I inform the Senate that earlier today, accompanied by honourable senators, I presented to the Governor-General the address-in-reply to his speech made on the occasion of the opening of the parliament, which was agreed to on 19 September this year. The Governor-General indicated that he would convey the address-in-reply to Her Majesty the Queen.

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

In my contribution on Thursday, I made clear some of the concerns in the community about an unamended version of this bill and its implications. To quote Senator Keneally, in her contribution:

We also know that the overwhelming majority of religious schools do not want or see the need for these exemptions. We know this as a result of the recent Senate inquiry, where Catholic and other religious school systems gave evidence that these exemptions are not used or relied upon.

I went through Christian Schools Australia—65,000 students plus the 15,000 from Adventist schools—and the Australian Association of Christian Schools—110 or so schools with 45,000 students. I also talked about the statements from members of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, who educate around 766,000 students in this country, and a number of others.

Even if we were to accept, despite the fact that those numbers tell a very, very different story, that there are no significant concerns or that it's only a minority, this goes to the very point about what religious freedom is and what freedom of religious belief is. It's not about whether there's a majority who have a particular view; it's about whether or not there is a right to express that view.

Dr Alex Deagon, of the Queensland University of Technology, states:

The idea of religious freedom is to protect religious belief and practice from any prevailing orthodoxy (e.g. equality) which might oppose it. The idea is 'worthless' if it is allowed only when it fits in with that particular orthodoxy.

  …   …   …

As Trigg powerfully observes, 'the essence of religious freedom is that people are allowed to follow their religion, even if it is a different one from that of the majority. The accommodation of minority beliefs is what distinguishes democracy from a totalitarian state'.

Choice in education, of course, means choice in education. There will be a range of providers who have different views on all sorts of things.

One of the great things in Australia is that parents have the opportunity to choose—based on their religious beliefs, in many cases—an institution which adheