lower level of culpability than that associated with intention or knowledge, alleviating any barriers to enforcement or successful prosecution of these criminal offences which are quite often committed by organised crime syndicates to fund other criminal activities.

This Bill provides an effective deterrence to those who defy Australian laws for their own personal gain, risk the health of the Australian community, and cheat the tax system. This has consequential impacts to the revenue available to put back into the Australian community and threatens law-abiding, local business operators that provide jobs to everyday Australians.

Illicit tobacco is a serious problem that only lines the pockets of organised crime. Criminal syndicates see the illicit tobacco market as a lucrative high return and low risk venture. The profits made by these syndicates can also potentially be used to fund other criminal activities. This needs to be addressed, and has been, through the proposed measures in this Bill and those led by the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Without these measures the trade in illicit tobacco will only continue to grow.

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEVIES AND CHARGES COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 2018

Australia's agriculture sector is a fundamental pillar of Australian society and one of the largest contributors to our national growth. The gross value of farm production is forecast to reach $59 billion in 2017-18. Australia's agricultural levy system is one of the foundations of the profitability and competitiveness of our primary industries. The levy system allows primary producers to respond to challenges and opportunities and embrace innovation through collective investment and cooperation.

This Bill makes amendments to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to support the effective operation of the levy system into the future.

The Act sets out arrangements for the collection of levies and charges on primary products. Levies are collected by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and disbursed to 18 levy recipient bodies. These bodies invest in research and development, marketing, residue testing and biosecurity for the benefit of levied industries and the broader economy. By value of production, about 92 per cent of agricultural industries have chosen to have a levy. There are currently 113 levies collected across 77 commodities.

Depending on the structures of each industry, levies are generally collected from individual primary producers by intermediaries at a narrow point in the supply chain—usually at the first point of transfer of the primary product. An intermediary might be a wool broker, or an abattoir. These intermediaries are then required to pass the levies they have collected on to the department.

Australian agriculture's uptake of new technologies means that primary products are now being bought and sold in ways that do not clearly fall within the legal framework established in 1991. To provide clarity for industry, the Bill will allow the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to determine certain acts which, when performed, would make a person liable to collect and report levies.

The Bill also amends the Act to further support the effective operation of levy payer registers. Levy payer registers will allow the fifteen rural research and development corporations, as key levy recipient and investment bodies, to identify and engage directly with the primary producers who pay the levies that fund their activities. In 2016 the government amended the Act to allow the department to disclose levy payer information to the RDCs for the purpose of establishing levy payer registers. A pilot levy payer register project for the grains industry has since been completed in partnership with the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

Australia's agricultural industries are diverse and there cannot be a 'one size fits all' approach to levy payer registers. The Bill allows for the collection of commodity-specific information in addition to basic levy payer information, in limited circumstances and where it will be of clear benefit to levy payers.

The Act currently allows the disclosure of levy payer information by an eligible recipient to a third party only with the written approval of the Secretary. The Bill facilitates the further protection and proper use of levy payer information by allowing the Secretary to impose conditions on such a disclosure, and revoke the approval if conditions are breached. These decisions will also be made subject to the Act's reconsideration and review provisions.

The Bill will allow the department to publish statistics about levies and their collection to inform industry about the cost effectiveness of individual levies and the system generally.

This Bill will further support the effective operation of Australia's agricultural levy system. The government is committed to a levy system that continues to enable agricultural industries to invest collaboratively and drive future productivity gains.

SOCIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DRUG TESTING TRIAL) BILL 2018

This Bill will establish a two year trial of drug testing for 5,000 new recipients of Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance (other) from 1 July 2018.

This is a key component of a suite of measures announced in the 2017 Budget to strengthen and simplify the welfare system. These changes will help people with drug and alcohol abuse issues to get treatment, rehabilitate and get a job.

Research shows us that substance abuse is directly impacting the ability of some job seekers to undertake job search or other activities to get them into work:

The community has a right to expect that taxpayer-funded welfare payments are not being used to fund drug and alcohol addiction and that job seekers do all that they can to find a job.

The welfare system is designed to provide a safety net for those who find themselves out of work or unable to participate in the workforce – not to help perpetuate people's drug habits.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey shows that those who were unemployed were three times more likely to have recently used drugs such as ice and other amphetamines than those who were employed.

For too long, not enough has been done to try and deal with the real connection between drug abuse and unemployment.

While there are some existing mechanisms in place for identifying job seekers with substance abuse issues and assisting them to seek treatment, the data clearly shows that more needs to be done to help these people.

The trial established by this Bill will assess the use of drug testing as a means of identifying job seekers with substance abuse issues that may be preventing them from finding a job, and supporting them to get treatment.

Importantly, the drug testing trial is complemented by the Government's other substance abuse measures.

This includes, for the first time, ensuring that all job seekers are able to undertake drug or alcohol treatment as an approved activity in their Job Plan.

Since the commencement of that measure on 1 January 2018, 259 Stream A and B job seekers have had drug or alcohol treatment included in their Job Plan.

Other measures to ensure job seekers with drug or alcohol abuse issues remain connected to their employment services provider are contained in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 currently before the Senate.

Measures include removing exemptions from mutual obligations due to drug and alcohol use, and tightening the use of drug and alcohol issues as a reasonable excuse for not meeting obligations.

These measures are due to commence on 1 April 2018, subject to the passage of that Bill.

Together, these measures recognise that supporting job seekers to address their substance abuse issues through appropriate treatment is a crucial first step to getting a job.

Supporting job seekers to take action to overcome their substance abuse will improve their chances of finding a job. This will benefit not just the job seekers themselves but also their families, the wider community and the economy.

The trial will operate in three locations: Canterbury-Bankstown in New South Wales; Logan in Queensland; and Mandurah in Western Australia.

Trial sites were chosen based on careful consideration of the available evidence and data, including:

For the trial to be robust and successful, the Government identified locations with varying profiles and sufficient support services.

To complement this, the Government has announced a dedicated treatment fund of up to $10 million to support job seekers in the drug testing trial across all three locations.

The Government will establish this fund to provide for additional treatment support in the trial locations where the existing state or Commonwealth services and supports are not sufficient to meet additional demand as a result of the trial.

This is in addition to the almost $685 million the Commonwealth Government has already committed over four years to reduce the impact of drug and alcohol abuse on individuals, families and communities.

This includes an investment of almost $300 million over four years as a part of the National Ice Action Strategy to improve treatment, after care, education, prevention, support and community engagement to tackle ice.

Comprehensive rules will be set out in a legislative instrument relating to any additional illicit drugs tested for and the protocols for conducting the drug tests, including safeguards to ensure that testing is conducted appropriately and in accordance with relevant standards.

This legislative instrument will provide the flexibility to ensure that expert advice from the contracted testing provider and the drug and alcohol sector can be taken into account in developing these protocols and safeguards.

An exposure draft of the Drug Test Rules was tabled at the Senate Community Affairs and Legislation Committee's public hearing into the Welfare Reform Bill on 30 August 2017, and feedback has been gathered for input into further development of the rules.

There will be appropriate consequences for people who deliberately miss an appointment without a reasonable excuse or refuse a drug test in order to avoid a possible positive result.

If a job seeker refuses to take a drug test, having acknowledged that they may be required to do so as part of their condition of payment, their payment will be cancelled and they will not be able to re-apply for a four week period.

Job seekers who test positive to a drug test will have their payments placed on Income Management. This is designed to restrict their access to cash and limit their ability to use their payments to fund further harmful drug use, while not reducing the amount of payment they receive.

Job seekers who test positive will also be subject to a second drug test within 25 working days and may also be subject to further subsequent tests. This will help to identify those for whom drug abuse is an ongoing problem that may require treatment.

Job seekers who test positive to more than one drug test during the trial will be referred to a Department of Human Services contracted medical professional with experience in drug and alcohol treatment who will assess their particular circumstances and identify appropriate treatment or support options.

If the report from the medical professional recommends treatment, the job seeker will be required to participate in one or more treatment activities to address their substance abuse as part of their Job Plan.

This could include activities such as rehabilitation, counselling or case management.

This trial is not about penalising job seekers with drug abuse issues. It is about finding new and better ways of identifying these job seekers and ensuring they are referred to the support and treatment they need.

This measure has been specifically designed as a trial – so we can assess the value of drug testing job seekers as a way of identifying those for whom drug abuse might be a barrier to work and supporting them to undertake treatment.

There will be a comprehensive evaluation of the trial to determine which aspects have been successful in addressing welfare recipients' substance abuse and barriers to employment.

The drug testing trial will test an innovative method of assisting people with drug abuse issues.

I ask the Opposition and the crossbench to support this trial as it will find ways to support and treat people with substance abuse.

It is imperative that we help these people so that they can find work and not live their lives on welfare.

Be brave enough to change your mind because if we always do what we've always done, then we will always get what we've always got, and that is simply unacceptable.

The Government wants ensure that the welfare system provides strong incentives for people with substance abuse issues to get treatment, rehabilitate and find a job.

Debate adjourned.

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

I table a response to a question taken on notice during question time on 13 August 2018 asked by Senator Keneally, relating to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.

On behalf of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

When debate was interrupted before question time today, I was reflecting on the experiences of an advocate for euthanasia in Western Australia, Clive Deverall. He had said that he had been discussing the lack of a compassionate law in that state and how it would force people into taking their own lives in a fairly brutal way. Clive, in fact, was one of those people who ultimately took his own life because of a lack of access in the state of Western Australia to laws similar to those that have now been passed in Victoria.

Before we went to question time, I was speaking of the fact that the Victorian state coroner, John Olle, had described the 240 suicides in the state as those ending their suffering due to an irreversible decline of health. He reported to the committee that where people have essentially been forced to euthanise themselves because of a lack of access to gentle dying, those methods of suicide, because of a lack of access to euthanasia and the prospect of a terrible death, were poisoning, hanging and shooting.

People should not have to suffer. Those terminal patients who are suffering with no hope of relief or return should have compassionate options available to them. Stringent legislation that has been written in consultation with experts and that has strong safeguards that protect patients and health practitioners means that patients have those options.

So the question for the chamber today is indeed about choice. It is about a choice of this chamber to free up the jurisdictions of the ACT and the Northern Territory so they can have their own discussions and their own parliamentary debates about making quality and responsible euthanasia mechanisms available in their states.

This is not a replacement for palliative care. We need to make sure in our nation that we have palliative care options so that those with terminal illnesses can make a choice to die in a way that is acceptable to them.

As I've reflected previously in this debate, we already know that Australians widely support voluntary assisted dying. The 2016 ABC Vote Compass poll demonstrated that over 75 per cent of participants supported assisted dying. Support for this kind of legislation is in fact overwhelming. Newspoll polled on three occasions in recent history—in 2007, 2009 and 2012. Between 80 and 85 per cent of those polled supported euthanasia for those experiencing suffering with no chance of a cure.

I note that views in our community will be diverse. They vary according to cultural and linguistic background and religion, and people have every right to hold those views. But we need, in this place, to remember that people should also have the right to make their own choices about the way they die. Our views should not mean that we stand in the way of others who need to be able to make these choices, and that includes this parliament not standing in the way of the ACT and the Northern Territory and not standing in the way of Australians who have these difficult choices to make.

The alternative is for this chamber and this parliament to have to deliberate on our own medical-care-of-the-dying legislation to apply to the Northern Territory and the ACT, because we can't continue, like we did on marriage equality, to allow our nation to have laws that are so out of step with public opinion. We can't refuse to legislate ourselves at the same time as refusing to allow the Northern Territory and the ACT to legislate as territories in their own right. My preference is very much for the ACT and the Northern Territory to have their own self-determination on these questions.

So I call on the Prime Minister to allow a free vote in the lower house on this question, just as we have been allowed a free vote in this chamber. Ultimately, this debate should not be about our control. It is about putting it in the hands of those who are terminally ill and who choose to end their own life course where they desire to. It is also about the choice of the territories in this nation to have their own conversations with their own citizens about these issues.

My own mother changed her GP when she found out her GP's views on end-of-life choices and found that they were more conservative than her own. The prospect of having a doctor not supportive on these very sensitive issues was concerning to her, particularly as she ages. But here, in this place, we have exactly the same kind of concern: we have a parliament which is allowing legislation to stay on the books that is overwhelmingly out of step with the majority view of Australians. That GP is perfectly entitled to her own view and perfectly entitled within her own medical practice to exclude herself from those decisions, but that doctor should not be entitled to make decisions for all patients, any more than this parliament should be in control of all of the life-ending choices of Australians.

This parliament stood in the way of marriage equality for too long, and we should not let people's choice to use assisted dying be the same. In my own state of Western Australia we're currently having this debate. Victoria has had it, yet Canberra and the territories are precluded from even having their own discussions. In the meantime, this parliament simply wants to preclude them from having those discussions, rather than even substantively discussing the question itself and whether we would be prepared to legislate on these questions for the territories. We're stopping the territories and their communities from having this conversation and making their own decisions. This bill is about giving territorians their voice back and about supporting the end-of-life choices of Australians, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

I wish to outline my support for the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 introduced by Senator Leyonhjelm. I do so for two reasons. The first reason pertains to the basic concepts of democracy. Next month will mark 22 years since the introduction into this parliament of the Euthanasia Laws Bill in 1996. That private member's bill, introduced by the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews, was drafted to remove the ability of the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and, at the time, Norfolk Island to pass legislation relating to euthanasia and assisted suicide. The bill effectively overruled the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995, passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. That Northern Territory legislation operated from 1 July 1996 and allowed four terminally ill people to die with dignity on their own terms before the federal parliament stepped in.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Andrews bill, as it was known, affirmed the power of the territory parliaments to make laws with respect to the withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment for prolonging the life of a patient, the provision of palliative care and the repeal of sanctions against attempting suicide. However, it also unambiguously closed the door on any legislative regime legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide. Parliament passed the Euthanasia Laws Act on 25 March 1997, rendering the Northern Territory euthanasia legislation void.

More than two decades later, I commend Senator Leyonhjelm for bringing this bill before the Senate. Its passage in the parliament will enable the territories to revisit the issue now that the Victorian parliament has passed the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017. Its passage will effectively put the territories back on an equal footing with the states. I accept that there are differences between states and territories; I don't accept that there should be differences in relation to the rights of the citizens of the territories. If this bill is not passed, it would send a clear message to the territories that they have a less democratic form of government than the states. It would be telling the territories again that their citizens are effectively second-class citizens whose lives are ruled by the federal parliament. It would further erode confidence in one or both of the two major parties by refusing to follow the will of the people and by abandoning the principles of democracy. In that respect, I commend the leaders for ensuring that this will be a conscience vote. It happened in 2013, when the ACT's Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act was ruled invalid by the High Court after being challenged by the Abbott government. History has shown that the federal government's challenge was out of step with the will of the people.

This brings me to my second reason as to why I will support the bill. It is again time for this parliament to respect the will of the people when it comes to perceived issues of morality. This is the latest in a series of issues that Australian parliaments have had to confront in recent decades, such as laws relating to capital punishment, divorce, women's rights and LGBTIQ rights. I think it's fair to say that much of the opposition to this bill, both in this parliament and in the community, comes from people with views based on religious doctrines about the sanctity of life. I wholeheartedly respect everyone's right to hold those views; however, we do not live in a theocracy, and close to one-third of Australians declared themselves to have no religion in the 2016 census. In a multicultural democracy, in matters of conscience such as this, I am compelled to be guided by the will of the people.

The fact is that the parliaments of the Northern Territory and now Victoria have already supported the tenor of this bill. The facts are that euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg, Canada and India, and assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, South Korea, Japan and the US states of Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Vermont, Montana, Washington DC and California. And the fact is that Australians wishing to end their lives because of a painful terminal illness must travel to one of those places to have their wishes respected. For these people, their loved ones and all Australians who will one day tread the same path, my conscience is unequivocally clear in supporting this bill. Of course, the federal parliament has a conditional responsibility to ensure that legislation in the territories comes with the right checks and balances. Any ensuing legislation relating to this issue that does not satisfy those conditions is something that this parliament could assess at a later date. However, on the basis of surveys in my home state of South Australia indicating that three in four voters support euthanasia, I must support this bill.

This bill confronts end-of-life issues—how we deal with incurable illness and its intolerable pain and suffering and what choices should be available to people in these circumstances. It will allow terminally ill people to dramatically reduce the amount of time spent in pain and suffering before the inevitable occurs, and that is the most humane thing that we can do for humanity. Thank you.

I rise to speak in opposition to the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill, and I would like to start by telling a story. David Williams was 35, a husband and father of three, with a career as a car service manager, when he began suffering severe back pain. He was eventually diagnosed with a tumour on the spine. David was told that he would be in a wheelchair by 37 and most likely dead by the time he was 40. He had surgery just as his third child was born. Bedridden, in terrible pain and fearful of the distress he was causing his family, David asked his doctor about assisted suicide because he didn't want his family to watch him die. He was eventually admitted to a hospice, but he still thought about ending his life. With good palliative care, his pain was eventually made bearable. He expected the imminent end of his life, but the cancer went into remission. David now believes he was probably depressed by the experience of his illness. In his world prior, he had a good job, a nice house, three lovely children and a happy marriage. Everything was great, and then it all went wrong. He now believes that, under the pressure of severe illness, he felt so depressed and thought that euthanasia was the easy way out. It's a decision, he now states publicly, that he's glad he didn't take.

David's story is not unique. I hear from many people in our community that during times of severe pain, when it seemed like it would never end, they have been in the position of feeling that there was no way out. But, upon the end of that pain or at least upon its management, upon reflection those same people tell me how grateful they are that they did not make a decision to end their life whilst their otherwise sound judgement was clouded by the kind of incredible pain that would make almost any person falter.

This bill and the policy of euthanasia represents a defining moment in who we are as a people. If passed, it is a fundamental change in the way that we approach human existence, the essence of life. It sends a disturbing message that there are some people in our community who are better off dead. The impact of that message goes beyond that which can be mitigated by what are often referred to as 'safeguards to assisted suicide'. It means that when a person becomes dependent because of their age, their illness or their disability, a social pressure will inevitably emerge for that person to, as an act of compassion for their families, end their life, lest they become a burden on others. That culture of dying will permeate our medical and social frameworks leading to a subtle expectation that those who require care should choose not to be resource intensive by volunteering to die.

Respect for human life cannot be dismissed as a mere matter of religion, although I confess that my faith is an important factor in my opposition to euthanasia. It's about our ethic as a civil society; it's about who we are. This bill has been framed in a dual sense as being about both euthanasia and federalism. It is no doubt an effort to cleverly wedge those people who, like me, are enthusiastic proponents of states' rights and the different but also important rights of territories.

I regard this bill as an inappropriate and insufficient opportunity for a proper consideration of the scope of the territories' rights of self-government. If a real debate were designed about the differences between the powers of territory and state governments, or about whether territories wish to seek the status of states then let's have it properly. But that important issue should not be used as a Trojan horse by which to sneak in euthanasia, a dramatic change to our social, medical and institutional values. If I'm forced to choose between my respect for the territories and my respect for life itself, I'll choose life every day of the week.

Often proponents of euthanasia frame this issue as a mere matter of personal freedom, of choice. That argument is attractive, particularly to someone approaching this in a secular way, as many people do. But it's overly simplistic. It fails to take into account the ways in which extreme pain, mental illness, depression and the anguish of facing the unknown trials that lie ahead when in receipt of a negative prognosis can affect an individual's disposition to the point of clouding judgement. In this place, sometimes slippery slope arguments are dismissed as though they're not logical. That's a mistake. The notion of a slippery slope is that one starts with a clear-cut case and, by a sequence of many small choices, one ends up accepting a practice in circumstances where, had they been considered at the outset, they would have been strongly opposed.

If you take the case of Holland, where right-to-die legislation has been in place since 2002, there are more examples than I would like to point to about how corruptible euthanasia is, despite efforts to build protections into the details. It is evidence in practice of the slippery slope we face. Let me give just a few examples of the circumstances in which Holland's regime has facilitated suicides that seem a far cry from the circumstances of terminal illness that are usually conjured in this debate. A 54-year-old woman with a personality and eating disorder was able to end her life, and Holland's health minister is on the public record to say that multiple psychiatric patients have been euthanised. A 47-year-old mother of two teenaged children was euthanised because she found her tinnitus—the ringing in her ears—so unbearable that she wished to die. It's chilling to think that any mother of young children would choose to die, particularly when she wasn't terminally ill. It makes a mockery of the sanctity of human life that this was not a matter of public outcry. In Holland, it is permissible to kill a child on the grounds that it is distressing for a parent to watch that child in pain, whether or not that child might have a prospect of being saved. Still, there is no public outcry.

It says a great deal about the way in which the crossing of this important threshold changes the way that a society values human life. There is, then, not much more ground to be travelled before chronic but non-life threatening illnesses, disabilities or mere age become reasons to end one's life. Here, we can and we must do better. We must invest in palliative care and health care that provide hope and comfort for those who are suffering from pain and fear.

Assisted suicide does not offer real choice or freedom, as some might argue. It doesn't alleviate suffering or address its causes. Some might say that it provides an easy way out of suffering, but the only people I can see that it provides an easy way out for are those politicians who are unwilling to invest in meaningful health and palliative care. We cannot in one breath pour our resources into efforts to stop suicide in our community, particularly among our young people and in the next breath provide state-sanctioned death. We cannot train doctors to heal and then ask them to kill. There is a world of difference between making a natural death more comfortable and giving a right to kill those who, as the proposer of this bill has put it, find their life 'unsatisfactory'.

It's easy to think of this subject in the context of loving families wanting to help a loved one fulfil their desire not to suffer, and that will be true for some families. But it is also the reality that that is not the situation in all families and that there are many vulnerable people in our community who require protection from family members whose personal financial interests, convenience or impatience would see them push to end the life of that vulnerable or dependent person. If the measure of our society is how we treat the vulnerable, then we must not turn away on this occasion.

As former Prime Minister Paul Keating put it:

The issue is not how many people will choose to die under this proposed law. It is how many people may die when otherwise they wouldn't.

He might be from a different political tradition to me, but I am grateful that this is an issue on which we can cross party lines because there is a sanctity to life that goes beyond today, beyond politics and, for those of faith, beyond our understanding. To have the opportunity that is life, we've already more than won the lottery. Our chances of being born are one in 400 trillion, speaking in pure biological terms. What we get as our prize in this lottery is the human experience in all of its complexity—the happiness, the sadness, the victory and the suffering. It all has meaning and it all has value. Even the hardest parts can teach us and those we love new things, can build relationships and can grow our understanding of the meaning of life and our place within it. I, for one, will not put my name to a law that would see us cross the ethical threshold from fostering life to sanctioning death.

I rise in support of the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. I'd like to outline at the outset that I also am a supporter of Victoria's dying with dignity legislation. I very much support the democratic principle that people living in the territories should have the same access as people living in states to parliamentary debate and votes on voluntary assisted dying legislation. I say that because, at its heart, this bill is about the right of all Australians, not just those living in the states, to determine the laws which they are governed by. I believe that it's a fundamental tenet of our democracy and that it is undermined when citizens of the same country have differing capacities to participate in political decision-making on the basis of where they live.

In this country, the states are generally responsible for laws on euthanasia. The Commonwealth has no constitutional authority to legislate in relation to euthanasia other than in the territories. But, under the Commonwealth Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, citizens of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are denied the right to debate and enact policies which would authorise voluntary euthanasia. We all know that that came about after the Northern Territory, in 1995, legalised voluntary euthanasia, albeit for just eight months, before the Commonwealth parliament passed what was known as Kevin Andrews's bill, which prevented the ACT and the Northern Territory from legislating on euthanasia; hence the bill that we have here in front of us in the Senate today, which repeals that legislation.

However, I think it is important to note that this bill does not seek to legalise euthanasia in those territories. The legislative assemblies of a territory would still have to legislate to permit euthanasia, and they may, of course, never utilise that capacity. On that point, regardless of our own personal views in this place—and I do recognise that it is a conscience vote—I think that we really must acknowledge that this is an issue on which state and federal parliaments are seen to be lagging behind community sentiment. There's been polling that suggests that some 75 per cent of Australians believe terminally ill patients should be able to legally end their own lives with medical assistance. That shows that a national conversation should not take place while there are jurisdictions that are deprived of the deliberative power to address this issue.

If I look at the parliament of my own home state of Tasmania, for example, Tasmania has had three bills in the last 10 years seeking to legalise voluntary euthanasia. One of them was in 2009. I had the opportunity to participate in that particular bill when I was in the state parliament. I think after that there was one in 2013 which came very close, bar one vote, to being successful and then another in 2016. I understand that currently there is discussion within the Tasmanian parliament about there being another bill presented before too long. I'm looking forward to that because I think there is a real possibility that a Tasmanian piece of legislation could indeed get up.

If we look at other states, Western Australia has just had an inquiry, and it is just about to report. Victoria, of course, has successfully passed euthanasia laws, and I think in 18 months it will be implemented. New South Wales had a bill recently that was only defeated by one vote. That shows you, in a sense, that, slowly but surely, parliaments across the nation—other than those in the territories that don't have that right currently—are actually moving forward with this legislation for dying with dignity, and they're doing that because they're responding to the community sentiment in our nation.

This capacity for choice and for genuine debate only becomes more important as the issues at stake increase in their complexity. In one respect, this bill is about restoring to some Australians the right enjoyed by most other Australians to choose the laws that bind them. In other respects, this bill concerns the enabling of every Australian citizen to participate in nuanced and genuine discussion about how and when they wish to die. Voluntary euthanasia is a complex issue, and I have deep respect for those who have personal experiences and sincerely held beliefs that have led them to a position different from my own; however, I personally support legislative changes that would give the Australian people the right to die with dignity and to free themselves from the appalling suffering that chronic and terminal disease can inflict. It is indisputable that, despite the best efforts of skilled doctors and quality palliative care services, a small number of people have intolerable and unrelievable suffering at the end of their lives and want the choice to end that suffering, even though they will die a short time earlier than perhaps they would have done. The community has every reason to expect that we, as parliamentarians, will respond to that, and that we will respond ethically, compassionately, respectfully and responsibly to their needs; hence there have been so many jurisdictions that have brought these laws to their parliaments.

When a person only faces suffering and has no reasonable prospect of improvement, I believe a humane society should give that person a clear choice: to continue life with the support of well-resourced palliative care or to receive the help of a physician to voluntarily end their suffering with dignity and humanity. Either choice must be genuine, made without external pressure or coercion, and of course subject to strict safeguards to ensure it's not abused. But I say to those senators in this place who are against voluntary assisted dying: I, too, value human life, and it's because of that that I have come to my position of supporting someone's right to end their life if they have unbearable, intolerable suffering and disease. My view has been formed by the experiences of individuals from across Tasmania and Australia who have shared their stories with me, not least when I was a member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the Medical Services (Dying with Dignity) Bill 2014.

Listening to Peter Short during the inquiry was a compelling and illuminating experience. Peter testified whilst suffering from a terminal illness. He highlighted his priorities: saying goodbye on his own terms in his own home with his family at a time of his choosing. Peter valued life intensely but was determined to make the case for every individual having a choice. He said to me: 'I don't want to die, but I want to go out of what has been an incredible life with an incredible family on the best note I possibly can, and I want to die in that way.' Both paths are dignified. What is undignified is not having a choice. He said that no-one suffering unrelievable and intolerable pain should have to carry on living.

While doctors always try to ensure that death occurs with dignity and comfort, this outcome does not always occur, and sometimes it's impossible. That's why Peter felt that voluntary assisted dying was a compassionate and humane approach. In recognising his life and the legacy of his advocacy for dying with dignity legislation, I hope that one day we're able to honour that by actually having that legislation pass across the country. He felt that no-one with unbearable suffering should have to go on if they choose not to. Peter believed that assisted dying legislation is possible in our country without being a threat to vulnerable people, and he wrote that on his blog nearly every day when he was alive. I agree with him. Australia can learn from other international jurisdictions like the Netherlands, Canada and parts of the US how sympathetic euthanasia laws can work. The risks are minimised in a consistent, safe, legal framework where people are able to make fundamental choices about their life if they judge it cannot continue in a dignified manner.

To those who are concerned that legislation of voluntary euthanasia would lead to patients' lives being terminated against their will, I suggest that is more likely to occur when vulnerable people cannot communicate openly about their wishes for fear of the repercussions for their doctors and for their families. People living with terminal illness and chronic disease, and the people who love them, suffer immensely. That suffering should not be compounded by the prospect of a painful and protracted death or by the fear that a wish to die with dignity will have legal ramifications.

Life is precious. We are all reminded of that all too often. We know it is finite. Life is a mixture of the good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly, and we should embrace that complexity. I believe wholeheartedly that we should make the most of the time we have, taking up all the opportunities and challenges with which we are faced and which together make up the experience of being human. But life is no longer truly life when it's defining characteristic is suffering with no hope of improvement, only the fear that it might get worse. Our capacity to recognise and celebrate the daily challenges inherent in being human is fundamentally abrogated when every experience is coloured by unending pain.

I have voted in favour of a bill, as I said, in the past that would have legalised voluntary euthanasia when I was a member of the Tasmanian parliament along with Senator McKim, who is in this place as well. And, although its focus is different, I support this legislation today for the same reasons that I supported that legislation in the Tasmanian parliament—that is, to enlarge the capacity of Australian people to make choices about the way in which they live their lives.

The laws that bind us and the manner in which we die are two of the most fundamental components of human existence. Along with a more complete citizenship, this bill grants Australians in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory greater agency over both. I think it is our responsibility, indeed our duty, as senators in this place—as I would hope it is for those in the other place—to recognise that we need to respond ethically, compassionately, respectfully and responsibly to the needs of those people suffering in Australia who want us to give those same legal rights to anyone in Australia who may be in a position where they have no other choice but want to end their life and do it with dignity.

I'm happy to rise to support this legislation which will provide the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory with the capacity to regulate a practice which occurs every day in palliative care wards around Australia, which is medical professionals acting out of compassion and humanity to assist people to end their lives. This bill, as many speakers have said, would allow those territories the ability to make laws in relation to voluntary assisted dying. This isn't simply a vote on the issue of whether or not a person has the right in the final stages of life, under certain circumstances, to end their life; it's about the ability of territories to enact their own laws and to respect the autonomy of their people and their parliaments.

It's important to note this is essentially a redrafted bill to get the outcome that we believe, based on poll after poll, the community wants. All Greens MPs will be supporting it. I, along with my colleagues, have a view that, regardless of whether you live in a state or a territory in Australia, you ought to have access to compassionate end-of-life choices and that these choices ought to include a well-funded palliative care system as well as access to voluntary assisted dying. I reject the notion that those two things are incompatible, and those who would seek to present this debate as a choice between a well-funded, well-run palliative care system and access to voluntary assisted dying are trying to present people and this parliament with a false choice.

It's a matter of historical record that the Greens have campaigned and led on the issue of voluntary assisted dying for a long time—from Bob Brown's private member's bill back in 1997 through to Senator Di Natale's bill on the territory rights, which is the basis for the bill that we are now debating. As the previous speaker, Senator Singh, pointed out, there have been opportunities for both her and I to vote in the Tasmanian parliament for voluntary euthanasia. That was firstly in 2009 when I was the sole sponsor of a bill to provide for a voluntary assisted dying framework in Tasmania and, again, in 2013, when I co-sponsored a bill with then Premier Lara Giddings. The first bill, in 2009, was defeated 15 votes to seven in the Tasmanian House of Assembly—and I want to thank Senator Singh for standing up to pressure within the Labor Party at the time and voting for that bill. The second bill was defeated by, as Senator Singh said, a single vote in 2013. That is a matter that is of some regret to me today, as I genuinely believe we had the numbers in the upper house to get that through at the time, and that would have led to Tasmania being the first state to legislate for a voluntary assisted dying framework.

As I said earlier, we currently have both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia or assisted dying occurring on an ad hoc basis in palliative care wards in Australia, and this is a relatively common occurrence. It's important for people to know that this is being done with no formal system of safeguards to protect the rights of patients and, importantly, protect the rights of the medical professionals who, for the best of reasons, based on their compassion and their humanity, are assisting people to die in palliative care wards every day in this country. To those who say in an argument against voluntary assisted dying frameworks, 'What about the vulnerable people who might be exploited or influenced or coerced under the provisions of such a framework?' I say back to them, 'What about the vulnerable people who are being assisted to die in palliative care wards around Australia on a regular basis?' They are being provided with assisted dying with no formal protection and no safeguards and the doctors and medical professionals, who, for the best of reasons—and I absolutely support them in doing this—are conducting those voluntary and involuntary assisted deaths in palliative care wards, are doing so with no legal protection whatsoever.

If people doubt what I'm saying, I refer them to a couple of studies. A 2001 survey entitled, 'The intention to hasten death: a survey of attitudes and practices of surgeons in Australia'—a survey of attitudes and practices of practising surgeons at that time in Australia—by Douglas et al found that 36.2 per cent 'reported that, for the purpose of relieving a patient's suffering, they have given drugs in doses that they perceived to be greater than those required to relieve symptoms with the intention of hastening death'. So, in that survey, over a third of surgeons who were surveyed, admitted giving drugs in doses greater than what they perceived to be necessary to relieve the symptoms of suffering, with the intention of hastening the death of their patients.

There have also been other studies. A landmark study conducted in 1997 by Peter Singer and others found that:

Australian law has not prevented doctors from practising euthanasia or making medical end-of-life decisions explicitly intended to hasten the patient's death without the patient's request.

So it's very clear that this is going on in palliative care wards around the country. I'm not going to name the ward or the hospital, but I'm very happy to place on record that, last year, my father was euthanised at his request in a palliative care ward in Tasmania. I'm really pleased, and I thanked the medical professionals profoundly, from the bottom of my heart, for killing my father, because he wanted it, he was lucid, he was rational and it was the right thing to do, based on compassion and humanity.

But this isn't about my father or anyone else's relative. This is about people who are suffering intolerably. During my work on this issue over many years in Tasmania, I came into contact with many outstanding people. I want to place on the record a letter that one of those people, Mr Robert Cordova, wrote to me. He's dead now, but he was a remarkable man—brave, intelligent and dignified and a gifted communicator, despite the fact that MND had entirely removed his ability to communicate verbally. His life ended not long before the debate on my Dying With Dignity Bill in the Tasmanian parliament in 2009. This is a letter Robert wrote to me before he died. He asked me to read it out in 2009, which I did during the debate, and I'm going to read parts of it out today. It's headed 'Australia supports torture'.

We do not see this headline in any of our daily newspapers, yet I'm being tortured under legislation, mandated and enforced by both state and federal Australian governments—simulated drowning, stress positions, humiliations and other indignities.

I have motor neurone disease, a terminally fatal degeneration of nerves and muscle tissue to which the medical profession has surrendered to its paramount entity, death. Nothing can be done to stop the inevitable advance of MND.

The medical community is complicit with the policymakers of torture in not actively working to permit the resolution of our suffering by our voluntary death, and they continue to support our torture by washing their collective hands of us, to let us suffer through the full disease cycle.

The first torture is the indeterminate death sentence. I do not know how long I am to be held in this Guantanamo, and cannot be told. What I do know is that all my voluntary muscles will continue to degrade until I cannot walk, talk, use my arms or hands, swallow and, finally, unable to breathe, I will expire.

The sentence is a humiliation of any measure of my humanity.

That's what current law has subjected people to.

Whilst many people will mount arguments, quite rightly and understandably, that this is a law reform based on the simple human value of compassion, for me it's about that but more than that. It's actually about self-determination and personal autonomy. I say to people in this chamber that, if they believe in the human right to a dignified and peaceful life that's driven by autonomy and informed choice, then it is the right and consistent thing to do to vote for the rights of Australians to choose a peaceful and self-driven death on their own terms. Dying is one of the most personal things that we will ever do in our life. We have a responsibility to allow people to the greatest degree possible to choose the time and the means of their own death.

The laws that I proposed in Tasmania on two separate occasions were very tightly framed and would only have allowed people to choose to access a voluntary assisted dying framework under very constrained circumstances. But we have to be careful, when we are framing such laws, that we do not create so many hoops that people have to jump through that it becomes too difficult or impossible for them to access the framework.

So, even though this legislation is actually not about creating a framework but is simply creating the right to create a framework, I do want to say that, although I proposed laws which created a very stringent framework, on reflection I would have made those frameworks less stringent and potentially allowed access to those schemes for more people than would have been able to access them should those laws have been passed. That is because I ultimately believe in personal autonomy and self-determination.

For those who want to base their arguments on compassion and humanity—and I believe that, at least in strong part, my support for laws to create voluntary-assisted-dying frameworks is informed by those values—I refer them to people like Robert Cordova. I refer them to other people whose family members have held bowls under their mouths in the last days of their life while they vomited faecal matter into those bowls. I refer them to those horrendous deaths where palliative care, despite all of its advances and all of the beautiful and brilliant people who work in the palliative care sector, simply cannot remediate that suffering and that indignity. I urge people to think about those people, many of whom are no longer with us and some of whom will be suffering through those indignities right now as we debate this, before they determine their votes on this legislation.

I acknowledge the difficult contribution made then by Senator McKim. Can I say that I've had a similar experience, and I may or may not visit that as I make my contribution. Putting aside the fundamental, I suppose, premise of states' rights—which I do put aside in relation to this; I'm not going to submit either way on that—this is a very difficult subject, a very emotive subject, that will test us all as we make a contribution on the question of creating an environment where it's inevitable that territories in our country, in this case, will ultimately deal with assisted suicide legislation.

I've listened to the contributions of quite a number of the speakers during the course of the evening. I am fundamentally opposed to any act or omission on the part of anyone—and I'm talking from a humanity point of view—that contributes to the end of somebody's life. My fundamental position stems from the fact that I don't think humanity has evolved sufficiently to be able to manage this in a proper fashion. I'll touch on some of the examples of that as we go through.

If someone could create the perfect legislation, create the perfect environment that Senator McKim described, where people in these most extreme circumstances want to end their suffering, where palliative care and medical support can provide that, this would be an even more challenging question. But evidence suggests that we're yet to achieve that. Countries which have introduced assisted suicide legislation—using the term of the 'slippery slope'—have really failed to confine it to the original pure intent, if you like, of what they were endeavouring to do. I think it's important as we consider this that we draw on the position of the medical professionals who we will be asking to take on these very onerous tasks of making decisions from time to time, interpreting legislation, legal instruments and the like as they decide what they may do in a particular case. If we go first of all to the Australian Medical Association, its position is it opposes euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The AMA stated:

The AMA believes that doctors should not be involved in interventions that have as their primary intention the ending of a person's life.

That is a very powerful statement from the body that represents the physicians who we are going to ask to engage, eventually, as the territories make legislation in these assisted suicide events. In fact, of the World Medical Association's 109 members, 107 oppose euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. In a statement, it says:

Physician-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession.

Without debating the emotive term 'unethical', it begs the question—here we have a world organisation that represents physicians and its position is to oppose legislation of this type.

The Hippocratic oath, written some 2½ thousand years ago, forms part of the ethos that has underpinned medical professionals and practitioners for centuries. It reads:

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

Whilst the two things are completely different—the debates about abortion and euthanasia are completely different—the fact remains that at the very beginning it was suggested that assisting someone to take a life offended the original conventions set out to guide medical practitioners over time.

Like Senator McKim, I've had two personal experiences in this space—one my mother, and the other my wife. In both cases, I was burdened with making decisions that effectively ended their lives. In my mother's case, it was something more simple. She was 90 years of age, had suffered some injuries in a fall, and the physicians indicated quite clearly that she'd entered into a coma and was suffering from heart failure and that they had no prospect of returning my mother to the condition she had been in in the days leading up to that point. I had her medical power of attorney and, consequently, my instruction or guidance to the medical team was that they did not need to do anything to prolong her life. There was nothing involved in that that terminated my mother's life; that ended naturally.

My wife suffered from an aneurysm and, for the course of a day, was in a coma. On all the best advice we had upon which I relied, there was to be no return. My wife potentially could have lived, according to the medical practitioners, for literally years in that state. I accept Senator McKim's advice that events took place, and I don't intend to particularise them or go into the detail of conversations, but clearly during the course of that evening the administration of her medication, perhaps, promoted her departure earlier than nature would have ordered. I've got to tell you that in those circumstances family are in no position to be able to think clearly, and any legislation into the future would need to recognise in detail the fact that family, next of kin and loved ones, at a time when they need to be able to think clearly and make clear decisions, have no capacity to do that. So if we talk about the prospect of involuntary euthanasia—that's to say that the person is in no position themselves to make a contribution to what happens to them—we would need to be extremely careful around the environment that near and dear and loved ones find themselves in as they make that decision.

I'm opposed, and I have been on the record, to all matters of interference with life, knowing all of the case studies around abortions. You would think it strange for a retired detective who spent a lot of time studying serial killers in the United States to be opposed to capital punishment, but I am. Of course, I'm opposed to euthanasia, because there have been so many instances—it's impossible to write a law that is fluid enough and dynamic enough to be able to meet every circumstance we find ourselves in as these decisions are made, whether they are voluntary circumstances where the subject is contributing to the decision or, as was my case, and as it would appear in many cases, the decision is made involuntarily for the subject person.

I'm sure no-one from the chamber has been immune to some of the case studies that have been presented to us from Scandinavian countries. I've had my staff make sure that the case studies they bring to my attention have been well and truly verified; I don't want to rely upon Google searches about the failures of euthanasia or euthanasia policy. In those cases where I am satisfied and they are satisfied that we have applied the appropriate due diligence to use them as examples, some of it is disturbing and challenging. Of course we're at a complete disadvantage here because this chamber will make a decision about ceding the ability to other legislative chambers to create laws in these two territories around euthanasia without knowing any part of the detail of what might be present on their minds as they're exercised with the question.

In this particular case that I'd like to cite there was a young lady who was suffering from mental health problems. She had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and she was 29 years of age. This case has been verified in a documentary. She cited that she was 29 years old and she'd chosen to be voluntary euthanised. She said she'd chosen this because she had a lot of mental health issues and she suffered unbearably and hopelessly. She said, 'Every breath I take is torture.' This young woman was healthy except for the mental health issues and relatively in the prime of her life.

What challenges me, of course, as is true for most of us in this chamber—we've no doubt had experiences of people suffering from mental health disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders and, whilst I don't think they're ever completely cured, I have seen them get through their challenges and find themselves out on the other side, where they've gone on to live a wholesome life in many respects despite the challenges that have confronted them. I don't want to deal with the detail of prospective legislation and trying to guess what the territories might do, but what if we eventually had legislation developed that allowed euthanasia in that circumstance and in another circumstance where the law itself provides that if a child is an infant under three years of age then it's the decision of the parents? They'll make the decision if the child is between three years of age and 12 years of age in one country; I think it's Holland, but don't hold me to that. We've verified that this exists. Then the child can be engaged if they're capable of making a contribution to the decision.

The point I want to make, if nothing else from my contribution is remembered, is that we're about to make decisions here that will make this possible. It's not possible today, but it can be made possible. We have no knowledge of what the framework or the architecture of any legislation may be. I'd hate to think that at some time in the future we will reflect on our decision and indicate that we might have made a different decision had we known what the product of legislation was from the states.

We are all legislators. That's our day job. We look at legislation, we understand how it works and we understand how the moving parts connect and one thing impacts on another. I ask us all to consider: do we believe even we would have the capacity to develop a piece of legislation that was sufficiently dynamic to deal with all the circumstances? Twenty minutes doesn't allow us to cite the dangers around euthanasia. We're talking about, in some cases, instruments that are prepared by people when they are completely sane and are capable of making a contribution, citing circumstances in which they'd like to be euthanised when they might not be able to make a contribution. With the evolution of our lives, it may be that in their own mind, even though they're suffering from a condition that others might judge warrants euthanasia, they're in a place of peace. I've seen this with aged people who are infirm of mind but seem to be perfectly content. They don't seem to be distressed. I had the experience with aged relatives, and I know we all want to see them treated with dignity and die with dignity, but they don't seem to be distressed.

I would never like to see legislation that provided an opportunity for a next of kin or someone who had some power of attorney or medical attorney power with them to be making decisions. I don't want to make the case they could be abused, but indeed they could be. We have such advanced palliative care now that people are treated with great dignity and, in many cases—I suspect most cases, and certainly in my experience, apart from the two I have spoken about, there has been other circumstances—where the palliative care is of such an advanced state that they are not suffering from pain or discomfort. They may not be cognitive and they may not be engaging—they are certainly not walking the dog or eating much more than jelly—but they're not in distress; they are at peace.

I struggle with this question. I don't struggle with where I am—I know where I am—but I struggle with the question when I hear so many strong arguments made by so many people who themselves have had experiences that I haven't had—intelligent people like Senator McKim, whose real-life experiences have led him to want to support the prospect of euthanasia in this country. I'm afraid I can't make that journey. I won't allow myself to make that journey because I fear that there will be so many cases where the application of legislation could be corrupted, where there's human error and where, in certain circumstances, people take advantage of their power—and I talk there about involuntary euthanasia—and I really think that we need to proceed with great caution.

For what it's worth, my contribution is that we should leave the status quo. As a society, I don't think we're ready or advanced enough to create legislation dynamic enough. This will be yours and my only contribution to this question. If this is passed in this place, we'll no longer have carriage of this. We can do a Pontius Pilate and say it's no longer our responsibility, but this is our last chance. I urge colleagues to think very, very carefully. If you are not satisfied that the legislation will be dynamic enough to deal with each of the conditions then we should reject this legislation in this place.

I begin my speech on the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 by saying that I agree broadly with the aim of this bill, which is to repeal the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997. While the issue of assisted dying has prompted this bill, I essentially see this debate as being one about equal rights for the residents of the Northern Territory and the ACT. This debate is about whether we take a consistent approach to deciding the powers of the states and the powers of the territories. It's about whether we treat all Australians as equal or we decide to have two classes of Australian citizens—those who can exercise certain powers through their state parliaments and those who can have those powers taken away from them by the federal parliament on a whim. I do have minor concerns about the drafting of the bill, which I'll get to later in my contribution; however, these will not prevent me from supporting it.

To begin my contribution, I think we need to get a couple of definitions clear. Throughout my speech I will refer to assisted dying or medically assisted dying, and it is important to draw a difference between this and voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Northern Territory act which led to this debate, the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995, only provides for medically assisted dying. It does not permit for voluntary euthanasia, nor does it help to facilitate suicide. Let's get clear the distinction between these terms. Voluntary euthanasia is the practice by which a doctor ends the life of a patient, on their own request, by administering a lethal substance, usually by injection. It is distinguished from assisted dying in that the latter allows the patient to end their own life but with the assistance of a doctor. This usually involves the patient being prescribed or supplied with a lethal substance which the patient then self-administers.

I have a big problem with the term 'assisted suicide', in describing medically assisted or physician assisted dying, being included in the title of this bill. This term stigmatises the practice and, in fact, is often used by opponents of assisted dying for that very reason. Assisted dying and suicide have profound psychological differences. I am aware that, in the United States, many peak medical organisations have policies that specifically oppose the use of the term 'suicide' or 'assisted suicide' to describe the practice of assisting dying. It's not appropriate to draw parallels between the wish to end one's life due to intolerable physical suffering that cannot be relieved by palliative care and someone who ends their life as a result of depression, schizophrenia or another form of mental illness. Suicide is a tragedy—there are no two ways about it—and should be prevented to whatever extent it can. As the American Association of Suicidology points out, suicide is a form of self-harm that results from mental illness such as schizophrenia or severe depression.

There are a number of important differences that distinguish assisted dying and suicide. In suicide, a life is cut short. In assisted dying, a foreseeable death occurs earlier but in an easier way and in accordance with the patient's wishes and values. Suicide stems from psychological pain and despair. Victims of suicide don't want to live because they cannot enjoy life or see that their life may not improve in the future. Patients who seek assisted dying, on the other hand, generally want to live but know that they're ultimately going to die as a result of their illness. A terminally ill patient who is given assistance to die usually experiences stronger bonds with their loved ones and a deeper sense of meaning as their life comes to an end, whereas suicide is usually preceded by isolation, loneliness and a loss of meaning.

Because of these differences, I take issue with the use of the term 'assisted suicide' in the title of this bill. It's simply not appropriate to refer to assisted dying as suicide. Another reason I don't think the title is appropriate is that it implies that the bill is legislating to enable assisted dying when all it's doing is restoring power to the territories to do so. The bill would be more appropriately retitled 'Restoring Territory Rights (Repeal of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997) Bill'. Similarly, the objects of the bill could be simplified to focus on the central purpose of the bill, which is simply the repeal of the Euthanasia Laws Act. However, I don't intend to move any amendments to address these issues. As concerned as I am about the distraction from the central purpose of the bill, the bill in its current form serves that purpose and so I don't intend to invite debate that may delay the passage of the bill or distract from the issue at hand. Having said that, I'm open to supporting amendments moved by others if they strengthen the focus of the bill.

While I will make a contribution in this speech about assisted dying legislation, I want to express my disappointment at the narrowness of this debate. As the co-convener of Parliamentary Friends of End of Life, I'm deeply disappointed that, as a nation, we don't engage in more holistic discussion about end-of-life issues. We don't talk enough about investing in quality palliative care and encouraging Australians to make advance care plans. It disturbs me somewhat that much of the national discussion around end-of-life issues has focused on the questions of euthanasia and assisted dying, with little attention paid to other important issues around end-of-life care. As a result, governments, both state and federal, have dropped the ball on palliative care. I'm constantly shocked and disgusted at the parlous state of palliative care funding in Australia. There is nowhere near enough being done to educate Australians about the importance of making written advance care plans and discussing end-of-life wishes with their loved ones.

In 2011 the Grattan Institute published a report which found that 70 per cent of Australians would prefer to die at home, surrounded by their loved ones. The number of Australians actually dying at home at that time was a mere 14 per cent, and I understand that it has improved very little since. Ninety per cent of Australians die without an advance care plan, and 75 per cent of Australians have not had the conversation with their family about their end-of-life wishes.

For many years I have been campaigning strongly for investment in, and equal access to, quality palliative care. Some in this place will be aware of the speeches I've delivered calling for funding to be extended for Palliative Care Tasmania to continue its work in professional development and community education about death, dying, grief and bereavement. It's also vital that governments at all levels work with the community sector to promote the importance of making advance care plans and discussing care wishes with loved ones and medical practitioners, something which not nearly enough of us do.

Advocates of quality palliative care are often accused of using it as an excuse not to support euthanasia or assisted dying. The view that palliative care and assisted dying are an either/or proposition is driven by a misunderstanding of what palliative care is. Palliative care and assisted dying are not—I repeat, not—mutually exclusive. Having good palliative care available is not a reason to deny the option of assisted dying. Similarly, providing patients with the option of assisted dying is not a reason to ignore the need to invest in quality palliative care.

Palliative care is a form of care given to people with life-limiting illness, and it's necessary for all patients, regardless of whether they have the option of assistance to end their life. It's a multidisciplinary approach that involves the relief of pain, physical and mental stress, and other symptoms of live-limiting illnesses. I think it's fair to say that the more advanced our understanding and practice of palliative care becomes the better we can be at relieving the pain and suffering of patients with life-limiting illness and improving their quality of life. Quality palliative care can, for some patients, be an alternative to assisted dying and it is an option that they deserve. I'm a firm believer that through advance care planning, together with well-funded and well-coordinated quality palliative care, we can reduce the need for patients to seek assistance to end their own life, but we cannot eliminate it. No matter how good palliative care is, I recognise that some pain and suffering cannot be relieved and we cannot make quality of life acceptable for all patients with life-limiting illness. I accept that there are circumstances where patients with life-limiting illness experience pain and suffering which cannot be relieved through palliative care and ending their life appears to be their only option.

There was a time when I was opposed to assisted dying. However, life experiences, like a lot of people have spoken about tonight, have helped to shift my thinking on this issue. One experience I want to mention quickly had a very profound effect on me. It was earlier this year. I spent about 12 hours a day for a couple of weeks at the bedside of my closest personal friend of 35 years, who had been living for several years with early-onset dementia. In the final two weeks of her life, my friend was in the palliative care suite at the facility she had been transferred to a few weeks before. My friend was given regular pain medication and she lived for two weeks, despite the doctors not expecting her to survive more than a day or two. When she finally died, although I obviously experienced a great sense of grief, I also felt enormously relieved that she was no longer suffering. We had spoken many, many times in that 35-year friendship about what either of us would want done if we had no quality of life left, if we had no hope of recovery or if one of us had a terminal illness. So, for patients with life-limiting illness—those who are able to communicate their wishes and are competent to make a decision—knowing that the option to end their life is available could be a comfort, even if they choose not to use it.

As someone who was once opposed to assisted dying, I can understand why many people are cautious about it. While some patients with life-limiting illness will have pain and suffering that cannot be relieved through palliative care, depression, family pressure or the feeling of being a burden could also cause a patient to seek to end their life. That's why any legislative proposal to allow voluntary assisted dying must be approached with a great deal of care and caution and include the strictest safeguards. The Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act includes several such safeguards. The decision has to be supported by three medical professionals, including a specialist who confirms that the patient is terminally ill and a psychiatrist who confirms that they are not suffering from treatable depression. Once all the necessary paperwork is complete, the patient has a nine-day cooling off period before the death can proceed. The act also provides that a medical practitioner shall not assist a patient if there are palliative care options available to relieve their pain and suffering to acceptable levels. There are also protections in the act, with associated criminal penalties, against deceptive and improper influence to procure the signing of a certificate.

The four patients who ended their lives under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act between 1995 and 1997 were all assisted by a device invented by Dr Philip Nitschke. Dr Nitschke's device administered an injection of a lethal drug after the patient answered yes to a series of three questions that appeared on a screen. The questions were:

1. Are you aware that if you go ahead to the last screen and press the "Yes" button, you will be given a lethal dose of medications and die?

2. Are you certain you understand that if you proceed and press the "Yes" button on the next screen that you will die?

3. In 15 seconds you will be given a lethal injection… press "Yes" to proceed.

Ultimately and importantly, the machine gave the choice and the control to the patient over whether to administer the drug.

Should this bill that we're currently debating be passed by both houses and receive royal assent, the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act will again take immediate effect. Some in this place may choose to debate whether the safeguards in the act are sufficient or whether the Northern Territory should be allowed to legislate for assisted dying at all. We could have a similar debate about the law-making power of any of the states, including Victoria, whose parliament recently passed the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017, but we don't have any power to override Victoria's assisted-dying legislation.

We do, however, have the power to override the Northern Territory's or the ACT's. Section 122 of the Constitution grants us this power, and there will be some in this place who will say that we need to make a decision about the circumstances in which that power should be exercised. I say that, while the authors of the Australian Constitution did a pretty good job, we need to recognise that, for better or worse, this 117-year-old document was the product of a series of compromises. These compromises were necessary to bring six independent colonies together to form a nation. It is an imperfect document, but its implementation has been improved over the years by the conventions and practices we have adopted—conventions such as giving the territories the right to self-govern on equal terms with the states.

In 1997, our federal parliament overturned that convention, a convention that had stood for 19 years in the case of the Northern Territory and for nine years in the case of the ACT. If we're honest with ourselves, we should recognise that section 122 of the Constitution gives us the power to create two classes of citizens, those who are free to govern themselves in areas of state responsibilities and those who are not. So let's not be under any illusions. The Euthanasia Laws Act discriminates against territorians, and anyone who chooses to oppose this legislation is voting for this discrimination to continue.

I do not believe it's for me as a senator elected to this place to determine whether the Northern Territory or the ACT should legislate for voluntary assisted dying, just as it's not for me to determine whether Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales or Queensland should. It's not for me to decide whether the safeguards of the Northern Territory's or the ACT's assisted dying legislation are sufficient. I support this bill because I do not see it as fair to treat territorians as second-class citizens and to say to them: 'The states are mature enough to govern themselves, but you need federal oversight.' That is essentially what this parliament did when it passed the Euthanasia Laws Act in 1997.

I'm not going to agree with every bill that the Northern Territory parliament or the ACT parliament passes, but the question we need to ask ourselves today is not one of whether we allow assisted dying in Australia's territories. If state parliaments have the right to decide whether they want to allow assisted dying, why should this right be denied to the parliaments of the territories? The question we need to ask ourselves today with our vote on this bill is: do we believe in self-government for the territories on the same terms as self-government for the states, or do we only support self-government for the territories when we agree with their decisions? I for one don't believe in treating the Northern Territory and ACT residents as second-class citizens, and that's why I will be supporting this bill.

I'm happy to admit that I had to wrestle with this issue because for me it is one of competing principles. But, after reflection, I have nevertheless come to a firm conclusion. I will be voting no, and I want to briefly outline why.

I am sympathetic to the principles of federalism that underline the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. It would be nice to simply dismiss these considerations on the technicality that the Northern Territory and the ACT are territories and not states and are therefore not entitled to so-called states' rights. But, if we believe in federalism as a matter of principle, as I do, it is not that easy. I don't believe in a federal system of government just because that's what we happened to agree at Federation. I believe in federalism because I believe in decentralisation. I believe in subsidiarity. Local decisions are best made by local people. Too much policy in this nation is dictated in Canberra and imposed around the nation to variable results. It is not states which have rights but people. People should enjoy no fewer rights simply because of where they live in Australia, even though residents of the territories have not yet taken up the option available to them to become a state.

But this isn't only a bill about federalism. It's also a bill about euthanasia and the principle of the individual dignity of every human life. I can't wipe clean from my conscience the ultimate impact of the vote that I will cast on this bill and on this principle. The actions that we will all take on this bill will have consequences that we all must be prepared to accept. I do understand why many Australians want to have the option of doctor assisted suicide at the end of their life. A painful death is a fear widely shared and a painful death is not something I blame people at all for wanting to avoid if possible. If there were some way of guaranteeing that only those who really wanted and needed that option were able to access it, perhaps I would adopt a different view.

Because we are all flawed human beings, I recognise the profound limitations we have as legislators. Despite our best intentions, there are aspects of human behaviour that we can never perfectly regulate, no matter how hard we try. The consequences of getting regulation wrong in most areas of public life are irritation and inefficiency, but when it comes to regulating life and death they are as profound as they can be. I am yet to see a system for regulating euthanasia anywhere in the world, including in my home state of Victoria, that gives me confidence that no person would ever be put to death wrongly. For me, even one wrongful death is one too many. In years to come, I suspect Victorians will regret the decision that our parliament reached late last year. I believe it is inevitable that there will be misdiagnoses, that some people will feel pressure, real or imagined, and that, if we start to normalise state sanctioned taking of life, the criteria will inevitably widen, as they have overseas. I'm worried that the participation and tacit endorsement of the state and the medical profession in this process will compromise both.

Resolving contests of deeply held principles is always the most difficult decision to make. Federalism and protecting the individual dignity of human life are both dear to my heart. If forced to choose, I have to pick the most fundamental. If, in the future, people are wrongfully killed under a euthanasia regime that is in effect permitted by our votes here today, I doubt that the principles of federalism will provide much comfort to our consciences. That's why I will be voting no.

I rise to speak in the very important debate on the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. In Yanyuwa and Garrwa, we don't really have a word for euthanasia in our language. In fact, talking to families in the region over many, many years, especially around the time of the 1997 conversation in the Northern Territory parliament around the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, I found that people in our families didn't know what euthanasia meant. So, when you think of how you explain that in language when we've got over 100 Aboriginal languages in the Northern Territory, there was a great deal of difficulty on that level.

But this bill goes to the heart of the rights of the people of the Northern Territory to make their decisions—to make decisions within the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, along with the elected reps in the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. The importance in the Westminster system in this country is the importance of your democratic right to speak and your one vote—your one value—where you elect people to speak on your behalf in these assemblies.

In 2007, I was the member for Arnhem and stood in the Northern Territory parliament to speak on many issues. I was the elected member for Arnhem from 2005 until 2012. But in 2007, when the Commonwealth parliament made a decision to intervene in the lives of the people of the Northern Territory, as a legislator and as someone elected by the people I had never felt so powerless as a parliamentarian. I had never felt so powerless, as a representative of the constituency of Arnhem and the people of the Northern Territory, that I had no voice. I had no say, along with 24 other members of the Northern Territory legislature.

This was because the founding fathers of this country wrote a constitution which, yes, imperfect though it is, has stood the test of time, and included section 112 of the Constitution, which enables this parliament to overrule and to intervene in the lives of the people of the territories. And this still remains an area of debate. This bill reflects on a law that was made by the parliament of the Northern Territory and to consider giving that right back to the Northern Territory in order for the Northern Territory to make its own laws is the right thing to do. I say to the senators in this house: what makes your conscience and what makes your personal experiences any better or any less than the parliamentarians who stand in the Northern Territory assembly and the parliamentarians who stand in the ACT assembly? What gives you the authority—the moral authority, the personal authority—to think that your ability is much better and greater than theirs? This bill goes to the heart of our country's democracy: the right for people to make laws, to make mistakes and to learn from those mistakes. As elected representatives, they're put there by the people who voted them in.

At the time of the debate here in the federal parliament in 1997 about overturning the Northern Territory's euthanasia bill, the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, much was said about why it is that 25 people could make a decision on such a very big and important issue. Who did they think they were?

Well, I'm going to tell you who they were, because I knew and know every single one of them who stood in the parliament and debated for hours in 1995, through committees across the Territory, and then struggled with the decision of the Commonwealth two years later: the late Maurice Rioli, the member for Arafura; Eric Poole, the member for Araluen; the late Wesley Lanhupuy, the member for Arnhem; Maggie Hickey, the member for Barkly; Loraine Braham, the member for Braitling; Denis Burke, the member for Brennan; Peter Adamson, the member for Casuarina; Marshall Perron, Chief Minister and member for Fannie Bay; Terry McCarthy, the member for Goyder; Richard Lim, the member for Greatorex; Rick Setter, the member for Jingili; Mick Palmer, the member for Karama; Mike Reed, the member for Katherine; Fred Finch, the member for Leanyer; Neil Bell, the member for MacDonnell; Phil Mitchell, the member for Millner; Noel Padgham-Purich, the member for Nelson; Syd Stirling, the member for Nhulunbuy; Steve Hatton, the member for Nightcliff; Barry Coulter, the member for Palmerston; Shane Stone, the member for Port Darwin; Daryl Manzie, the member for Sanderson; and Brian Ede, the member for Stuart.

And this, Senators, was what they struggled with. Mr Perron said:

… a number of members find themselves in a dilemma over the issue before us. Indeed, I find myself among that group. Today, I will damage relationships that I value deeply. My dilemma is whether to rest my case, and not further bruise those relationships, or press ahead and try to achieve a needed reform that will diminish misery and suffering for a very small number of unfortunate citizens …

John Bailey said:

We should amend it to make it the best legislation possible. We should monitor it in the future to ensure that there are no problems or loopholes. We should delay the implementation of the legislation, firstly, until we are convinced that the community is fully aware of its implications and the fears in the community—

have been discussed and properly canvassed.

And then of course we had the Aboriginal members of the parliament. The late Maurice Rioli, the member for Arafura, said:

We heard from Aboriginal people of the Territory that they want no part of this legislation. At Yirrkala, they were saying that, for some of their people, they know when they are going to die and they wish to be at home with their family in their own country, on their own land, listening to and hearing the songs that give meaning, purpose and the strength to endure and to help the life spirit return to its place of origin so that everything will be right with the world.

Then we heard from another Aboriginal member, the member for Arnhem, Mr Lanhupuy, and he stood on his feet and he said:

Mr Speaker, in rising to speak to the private member's bill … I would like not only to address some of the issues that have confronted myself as an individual in the debate, but also to provide information—

information that he had received. And he asked the people to respect his point of view. Mr Lanhupuy voted in favour of the bill, knowing that his Aboriginal constituency may not have supported him. But it was his decision. He went with his conscience. He was very capable, a speaker of many languages. He could stand in that parliament with 24 other members and put his case—as they all did. And then they finally came to the vote on the second reading: ayes, 13; noes, 12. So what makes this Senate and the conscience of the senators here any better than the conscience of those members of the Northern Territory parliament? What makes the senators and the members in the other House so much better, so much more knowledgeable about the decisions for the Northern Territory than those members elected by the people of the Northern Territory?

I personally have great difficulty with euthanasia, but that's not what this bill's about. This bill is about the rights of the people of the Northern Territory to make their own decisions, to make their own mistakes and to create a future and a vision where they know their landscape, they know their languages, they know their history, they know their faults and they know their problems. So when the federal parliament makes decisions to intervene, it has the most dramatic impact on the lives of individuals. I know, because I speak from personal experience as a parliamentarian, as a Yanyuwa Garrwa woman from the Gulf country who's seen and witnessed time after time after time the complete disempowerment of people's abilities and the complete disrespect to enabling others to make the decisions, to stand by their decisions and to follow them through.

I spoke earlier about how in 2007, as the member for Arnhem, it was the most disempowering moment to stand in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and have your power removed for no reason, simply because of a constitutional act. But the mental and physical impact that had on people was quite profound. So I call on the senators here: when you think about your vote, your conscience, I ask you to think about the 25 members of that parliament who didn't just rush in to make a decision on such an important piece of legislation without any thought, or consideration, or angst or division amongst themselves. Those 13 ayes and 12 noes were not from one political party; they were members from all sides who walked, who crossed the floor, who checked their consciences, who talked with their families and who travelled the length and breadth of the Territory to get a sense of what the people wanted. Then they went and voted according to their conscience.

I urge all members, all senators, to support this bill. Support the right for the people of the Northern Territory and the people of the ACT to make their decisions, to be empowered, to feel worthy and to feel that, as citizens of this country, their planning, their research and their values matter, and that their dignity as people who can determine their livelihoods matters. We hear in the debate here how the Constitution and the Federation of 1901 brought the states together. There is unfinished business, certainly for the Northern Territory.

I had the honour of being the Minister for Statehood from 2008 to 2012. If anything, the next step for us is to be included as full citizens in this country, because right now we only have half a vote. In any referendum, we are considered as only half a vote. Any decision going forward should be about growing the legislative capability and the democratic rights and processes for the people of the Northern Territory if that is what they choose. Do not diminish their rights any further. Enable them to have this back. Enable them to choose, to decide, to debate, to argue, to agree or to disagree on pieces of legislation that matter for their constituency—just as you and the members in the other house do for your constituency. We in the Northern Territory are no less than any other Australian in that our rights need to be respected. So I urge the Senate and all senators to support this bill.

I'll say at the outset, to make it clear, that I support the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 and will be voting in favour of it. There's a lot of reference in this debate to this being a conscience vote. I'd like to think we exercise our consciences pretty much all the time in this place in considering our decisions and actions on a whole range of issues. I don't think the issue of euthanasia should somehow be considered in some magic bubble disconnected from all of the other policy issues that we consider, that we vote on and that we promote or oppose. Even though it is labelled as a conscience vote, I will say that it is explicitly Queensland Greens' policy. It's quite explicit, clear-cut and simple that we support the right of people with severe and incurable disease to choose to die with dignity—and I am voting in accordance with that policy.

I do want to put some other comments on the record. At its core, this legislation, as we've just heard very eloquently from Senator McCarthy, seeks to restore the rights of the parliaments of the ACT and the Northern Territory to consider the issue of euthanasia. If this bill should pass, it's pretty unlikely that the federal parliament will ever again be considering a euthanasia model directly in terms of a national approach. I expect it will proceed to continue to be considered by state and territory parliaments, as they have done a number of times—sometimes in great depth with significant committee inquiries and with very close votes. So, in that sense, by voting in favour of this bill, we are handing over the decision-making power on this issue to the parliaments of the ACT and the Northern Territory, should they choose to consider any proposal for euthanasia laws. The reason that I want to comment on it is that I do think the issues around euthanasia and end-of-life issues more broadly, as Senator Bilyk said, do need to be discussed and considered more, and the language that we use and the issues that arise do need to be taken into account.

It's also been mentioned a couple of times in this debate that there are just four people here who were in this Senate chamber when the Andrews bill, as it is known, was voted on—Senators Abetz, Collins, Carr and Ian Macdonald. I was actually here in this chamber, but I wasn't a senator at the time; I was in the public gallery and I remember it very well—it was packed. I was working at the time for one of the Democrat senators, John Woodley—who was actually the only Democrat to vote in favour of the Andrews bill—and I was heavily involved as a staffer following the Senate committee inquiries and issues that were being considered at that time.

There are a few points I'd like to make. Firstly, a lot has changed in 20 years. The fundamental issues, philosophies and complexities and the personal nature of people's end-of-life experiences will always continue on, long after all of us are gone. The fact that we will all die is one of the few absolutely shared experiences that we all, as humans, have in common. In that sense, I sometimes find the term 'right to die' a bit of a strange one. We're going to die whether we like it or not. The issue is the nature of that death and also the life that people have not just in that final period but throughout their life. Again, I think the issue of euthanasia can't, or shouldn't, be considered in isolation from all of the other things we can do to make people's lives better right through until that final period.

I note and agree with the concern about using the term 'assisted suicide'. Senator Di Natale has an amendment to change that in this bill. We'll be supporting it anyway, regardless of whether that amendment goes through. But I actually think it's a significant matter. The term 'euthanasia' literally means 'good death'. The other terms that people use to describe this seek to reflect that idea of making the final moments of as many people as possible as good an experience as possible. When we think of suicide, in our community, in our cultures, we do not think of it as a good death; we usually think of it as one of the worst deaths. I don't think it's a good thing to equate those terms when we're talking about the issues involved here.

I have always supported the principle of the right of people to access a good death and to choose that. The challenge, of course, is to ensure that principle is applied safely and not misused, and that's always the dilemma. That's why I have sometimes been equivocal in my support for euthanasia laws. But we're not debating the laws here; we're simply debating whether or not to hand that power back to the territories to consider. I will simply say that my views have evolved over time because of the fact that this has been debated and explored a number of times in state parliaments. I will put on the record the consistent leadership role that the Greens have played in pretty much all of those debates and in leading the charge in terms of introducing legislation, through former senator Bob Brown, as early as 1997 to reverse the Andrews bill.

As was mentioned, in Tasmania the euthanasia bill came within one vote of being adopted. In the New South Wales upper house, it was lost by one vote. In the Victorian parliament, as we know, it has now been adopted. So we now have a model to look at and see how it works in practice. Looking at the evidence from many of those parliamentary debates and committee inquiries has really been the tipping point for me. I don't think you can ever design any legislative regime where you can 100 per cent guarantee that a mistake won't be made, but when you see all the evidence about the reality of what happens now—the immense suffering that so many people go through that we know we could prevent—and the fact that, as Senator McKim reflected on and as was detailed quite clearly in the evidence to the Victorian parliamentary committee, it is already happening now in so many ways, in a completely unregulated way, though almost always, I am sure, with good intent. What is happening right now is that people are committing suicide, having horrible deaths and traumatising their family because they have no other alternative. So we will likely see, with good euthanasia laws, a reduction in traumatic suicides of people in extreme, unrelenting pain who see no other way out.

In the Victorian parliamentary inquiry, there were reports that doctors practise—with the best will—unlawful assisted dying, despite its prohibition and despite prospective liability for serious crimes. That is happening without regulation, often without proper support and without transparency and accountability. So, if we want to minimise the chances of putting an end to someone's life inappropriately, we need to put a regulatory regime around it, because it's happening now already to a degree that we don't really know, because it's underground. The best way to minimise the chance of misuse of power is by putting a regulatory framework around it.

I think we need to recognise that, whilst we all support the principle of choice, choice is not always equal, because power situations are not always equal. It is fine for people who are relatively wealthy, have access to good-quality health services, have family supports around them, have trusted medical professionals and are in positions of power and privilege to engage with some of these processes. But it is different if you're a person in poverty, if you have significant mental health issues, if you are a person with a different cultural background or with language differences, or if you are a person with direct experience of the systemic racism that still exists in the delivery of our services. A point that is made by those in the disability advocacy community who raise issues with the euthanasia laws is the very systemic ableism that is built into so many aspects of our society and our health system so deeply that we are often not conscious of it. We need to be aware that ableism, systemic racism, innate discrimination and power differentials will continue to be there under a regulated regime. But the fact is that they exist already under a non-regulated regime, and I think it is far better to be able to at least have a regime where you can monitor what is happening and try to protect those people who have more direct experience with language barriers or with cultural and racial discrimination.

I know from the debate 20 years ago—and this was a point that was raised by one of the opponents of this bill—the fears of the Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory about what it might mean to them. Senator McCarthy reflected in her contribution on the different views there amongst Aboriginal communities in the Territory. Given even the little I know—and I know Senator McCarthy would know far more than I do—about some terrible, terrible experiences that Aboriginal people have had with very direct and blatant racism through the health system, you wouldn't blame them for being fearful of engaging with it. But you don't address that by just saying, 'Well, we won't address these issues.' You address that by addressing and acknowledging the systemic racism.

We have heard from all sides of this debate often about the inherent value of every life, including some of those most opposed to euthanasia because of the inherent value of every life. I want to reiterate the point that, if we want to adopt that principle—and I certainly do—we can do a hell of a lot more to give value to people's lives throughout their lives. I spoke just last night in this place about the very direct evidence that the inadequate funding for maternity services in rural communities in Queensland is almost certainly leading to higher infant mortality in those rural communities compared to those rural communities that do have basic maternity services and midwife services. That's literally right at the very start. That is an uncomfortable fact, but it's true. Babies are missing out on the entire opportunity of life because we're not adequately funding that. We need to do so much more, and I support the campaigns of the Nursing and Midwifery Federation with regard to aged-care ratios and nursing ratios and the Our Turn to Care campaign. We need to do so much more to fund and provide support in aged-care facilities. There is often no magic tipping point when you suddenly become worried. It's a situation that we all know we're going to face at some stage, and people need support at all stages through their life process.

The ironic part—maybe 'ironic' is not the right word—is that, despite the concerns that some raise about all the situations this might apply to, the Victorian model is only for people who are explicitly diagnosed as having a terminal illness with less than 12 months life expectancy left.

There are a whole lot of other people in excruciating, unbelievable suffering, and sometimes mental health fits into that circumstance as well. They are not covered by the laws. They all need support. People are concerned about addressing people. People are concerned folks might make not the best decisions because of their depression or mental health situation. What about more funding for mental health? It is not adequately funded. We all know that. The support services are not there for so many people in the community. What about better funding for housing? What about not forcing people into poverty? Those are all just as much about the inherent value of every life.

That is the context in which euthanasia law regimes operate. They come into play in a circumstance where we have our society governed so much by market based principles, the profit motive and all of the other neoliberal principles that are put on the top, even for not-for-profit providers. So these laws will operate in that context. I certainly believe we all need to continue to attack and eliminate those neoliberal principles, those market-first principles, from anything to do with ensuring basic care for people throughout their life in times of need. And those times of need can happen when you're quite young as well as when you're elderly.

So, in supporting the rights of territories to consider euthanasia legislation and supporting all of the state parliaments to continue to explore these issues—it has been put forward and examined, certainly, in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, WA and Tasmania. I'm not sure that it's happened in Queensland yet, but I think I can be quite confident, now there is a Greens MP in the Queensland parliament, that he is keen to progress this issue and have the debate in Queensland as well. We can all learn, not just from the models in Victoria. From the time since that first legislation was passed in the Northern Territory, laws have been in place in Oregon, in the US, for nearly 20 years. We have examples in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in many states in the US and elsewhere in the world that we can now look at to see the best models to draw on. I think we're in a much better place now to be confident that these debates can be informed. But I think they need to be holistic, and that's why I'm keen that the whole issue of euthanasia is not be seen as some separate conscience issue that's disconnected from all of the other policy issues that we deal with in this place.

With that, I would also like to say that there is a real significance in how we talk about these issues and, as part of that, in recognising the challenges in how we deal with some of the issues, like people with dementia and people with severe and sometimes, sadly, untreatable mental health. I've talked about my own circumstances a bit before. I won't do that tonight because of the time, but I will say that some of the strongest people are those who work through those challenges, but there's still not always a cure, and proper support for those people is important. One of the potential flow-on benefits of having a pathway for people, knowing that there are others who can work with them about end-of-life situations and what they see as their future, is having a regulatory regime in place. Your natural tendency when you're in a bad place is to go inwards and isolate, but having a regulatory regime means that you have a pathway you are encouraged to engage with. But those pathways have got to be properly funded. They need to be comprehensive, they need to include palliative care, they need to include aged care, they need to include mental health support and they need to keep listening to the people who are going through the experience so the choice is a genuine one.

I intend to make a fairly short contribution to this debate. I know there are many speakers to come. At the outset, like many other speakers, I want to respect the fact there are very many different views on this important issue and that everyone's contribution in this debate comes from very deeply held beliefs. I do recognise that this is something that good people can disagree about.

I will be supporting the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, and I'll be supporting it on two bases. The first is really the most fundamental when we look at the terms of this bill, and that is the basis of territory rights. I'm not going to be able to put this as eloquently as Senator McCarthy, who made a magnificent speech a short time ago as a representative for one of Australia's two territories, as to why it is important for residents and their elected representatives from our territories to be able to make decisions about these types of issues. It is important, when we strip all of the debate back and look at the terms of this bill, that we see the only purpose of this bill. The only thing that this bill will do is enable the Northern Territory and the ACT, the residents and elected representatives of those two territories, to make their own decisions about this issue.

The fact is that a bill, which has since become known as the Andrews bill, was passed into law some time ago and it removed the power of the two territories to make their own decisions about voluntary assisted dying. It made it very clear that the Commonwealth does have the legal and constitutional power to legislate in this space. I disagree with arguments that have been made, and will continue to be made, that this is not something the Commonwealth should or can be involved in. Section 122 of the Constitution makes very clear that the Commonwealth does have constitutional power to make laws in relation to the territories. And, just as the Commonwealth had the power around 20 years ago to remove the power of the territories to legislate in this area, similarly, tonight, the Commonwealth does have the power to give the two territories that power back.

In researching for this debate, I read that the Andrews bill, which removed this power from the territories, was actually the first time that the Commonwealth had ever legislated to remove powers that had been given to the territories, so I think it's clear that the legislation at the time was the aberration. It was the first time that power had ever been used by the Commonwealth.

The second reason I will be supporting this bill is, if you like, the substantive reason—that is, despite the misgivings that I think many of us have, I do fundamentally support the right of individuals and their families to make their own decisions about how and when they should die. That has got to be one of the most personal decisions that anyone has the opportunity to make, and I don't see that it's my role as a legislator to make that decision for other people by preventing them from having the opportunity to exercise some level of control over the circumstances in which they pass on. I'm sure all of us know many people who have experienced excruciating and prolonged deaths, and any of us who've been in that situation, whether it be with relatives or friends, would want to make sure that people do have an option. This bill can give them the option either to press on and receive palliative care or any other form of care or, if they reach the point where they feel that the time has come, to have the power to end their lives with dignity, without legislators like me taking that decision away from them.

Like all advocates for this bill, I would want to make sure that there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure what would come from this if the territories do decide to enact legislation to facilitate voluntary assisted dying. We all want to make sure there are adequate safeguards around those powers, but I trust the residents and the legislators of the two territories to be able to make those decisions and to put in place the adequate safeguards that all of us would want to see. That was something that people in Victoria and their political representatives were capable of; that's something that people all around the world and their political representatives have been capable of. I have seen nothing in the various political representations and people of the two territories in Australia to make me think that they are not capable of making the same decision.

So, as I said, I will be supporting this bill, both on territory rights grounds and because I do think that this is a very personal decision. It is something that should initially be left to the territories to make decisions for themselves, and then for individuals and their families to make decisions over their own personal circumstances.

I too will try to keep my remarks brief. I want to recognise three things during my contribution to this debate on the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015.

First of all, I want to recognise the fundamental reality that the peoples of the Northern Territory and of the Australian Capital Territory deserve to have their rights and their voices heard. The Andrews Bill, referred to previously by Senator Watt, was, indeed, an aberration. It stripped hundreds of thousands of Australians of their right to have their voices heard in the legislative process and should now be repealed. I would also like to recognise that this is also a question of many of our individual views of the issue of end-of-life choices, and put clearly on the record that I am a firm supporter of a move, whether at the state or federal level, to grant people under certain circumstances the right to make a choice about how they wish to finish their time on this earth.

My contribution to this debate, however, is unique among the contributions that have been made before mine, in as much as I am the first person with a disability to serve in the Australian Senate. For the disability community, and for at least a significant proportion of it, the question of end-of-life choices has a particularly deep significance. I would like, therefore, to add for the reflection of those participating in the debate tonight some critical context which I believe is very important and which helps illuminate some concerns and fears that are held by those in the disability community. These are not reasons, it is my firm belief, to fail to legislate in this area. They are, in fact, reasons to be kept firmly in mind as we, as legislators, put our minds to work in the crafting of the appropriate legislation.

We here in this place must come to terms with the reality that our society is drenched in toxic ableism. Ableism says that to be disabled is to be broken, is to be shameful and is to be a lesser form of human life. This toxic discriminatory idea pervades our society in the same ways, and deforms it in the same ways, as do sexism, misogyny and homophobia. This demeaning and dark angel of the human nature lies behind so many of the disgraceful circumstances to which disabled Australians are subjected daily. When we are forced to work for a dollar an hour, it is ableism that takes our wage. When we are abused and denied justice, it is ableism that silences us. When a disabled child is told that they can't be educated with the rest of their peers because they just hold their peers back, it is ableism which makes them wonder if they are right. It is this poison of our society which lies at the root of many of the fears of the disability community when it comes to the issue of euthanasia. It is far more prevalent in our society than many of us would like to admit, and it contributes a thought process which, to be blunt, expresses itself most clearly in the statement, 'It would be better to be dead than be disabled.'

It is the reality of modern-day Australia that the four million Australians with disabilities are overwhelmingly denied access to the proper supports and services necessary to live a good life. Although the NDIS is doing much good work in the amelioration of these circumstances, there is still so far to go. Violence, abuse and neglect are still endemic. Human rights are still casually denied. It is into this context that some fear that euthanasia enters. How can it be, some suggest, that this legislature, or any legislature, would seek to make it easier for a disabled person to die when there is still so much work to be done to ensure that we can live? Much concern is also created by often used terms such as 'dignity'. Dignity is, in itself, a very subjective idea. I put it to you that I experience things daily which some would consider undignified but which, in fact, have no inherent indignity. It is these things which we must be cognisant of when legislating in this area to ensure that the rights of disabled Australians and all others are protected and safeguarded.

I must state clearly, for the record, the anger that I feel when these legitimate concerns are taken advantage of by certain unscrupulous religious organisations seeking to abuse them for their own purposes. I sit here as a disabled person who is a passionate advocate of this reform. These are not reasons why we should not move forward in this area. These are not people whose fears and concerns should be played on, nor should they be immediately dismissed. It is clear we must move in this area. The pain, suffering and fear, which is a daily feature of those struggling with this most difficult of decisions, demands action of us. But we must also move cautiously in consultation, with open ears, to ensure that that which we create does no harm and robs none of their rights. I thank the chamber for its time.

In considering this bill, Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, we first have to define exactly what it is we are debating. Some have suggested we, particularly those of us representing territories, should put aside our views about the rights and wrongs of assisted suicide and simply debate the merits of territory rights. I reject this view for a number of reasons.

When the Andrews bill was debated in 1997, a conscience vote was granted by both major parties because it was recognised that this was an issue of such profound importance and, where there are such strong convictions, the vote should not be determined by the parties but by the individual senator or member. If it were an issue of territory rights, no doubt each of the parties would have a party position, because, on other occasions when territory rights have been considered in this place, a conscience vote has not been not granted. For instance, in 2001, this chamber voted to overturn Northern Territory laws on mandatory sentencing. I note that not only was this a party lines vote but the Labor Party, including the Territory Labor senator, and the Greens voted as a bloc specifically to overturn a law that a democratically elected parliament had enacted. As Lindsay Tanner stated in 1997 when debating the legislation that this bill seeks to overturn: where would territory rights advocates be if this were not about euthanasia but about capital punishment? He went on to say he suspected that there would be some who would be only too happy, too ready, to join in overruling the Northern Territory parliament should it decide to reintroduce capital punishment.

In correspondence I have had with people in Canberra, views have, of course, been mixed, though there is a tendency to support or oppose this bill, depending on which side of the assisted suicide debate one finds oneself on. Many of the people who support this legislation would be very happy to see Commonwealth intervention if the tables were turned and it was a different piece of legislation that was being debated. While parts of the media seek to suggest that Canberrans are of one mind in wanting more autonomy for the Territory parliament, I don't have people banging down my door asking that 13 individuals in the ACT assembly be given unfettered power. In fact, the more than 50 per cent of Canberrans who voted for a party not in government often feel completely disenfranchised by the way their government completely ignores their wishes. While I know less about the Northern Territory, I do know that, when given the opportunity to have less Commonwealth intervention in their affairs by becoming a state, Territorians voted in 1998 to remain a territory. This vote occurred after the Commonwealth had used its territories power to overrule the Northern Territory's assisted suicide legislation.

This brings me to the issue of assisted suicide. I oppose assisted suicide. I have no doubt that, if this bill passes the parliament, we will see assisted suicide in the ACT at least; therefore, I cannot support the bill. It's impossible, of course, not to be moved by the plight of terminally ill Australians who are suffering. There is no doubt that not enough is being done to ensure proper pain relief and palliative care is available to more Australians, and I'll come back to this later in my contribution. The question we have to ask as legislators is: will crossing this ethical threshold lead to better or worse outcomes for Australians, particularly our most vulnerable—the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the depressed and the lonely? Experience overseas suggests it will not. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating got to the heart of the matter last year in relation to the Victorian laws, saying:

What matters is that under Victorian law there will be people whose lives we honour and those we believe are better off dead.

He goes on to say:

… advocates support a bill to authorise termination of life in the name of compassion, while at the same time claiming they can guarantee protection of the vulnerable, the depressed and the poor.

No law and no process can achieve that objective.

Does anyone really believe that laws passed by 13 Labor and Greens members of the ACT assembly, with no house of review, would be anything but an even more extreme version of the Victorian law with fewer safeguards? In fact, the sponsor of this bill, Senator Leyonhjelm, suggests that is exactly what he is hoping a territory legislature will deliver. In the Australian Financial Review, Senator Leyonhjelm recently wrote that, while the Victorian legislation was, in his words, 'a step in the right direction', he lamented the fact that the law only allows for euthanasia for the terminally ill. No doubt Senator Leyonhjelm is confidently hoping that the ACT assembly or the Northern Territory legislature will deliver a no-holds-barred version of assisted suicide. It's a legitimate fear. Supporters of this bill are very clearly leaving open that possibility, and I think it's clear that, if this bill passes, assisted suicide will be legal in the ACT before long.

One of the government's fundamental duties is to ensure that its laws protect the most vulnerable in society. As Lindsay Tanner stated, back when debating the law that is being sought to be repealed here:

… there is a very different question at stake here; that is, not whether in some individual circumstances there is something morally wrong, but whether the state should legalise and indeed can safely legalise such practices.

The reality is that the state cannot safely do so. Last week, we saw shocking reports that a nine-year-old and an 11-year-old became the youngest ever to be euthanised under Belgian law. Many who favour assisted suicide would say, 'That would never happen here.' To quote Paul Keating again:

… once termination of life is authorised the threshold is crossed. From that point it is much easier to liberalise the conditions governing the law. And liberalised they will be.

He continues:

The experience of overseas jurisdictions suggests the pressures for further liberalisation are irresistible.

So what is the experience overseas? Well, in Belgium, kids are now being killed by doctors with the authority of the state. That jurisdiction brought in assisted suicide in 2002 with apparently strict parameters that only those in constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering which could not be alleviated would be able to make requests for assisted suicide. In a relatively short time, this has expanded so that, in 2015, 15 per cent of cases did not involve people who were terminally ill and included those with depression—and now even children.

In Oregon in 2016, 19 years after the introduction of assisted suicide, nearly half of the people killed under the scheme cited concerns about being a burden to family, friends and caregivers as a reason for it, compared to just over a third who cited inadequate pain management as their reason.

Professor Margaret Somerville writes in The Guardian:

In the Netherlands, euthanasia is no longer restricted to competent adults with unbearable suffering able to provide informed consent. It's now available to children, newborn babies with serious disabilities, and people with dementia and mental illness, such as depression, without physical illness. There are movements to legalise access to inflicted death for people "over 70 and tired of life" or who feel they have a "completed life". Likewise, after just over a year of legalised euthanasia in Quebec, there are calls for it to be extended to "euthanasia on demand", that is, that there should be no requirements for access by a competent person.

So it's difficult to see how the logic pointed to by Paul Keating about further liberalisation, which is being played out everywhere that assisted suicide is allowed, would not apply in Australia's territories.

Victoria's Labor Deputy Premier, James Merlino, pointed to studies that have shown that, in jurisdictions which have legalised assisted suicide, the rate of unassisted suicide also rises. With all we do as a government and a society to discourage suicide, particularly by our young people, what message will we send if we open the door for state-sanctioned suicide? How much does legislation such as this undermine the amazing efforts of so many to discourage suicide in our society? And, of course, we've seen the example of high-profile assisted-suicide campaigner Philip Nitschke, who in 2014 advised a 45-year-old man, who was not terminally ill, on acquiring and subsequently taking life-ending drugs. Nitschke said:

If a 45-year-old comes to a rational decision to end his life … they should be supported.

Palliative care has come a long way. However, governments need to invest more in it. Of course, assisted suicide is much cheaper than palliative care, which provides a perverse incentive. Professor Ian Haines, a medical oncologist, tells of his support for euthanasia due to the traumatic passing of his aunt in 1969 in the absence of quality palliative care. However, now his views have changed. He says:

The advances in the skills, availability and knowledge in palliative care since those days have been phenomenal.

He goes on to say:

I have received many euthanasia requests from patients and families over my 34 years in full-time oncology practice, some very passionate, but I have invariably found that they quickly disappear as reassurance and adequate medication doses provide the comfort that is desired …

The reality is that palliative care, properly resourced and administered, provides a whole-of-community response to a patient and has the capacity to nurture people towards a dignified death.

According to an open letter to the Victorian parliament published by a number of palliative care professionals:

Current Australian data indicates that no more than 2 in every 100 Palliative Care patients would be in moderate or severe pain at the end of life. In these unusual cases where when all other methods of palliation for pain and other symptoms is inadequate, and if the patient agrees, palliative sedation therapy is available to provide adequate relief of suffering.

They further note:

It would be unethical for any state jurisdiction in Australia to move to legalise for assisted suicide or euthanasia whilst many ill, aged and disabled Australians cannot yet access the support that they need. Such a move would not enhance choice, but instead reduce choice around the care and support for those in real need.

How could it be any other way? How can people truly be exercising personal autonomy and choice when they are not being offered the best choices available?

In the ACT, where this bill would have its effect, there is no question that palliative care resourcing from the ACT Labor government has not been up to scratch. Dr Michael Chapman, Canberra Hospital's director of palliative medicine, says:

Our pressing priority to provide end-of-life choices in the ACT requires people to have real access to quality palliative care which is currently not always the case for many and not always the case when we need it. People often receive too little or too late or no services at all.

Dr Chapman's evidence to the inquiry into end-of-life choices in the ACT confirmed that there are just four full-time equivalent palliative medicine specialists operating in the territory—half the number required for the size of the population. And, given that the territory treats many patients from the surrounding regions, this number again falls short. The Hon. John Watkins, the chair of the board of Canberra's Calvary Hospital, also notes:

… rather than weakening current protections we should instead be talking about how we best support the dignity and personal needs of those reaching the end of their life in addition to their families and make sure that care is available and accessible to all.

It is significant to note also that the 2016 review of the National Palliative Care Strategy found that there remain significant barriers to access to palliative care services for a number of people within the population, particularly for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and:

… there is work to be done in developing culturally specific activities to address the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to help improve access for those who need it.

The report noted that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have not accessed palliative care services to the same extent as the general Australian population.

One of the most consistent arguments for legalising assisted suicide is about personal autonomy. However, overseas experience shows that personal autonomy is progressively eroded, with the most vulnerable feeling a burden on others or feeling pressured to do the 'selfless' thing and end their lives. One of the more horrible examples of this was reported in the Washington Times in October 2016. Stephanie Packer, a mother of four children, with a terminal illness, was denied coverage from her insurance company for chemotherapy treatment but was offered coverage for assisted suicide. Mrs Packer had initially been told that the insurance company would cover the cost of switching to a different chemotherapy drug, but the insurance company changed its position after the passage of the assisted suicide laws. This was a situation where a law about choosing to die ended up impacting on someone's ability to make a different choice. How's that for personal autonomy? How much easier will it be for governments to pay for euthanasia rather than treatment if these types of laws are passed?

Indeed, in Canada, with the introduction of assisted suicide in 2016, a report into the cost analysis of medical assistance in dying in Canada found:

… medical assistance in dying could reduce annual health care spending across Canada by between $34.7 million and $138.8 million, exceeding the $1.5 to $14.8 million in direct costs associated with its implementation.

The report states:

... as death approaches, health care costs increase dramatically in the final months. Patients who choose medical assistance in dying may forego this resource-intensive period.

The report states that, as death approaches, healthcare costs increase dramatically in the final months. Patients who choose medical assistance in dying may forego this resource-intensive period.

In my contribution, I've spoken a lot about the huge risks inherent in legalising assisted suicide, but don't just take my word for it. We debate many issues in this chamber, and how many times do people on all sides talk about the need to listen to the experts on questions of public policy? Let's listen to the experts. Let's listen to the Australian Medical Association, whose former president Dr Michael Gannon pointed out:

It has long been recognised that doctors who are closest to providing end-of-life care are those most likely to be opposed to physician-assisted suicide.

Let's listen to the World Medical Association, who said:

Physicians-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession …

and vulnerable people will be placed at risk of abuse. As I've already mentioned, the chair of the board that oversees Canberra's Calvary Hospital, the former Labor deputy premier of New South Wales, John Watkins, has written a letter that I'm sure every senator will have received. He states: 'Central to Calvary's mission over the past 130 years has been to care for the most vulnerable in our community, and we believe that encouraging laws to terminate life will disproportionately affect vulnerable groups in our society who deserve our care.'

Once again, let's be clear. This is not fundamentally about territory rights; it is about human rights. The passage of this bill will inevitably lead to assisted suicide in the ACT, almost certainly with minimal safeguards, as supported by the bill's sponsor. I will stand up for the human rights of Canberrans not to be pressured to end their lives. I will stand up for proper investment in palliative care. I will stand up for the old, the disabled, the sick and the lonely, for whom the passage of assisted suicide laws would see their lives considered less worthy. I will therefore vote against this bill.

Firstly, I wish to acknowledge the role of my predecessor, Senator Gallagher, in this debate. Also, I'd like to acknowledge at the outset the many individuals who've written to me about the bill. In the time I've been in this place, I've received more correspondence on this subject than anything else. I've received equally impassioned pleas supporting and opposing this bill. My decision to support the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 will disappoint some of my constituents, including some close friends, while pleasing others. It's my view that this bill should be supported.

At its essence, this bill is about whether citizens living in the territories should have the same right, through their local legislatures, as citizens in the states to make their own laws. In my view, there can be no doubt the answer to that question is yes. This year is the 30th anniversary of the passage of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 and, indeed, the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. The first election that I voted in was for the first ACT Legislative Assembly in 1989. The grant of self-government to Australia's two populous territories recognised that the people of the territories deserve the same democratic rights as people living in the states. As the then Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Clyde Holding, put it in introducing the Australian Capital Territory (Self Government) Bill:

The Australian Capital Territory (Self Government) Bill 1988 now before the House will establish the A.C.T. as a body politic, with the legislative and executive powers and responsibilities of the States and the Northern Territory. This Bill represents the most significant transfer of power, on a population basis, since Papua New Guinea became independent. It will allow 270,000 people the same democratic rights and social responsibilities as their fellow Australians.

The A.C.T. and the City of Canberra have well and truly come of age. Canberra is the nation's capital. It is the home of many of the symbols of our nationhood—the National Gallery, the High Court, the National Library and of course this magnificent building—the home of the nation's Parliament. But, and this is often overlooked, it is also home for 270,000 people.

270,000 people live in the Australian Capital Territory. They go about the day-to-day business of their lives, working at their jobs, paying their taxes, making decisions about which schools their children will go to, which doctor or hospital will care for them when they are ill—just like every other Australian. However, unlike every other person in this country—where 'a fair go' is the creed by which we live—they cannot elect a member of their own community to their own government. They have no say in the decisions which affect their everyday lives. What an extraordinary admission in a country so committed to democratic ideals, and why? Are these people somehow different from other Australians? Are they second-class citizens in some way? Do they not understand, or have opinions on, the issues that confront them daily? Can they not be trusted with their own destiny? The answer to all these questions is very simple—the only difference between these people and the rest of Australia is that they live in the Australian Capital Territory!

All that is as true today as it was in 1988, except that there are now over 400,000 people living in the ACT.

The self-government act established the ACT Legislative Assembly, with the power to make laws 'for the peace, order and good government of the Territory', an expression similar to that to be found in any of the state constitutions. There were exceptions to the powers of the Legislative Assembly but these reflected, for the most part, either limitations that the Constitution itself placed on the states or matters that the states had agreed should be dealt with by the Commonwealth. For example, the Legislative Assembly was not to have the power to make laws with respect to the raising or maintaining of any naval, military or air force, or with respect to the coining of money. Similarly, the act excluded the power to make laws with respect to the classification of materials for the purposes of censorship, which was already the subject of a national scheme under which classification was the responsibility of the Commonwealth. In each case, common sense dictated that these matters should be solely in the domain of the Parliament of Australia. In effect, the ACT was not being placed in a position any different to that of the states.

That leaves two further original exceptions: the acquisition of property other than on just terms, and the provision by the Australian Federal Police of police services in relation to the Territory. The first of these was based on a limitation imposed on the parliament by the Constitution, while the second reflected the fact that the AFP are under the direction of the Commonwealth minister and policing services in the ACT are the subject of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Territory. That bill was passed with bipartisan support. While there was some discussion around the detail, the record is clear that, across the political spectrum, there was agreement that the lawmaking powers of the ACT Legislative Assembly should be equivalent to those of a state parliament. This remained the case until the passage of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, which removed from the ACT Legislative Assembly and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly the power to make laws with respect to euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying. In doing so, that act introduced discrimination in that it remained completely open to any state parliament to pass such laws, as indeed the Victorian parliament has recently done.

The bill currently before us would, in effect, restore the constitutional position that existed from the time self-government was introduced into each of the territories until the passage of the Euthanasia Laws Act. This bill does no more than repeal the provisions that were inserted into the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government Act) 1988 and the Northern Territory (Self-Government Act) 1978 by the Euthanasia Laws Act. This bill would not make euthanasia legal in the territories. It would not bring the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995, which was invalidated by the Euthanasia Laws Act, back into law. It would be a matter for each of the territories to decide whether, and in what form, any laws should be passed in this area, just as it is and has always been for each of the states.

Of course, there are some who may object that the ACT and the Northern Territory are not states and that their legislatures should not have the same powers as state parliaments. Of course, it is true that self-government exists only because of acts of this parliament, not by way of constitutional right, and it is within the powers of this parliament to amend the self-government acts if it sees fit.

However, parliament, having made its decision on the general principle that self-government ought to be granted to the people of the ACT and Northern Territory, would be wrong to pick and choose matters for which we would deny citizens in the territories the right to govern themselves. Some of us may be unhappy with the decisions made by the people of a territory. But, if we support the principle of self-determination, we accept their decisions and do not seek to substitute our own any more than we would where the same decision is made by the parliament of a state. Former Senator Humphries said in 2006 when he crossed the floor to oppose the Howard government's disallowance of the ACT Civil Unions Act, 'We may not agree with the ACT's legislative choices, but we have an obligation to respect them when they are democratically made'.

The ACT government made it clear it would not rush through legalisation of euthanasia if this bill was passed and is yet to actively consider legalisation. The Select Committee on End of Life Choices in the ACT is currently conducting an inquiry into end-of-life choices in the ACT and is considering the many submissions that it has received. I acknowledge that the legalisation of euthanasia, or voluntary assisted dying, is an issue that provokes strong passions with firmly held opinions from opposing points of view. That's understandable, since the issues relate to matters of life and death, and pain and suffering, and because we have a critical role to ensure we protect the vulnerable.

My own personal view is not in support of the legalisation of euthanasia. For me, the risk of exploitation of the vulnerable is too great. However, I know the legislative assembly's select committee will give proper consideration to this matter. I have encouraged people who have contacted me to make sure they make a submission to the inquiry so their opinions are heard. Just as passing this bill will not lead automatically to the legalisation of the euthanasia in Australia, rejecting this bill will not prevent euthanasia from being legalised. It is a risk but it is a responsibility that lies with the ACT Legislative Assembly.

As I said, the states have and have always had the power to pass laws for voluntary assisted dying. The parliament of Victoria passed its Voluntary Assisted Dying Act last year. In other states, they have considered similar legislation. With all its gravity, this is not something that should be restricted from consideration by the ACT and Northern Territory legislative assemblies.

My contribution to this debate will be short, because many have spoken on this bill before me. They have spoken over a considerable time and much has been said. Neither aspect of this bill, territories rights or assisted suicide, are new. Both have been debated extensively, and it's my view that our debate here is not going to change the minds of our colleagues in the Senate, but is more about explaining to constituents why we will vote one way or the other. This is very important, despite the way that this bill has arrived in this place, because it considers a basic life-and-death situation. Because of the importance of what we are debating today, I consulted the medical community, including Dr Ian Haines—referred to by Senator Seselja—some in the psychiatric community and friends and family. Like so many of my colleagues and those of my age, I've experienced the death of my parents and my father-in-law. I've spoken to those who actually have a parent suffering terminal disease. I've been influenced by the writings of Professor David Kissane and Senator Seselja, who gave such a comprehensive speech only two speakers ago. As well, I've read as widely as I possibly can, as time permits, on the subject, and consulted, through its website, an organisation close to my heart, the Ethics Centre in Sydney.

To begin, I would like to address a number of background issues. The first concerns the Dutch example, which exemplifies the risk of what might be called 'normalisation'. In the Netherlands, there is an increased number of people being euthanised, with approximately 7,000 cases in 2017, up from 4,188 in 2012. There are real concerns around doctors overreaching in their mandate and euthanising people who're not able to consent or do not reach the required standards of consent. Recently, Dutch authorities have begun investigating four cases for improper euthanising, raising further concerns about the actions of doctors.

As well, there are risks of pressure on older Australians, including elements of elder abuse. There are already serious concerns around elder abuse in our society. The Australian Institute of Family Studies estimates that between two and 10 per cent of older Australians experience elder abuse in any given year, and the prevalence of neglect is possibly higher. Furthermore, the most common form of abuse is financial abuse where sons and daughters may attempt to inappropriately or illegally use or exploit the funds of their parents or grandparents. Euthanasia risks a further level of this type of abuse, as an older Australian who is in a financial abuse situation could potentially be euthanised in order for the abuser to achieve financial gain.

An important issue is the undermining of trust in doctors. Patients asking doctors to assist in suicide creates a contradiction for medical practitioners. In society, doctors exist as caregivers, with the idea of supporting or helping people. We go to the doctor because we trust in their training and in their aim to help us. It calls into question the integrity of doctors treating patients at a time when we are trying to increase faith in our medical system in the face of disinformation from other sources. We want our doctors to look after us and not to create any question around the chance of doctors doing harm.

There is a serious risk of exploitation of the system as well. There is also the chance that a determined individual may exploit any potential euthanasia system in order to end life when there are significant options to seek and receive treatment for illnesses. Mental health treatment has improved drastically over the last two decades, yet there is still so much more to be done. The risk is that those with mental illnesses will not be treated, and instead seek end-of-life treatment rather than the support and care that is becoming available in society. Such is the case of Aurelia Brouwers, a 29-year-old Dutch woman who took her own life with doctors' support in January. She had a number of mental illnesses, yet was allowed to take her own life with the support of physicians.

Finally, there is a major case that the standard of palliative care does need to be increased in some areas of this nation, because what is now possible with palliative care is that death can come with dignity. If that dignity is not present leading up to the time of death, there may be the case for upgrading the level of palliative care by governments in particular regions. Some members of the medical community who I consulted have told me that, given the standard of palliative care available in many places, they can guarantee that a patient can die with dignity. Other reports are that no more than two in every 100 palliative care patients would be in moderate or severe pain at the end of their life, which can be addressed through palliative sedation.

Many speakers say that this is not the area in which the Commonwealth should get involved and that the two territories should be given the right, like states, to make provisions for euthanasia. The populations of the ACT and the Northern Territory have both rejected statehood in the past, and, when they are states, they will certainly enjoy state rights. I wonder if it is the people of these states demanding these rights or the usual activists. In conclusion, I will vote against the private senator's bill, the order of the day today, titled Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, commonly known as the euthanasia bill, in its second reading debate.

Many senators have put on record that many people have contacted them with concerns about this piece of legislation, the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. Importantly, the thing that upsets me most is there is so much confusion in the community about exactly what this bill before us will cover. That actually upsets me greatly because we know that our community must have a genuine understanding about what is being discussed in this place, particularly when they are so concerned about an issue that they have taken the time to contact their parliamentarians.

The bill itself is very short and it's very clear. It has very straightforward objectives—four things:

The objects of this Act are:

  (a) to reduce Commonwealth interference with the laws of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; and

  (b) to facilitate competitive federalism in law-making; and—

and I know that particular quote is straight from Senator Leyonhjelm—

  (c) to recognise the right of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to legislate for assisted suicide within their jurisdictions; and

  (d) to repeal the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 the enactment of which was inimical to the objects stated in paragraphs (a) to (c).

When I've responded to people who've contacted me with an understanding that this is what this bill refers to, they are often quite disappointed because they have very strong views about the issue of euthanasia. They are either strongly supportive and want it to happen or they are deeply opposed and they do not want to have euthanasia in our community under any circumstances.

But that is not what the debate is about in our parliament tonight. It's actually about what those objectives say. It's ensuring that the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory have the right to expect their elected representatives to have the power to develop, debate and legislate on the issue of euthanasia if that is on their program. The reason we need this piece of legislation goes back to 1995, when the then parliament of the Northern Territory actually passed a piece of legislation which was incredibly innovative at the time and caused great discussion because it was the first time any jurisdiction in Australia had actually passed such a piece of legislation. It was called the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. It came into effect on 1 July 1996, and people remember that there was great interest. This was as a result of a very open and very longstanding debate. The core issues of that debate remain largely unchanged now, over 20 years later.

Read what was actually debated in the Northern Territory in 1995 and then here in this parliament in June 1996 with the bill introduced by Mr Kevin Andrews under the title Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 to override that piece of legislation which was enacted in the Northern Territory. When you read the passionate debates from the Northern Territory and, later, in this place, you will understand that the issues at play are very similar to those which we've heard in many contributions on this piece of legislation this evening. People care very strongly about the issues of euthanasia. That's why the introduction of the bill by Mr Andrews was the first time that the federal parliament actually did intrude, take over and, absolutely, as said by Senator Leyonhjelm in introducing the bill, interfere with the laws of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. After many, many hours of deep debate, that piece of legislation, the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, was passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, which effectively overrode the only existing piece of legislation about euthanasia in our nation.

Now, over 25 years later, we have a piece of legislation here which is seeking to allow people in the two territories to have the same rights as people who live in our states on this particular issue. What happened here in that debate over 20 years ago is that the laws were changed. An element was placed into the self-governance laws for both the Northern Territory and the ACT which explicitly precluded them from having the right to debate issues around euthanasia.

So what we have before us is the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to weigh up whether it's time to ensure that there is equal opportunity around all of our country so that elected representatives can look at this incredibly sensitive, incredibly important and incredibly contested issue of euthanasia. One thing we know is that these debates will continue. Since the bill was introduced in the Northern Territory—it had been enacted for only a number of months and then it was overridden by our national parliament—there have been many debates amongst all states except my own—Queensland—which is considering having a discussion in its parliament.

I believe that there have been over 32 attempts at reform of the legislation around euthanasia since 1995. Nothing we do here tonight will stop the desire for people in our nation to debate euthanasia. I think it's important that not only the people who have been writing to us with their concerns understand but, importantly, that parliamentarians understand what is before us. This is not a debate around euthanasia, although many people have expressed their views and their concerns about it. That is their right but that's not what is before the parliament for consideration.

One point made was that the parliamentarians in 1996, when they were given the opportunities to debate the Northern Territory rules, were allowed to have open debate both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. There was no attempt to stop the debate. In fact, it was actively encouraged. And, after a full debate in the House of Representatives, the bill came to the Senate and again was referred to a committee. There was major input from the community—over 1,000 submissions I believe—and then the opportunity was given to the Senate to actually pass the legislation.

Whatever we do in this debate in the Senate around the bill, I really hope that it will be given a firm opportunity in the other place to allow the process of democracy to continue so we won't again just have a private member's bill brought forward, causes a great deal of concern and discussion and then goes nowhere. People have invested a lot in this debate. They have considered their positions and shared them with everybody in this place. So it is important that there is an opportunity for the bill—in whatever form it takes, with whatever amendments—to be fully considered in the House of Representatives, so that the people who have been engaged in this debate, the people who have taken the time to express their opinions to their parliamentarians, will know that their parliament, the federal parliament, actually looked at the legislation.

We in the federal parliament do not have the authority to debate euthanasia; it is not within our purview. In fact, as we know, the only reason we have it before us now is because the parliament overrode territory legislation; otherwise, it would not be part of the federal responsibility. We have heard many people express their views and that is important. But where this fits in the overall debate is not an issue that can be controlled or determined in most cases in every state in Australia. It cannot be determined by the federal government getting involved.

Now, after all this time, we have one state that has legislated for their own particular purposes, Victoria, to have a form of euthanasia. They call it something different because the definitions change but nonetheless there is now a state that has gone through the process at the state level of debating and developing the legislation and then legislating. In this parliament we have no ability to interfere in what happened in that process. We can only do that with territories. And that is something that is really important for people to understand and that is the intent of the legislation before us.

I put on record and I have been on record many times saying this: I strongly support the ability of people to make informed choices where they have the opportunity to do so. And when we hear the arguments that are raging around this place about whether euthanasia is in fact something that should be supported or not, and you read the debates that happened in 1995, 1996 and more than 30 times since then, there won't be much difference. People will have strongly held beliefs. They'll quote similar exercises that have happened elsewhere; they'll quote things that have happened overseas. That will be part of the debate. We can have that, but people in the territories at this stage cannot.

I want to address one more element. This is something that truly infuriates me, and I want to put it on the record. It is the confected debate, which was had in 1995 and 1996 and in all the times it has been debated in the states and again in this place today, that puts up some kind of false contest between discussions around euthanasia and discussions around palliative care. I have worked in the area of palliative care and end-of-life care for more than 30 years. I have been involved in various organisations where we actually value, support and celebrate the amazing abilities of people across professional backgrounds who have worked to develop a very positive range of palliative care situations in our nation. When you read the discussions in 1996 in this place, there were many promises made at that time saying, 'We will make sure there will be strong palliative care available for all Australians, so there won't be any need for any other options to be put before communities when thinking of end of life.' We have failed dismally in that space—not because people do not have the skills, but because having strong, accessible palliative care to serve the needs for everyone who needs it has never been effectively resourced at either the federal level or any state level. That argument has been put in the debate tonight, and it will be put again. I know that every time there is a debate around euthanasia, it will come up.

It is not a real contest. There must be fully resourced, accessible palliative care services in our community for everyone who needs it. I think that's something on which we can all agree. But, please, don't use that as an argument that there should not be any further discussion around euthanasia. In terms of where we go in this debate, we must make sure we understand that there are a range of needs, a range of issues that should be considered. But for today's debate, it's exactly what we have on the record. I put this on the record: it is about Commonwealth interference with the laws of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and to recognise the right of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to legislate for assisted suicide within their jurisdictions.

One other element in this bill is this: Senator Leyonhjelm has put in, as one of the core objects, to repeal the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, the enactment of which was inimical to the objects stated in paragraphs (a) to (c). This bill seeks to make sure that act is repealed and that it will no longer have the ability to colour the debate on this very important issue for states and territories in Australia.

I rise to put on the record my intention to vote against Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. The issue of assisted suicide, or euthanasia, is a very complex and challenging one. Over the years, I have listened closely to the arguments put in support and run them through the prism of my core belief in the sanctity of human life. My subsequent conclusion is that none of these arguments are powerful enough or cogent enough to warrant my voting to support legislation that will lead to state sanctioned deliberate ending of a human life by another person. Rather, my conclusion regarding those arguments is that, if more is needed in terms of compassion or to assist the maintenance of dignity for those living in the latter stages of a terminal disease, then this need should be met through increased investment in palliative care and assistance for those who need additional care.

Experience in jurisdictions where euthanasia has been legal for some time is very concerning. What has occurred includes the ability to euthanase children, with decisions being made by parents and not the individual whose life is being terminated; instances of people choosing to have another person end their life because of concerns about a genetic disorder that will likely lead to issues later in life; and the reality of family members making decisions to end the life of relatives for motives less worthy than ending their suffering and pain. All of these and more are real and happening.

The inevitable conclusion I draw, observing the actual experience of assisted suicide in these jurisdictions, is that the value of human life is devalued by its application, no matter how noble the intentions may have been in setting up the legislation. Put simply, allowing assisted suicide, even with the tightest possible restrictions up-front, comes with risks and consequences I deem unacceptable. The concerns that this bill are intended to address are, in my view, better addressed through other means such as palliative care.

The other issue here relates to the territories' ability to legislate on matters without interference from this parliament. This has been canvassed eloquently by many others in this place who are opposed to this bill during this debate, and I acknowledge their contributions, particularly Senator Seselja, who is here with me, Senator Stoker and Senator Abetz, who I had the opportunity to listen to and who, amongst others, covered the issue very well. Needless to say, our Constitution specifically makes provision for federal government oversight of territory law, extending to legislation of the assemblies created for them. This constitutional position is very different to that set out for the states, and deliberately so. Accordingly, I am content that this parliament is acting appropriately in considering this matter in this place and, when the time comes to make a decision, I will be voting no.

The legislation we are debating here this evening, the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, seeks to overturn an act of the federal parliament which denies the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT the same rights as their fellow Australians living in the six states, and that is the right to elect representatives who make laws on their behalf concerning the rights of terminally ill people. Of course, that was an entitlement taken away from them in 1997 when this parliament, at the urging of then Prime Minister John Howard, passed the Andrews bill to overturn the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Act 1995. At that time, the Northern Territory legislation was unique in allowing a doctor to accede to a request from a terminally ill, competent adult patient for assistance in ending the patient's life if specified conditions were satisfied.

The ongoing effect of this legislation is to create two classes of Australian citizens: those who live in states, who have the right to elect representatives to make decisions on issues such as euthanasia, and those who live in the territories, who do not. In November of last year, the Victorian parliament voted to legalise a framework of safeguards to permit assisted dying. Those who live in the ACT and the Northern Territory are denied by a specific act of this parliament the right for their legislators to grapple with these issues. I do not believe that is neither logical nor supportable.

I also want to briefly comment about the political context surrounding this debate—that is, the deal between the Prime Minister and Senator Leyonhjelm to bring this issue on for debate in return for Senator Leyonhjelm's support for the restoration of the ABCC. Mr Turnbull now makes clear that he does not intend to honour that deal, by denying this bill a hearing in the House should it pass. I have to say that this does raise serious questions about how much trust senators and, in fact, the Australian people should place in a man who is prepared to say one thing to get a vote and do another once he no longer needs that vote. Whatever your views on the ABCC or the bill we are debating here tonight, I invite senators to think long and hard about the next time you are offered a deal in return for your vote.

However, returning to the bill before the chamber, whilst the principle that the bill seeks to restore is territory rights, it is of course naive, and would be so, to ignore the issue around which this bill revolves, which is the right of terminally ill people to seek assistance to end their lives. There was much talk in this place, both in 1997 and this year, and in fact just a few moments ago, about the intrinsic value of life. Everyone in this chamber has a fundamental respect for human life, and I understand why any proposal that would in any way assist people to shorten their lives might appear on the surface to defy this basic respect for human life. Life is precious, but let us remember whose life it is we are talking about. We are speaking of a person in the terminal stages of an illness who is seeking the right to determine how they can bring an end to their suffering with dignity and free from pain. I would argue it is precisely our respect for human life, for the person whose life it is and for the fact of their living through a terminal illness that causes us to consider whether that person's life would be better, or at least more tolerable, if they were able to control the pathway to its inevitable end.

We are living in an age where it is possible, in some circumstances, to extend life but not necessarily the quality of life and to ensure that life continues but only at the cost of pain and the forfeit of personal dignity. That is why, after careful consideration of the ethical and moral issues involved, I have come to the view that respect for life must be balanced against the respect for the right of any individual facing certain death and their remaining days filled with pain, suffering, fear and the loss of personal dignity to take control of their life and make a choice about the quality of its ending. In doing so, I cast no judgement on those who hold a different position, because I also come to this position with questions and some reservations about checks and balances.

Of course, we need to ensure that this right of which I speak is not subject to abuse. I am clearly not alone. When the Andrews bill, which we are seeking to repeal, was examined by a Senate committee in 1996 and 1997, it received over 12½ thousand written submissions—the largest number ever received by a Senate committee during the course of inquiry at that time. An important point which should be noted, and to which Senator Moore adverted, is that this parliament doesn't have the legal capacity to legislate for assisted dying. Any Australian legislature which sought to pursue such legislation should—and, I have no doubt, would—consider thoroughly and deeply the constraints and safeguards that would be required.

In closing, whatever my questions or concerns about this issue, I have come to the view that, just as people have a right to control the way they manage their living, so too they have a right to control the way they manage their dying. For that reason, I support the legislation.

I've never felt so conflicted over a piece of legislation as I do over the one that is before us right now. I have always supported the right for the territories to choose their laws around euthanasia. Part of me understands why there are many advocates for assisted suicide legislation. I only have to think back to the pain and suffering my late fiancee went through 15 years ago, fighting a rare form of cancer. She had been battling the disease for a few years when it came to the point where every breath she took was a struggle. In 2003 she took her last breath and found her peace. Witnessing this was by far the most gut-wrenching and devastating experience of my life. There were many times when we all wanted the pain, suffering, trauma and heartache to end. However, we still hoped she would beat this deadly disease. Cancer is a horrid disease. There are no winners, and the amount of pain and hurt it causes is immeasurable.

Fifteen years on, I have had plenty of time to reflect on this experience, but the reality is I'm still torn about the issue of assisted suicide. Who are we to deny someone's dying wish? Since meeting a group of doctors this week who are firmly against euthanasia, more questions have been raised, forcing me to question my stance on the issue. What are the safeguards that come with this legislation? Where is the safety net to ensure people who are just lonely or depressed don't get captured in this vacuum of assisted suicide? Is this the answer to our problem? Is this the solution? Don't we have any other options?

When we look a bit more closely, palliative care is something that seems to have been forgotten; it seems to have fallen off the radar. During my deliberation on this complex issue, I was stunned to learn that, of the 49 recommendations made in Victoria's inquiry into end-of-life choices, 30 related to the improvement of palliative care funding and access. Only one recommendation related to the introduction of assisted suicide, which, as we all know, Victoria has legalised. I believe investing in palliative care is an area of focus that the state, territory and federal governments must home in on. The dedication by nurses, doctors and carers in this area is phenomenal, and it is refreshing to note that Australian palliative care services are ranked amongst the best in the world.

What I fear about this proposed legislation is that it may capture people who aren't necessarily on their death bed but are in fact lonely and isolated, have no family or feel they are a burden on society and as a result are depressed and feel that the only option they have left is to end their life.

I feel we could do more in the palliative care space. If the stats are right, there are only two palliative medicine specialists for every 100,000 people living in the ACT or the Northern Territory, and that is some cause for major concern. I believe serious investment in palliative care is necessary to help patients live in a more comfortable space as they approach the end of their life. I'm not just talking about a comfortable bed or a pillow or turning up the pump on the morphine; I'm talking about a holistic approach. I believe it's important to sort out our palliative care system properly to ensure we have done all we can before we look at facilitating assisted suicide. Such legislation, in my view, is a last resort.

My fear is: if the territories are granted the power to make their own laws, what safety measures are in place to capture only those that they are intended to serve? After looking closely at the current legalised model in Victoria, I am not convinced it goes far enough to fill these gaps. Therefore, admittedly with a heavy heart, I declare that I will not be supporting this legislation.

I rise to make but a very brief contribution on the debate the Senate is currently considering. Of course, this is a very important issue for many people right across the country, people who have very different views and opposing views. It is something that evokes a great deal of emotion. Some of the contributions today and tonight have highlighted a lot of that, including Senator Georgiou's contribution just then about his own personal experience, which I very much appreciate him sharing with the chamber.

I myself won't be supporting the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. I think it is important at the outset to note that this bill doesn't actually deal with the issue of assisted suicide, euthanasia, or voluntary assisted dying—it's known by many different names in a number of different jurisdictions. It's not about formulating how the territories should legislate, what the laws would look like, what sorts of policies would be in place and, most importantly, as a number of contributions have outlined, what sorts of safeguards would be in place. It's not about that. It's about granting the right to two jurisdictions in our federation to make laws with regard to this particular issue—two jurisdictions which, by virtue of the constitutional make-up of our nation, don't currently have that right. They are different to states; they are territories. That is just the nature of territories versus states.

In my mind, I am concerned that this bill is about, in effect, writing a blank cheque for two jurisdictions to go and legislate something that we have no oversight over, no recourse to consider and no input on. I think it's important to divide the two issues up. It is also important, I believe, to note that the two jurisdictions we're talking about, the ACT and the Northern Territory, both have unicameral parliaments. The chambers that will be debating these very important and sensitive issues don't have a second chamber to check off exactly what they're debating. I think many of us can point to many examples over time where single-chamber parliaments have passed legislation which is less than satisfactory. Where there's no recourse, there's no involvement and there's no capacity for this parliament to be involved in the policymaking, I am just concerned that here, by passing this bill, we'd be looking at something like a blank cheque.

It is also important to point out that we're focusing on one issue here. There's the broader issue around powers and rights to be conferred on the territories that they don't currently have. It's a singular issue. There are a number of areas where the territories don't have the rights of states and, if we're serious about issues like constitutional reform, perhaps a broader conversation should be had. But I don't think the piecemeal approach of picking a certain issue and dealing with that and then dealing with another is the way to do that. And, as I understand it, if this bill were to pass, then what would happen in the Northern Territory, for instance, is that the laws that were in place before the Andrews bill came into effect would be automatically reinstated—that is: tomorrow, those laws would be in place and euthanasia could be undertaken on individuals under those laws that are over 20 years old, with all their loopholes and with all the dangers and risks that we don't know about. We just don't know what risks to the public that would present.

So, as I say, we're presented with a bill, which, in my view, means we are writing a blank cheque for two jurisdictions who haven't tabled what they intend to do. There is the situation whereby previous legislation is re-enacted by virtue of the passage of this bill. There are risks to the community, and I don't think it's right for this parliament to support that. I won't be supporting it. I'm not a supporter of euthanasia generally, so I won't be supporting the bill.

I rise to speak on the private senators' bill, the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. I will not be supporting the bill, because of the potential unintended consequences for the territories, for First Nations people and for our society as a whole. I understand that the Northern Territory government has called on senators to support this bill and to restore territories' rights to make euthanasia laws. The press advertisement argues:

With other states around Australia now passing laws on voluntary assisted dying, the fact that the Australian territories can't even consider their own legislation is unjust.

It reads as a call for the Territory to have the same rights and authorities as other jurisdictions within our Federation. The question of statehood for the Territory arises. We need to take a step back from the emotive question of euthanasia and look at the Territory's rights and issues. The Territory is not a state. If there is a call to change that, it should be dealt with as a separate issue. While we have no specific bill before us from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly or from the ACT, I consider that the issue is indirectly about assisted suicide legislation.

The bill amends the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 and the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to remove the prohibition on legislating voluntary euthanasia, and it repeals the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997. The federal government will still be able to override the Northern Territory legislation even if this bill is passed. If it were not the case, the federal government would legislate to change the self-government act to allow that to happen or to grant statehood to the Northern Territory and the ACT. What we have is a private members' bill that was brought into the Senate without any knowledge of any safeguards or constraints which may need to be included in future assisted suicide legislation. It should not be done in such a way as to make changes to the territories' rights pivotal on the larger question of 'To be or not to be?' while avoiding the question in front of us: what is statehood for the Northern Territory and the ACT; what would be the benefit and what would be the implications for our Federation?

If the Northern Territory wants to have the argument about its ultimate authority over legislation that impacts on Territorians, that is an important conversation, and one this Senate should be addressing. We have seen what has happened when the Commonwealth parliament uses its power under section 122 of the Australian Constitution to enact its own legislation to override the Northern Territory act, and even to override the federal Racial Discrimination Act. But we should not be asked to frame a discussion on territory rights within such an emotive questions for human beings as the right to life or the right to death. In my view, this twists the discussion and creates unnecessary division within the parliament.

Each successive Northern Territory government has failed to recognise the rights of First Nations peoples within the Constitution. Any proposed legislation to change assisted suicide legislation must occur in consultation with First Nations health services and communities. It is the First Nations people who are at higher risk of being in a situation where assisted dying may take place.

Senate adjourned at 22:30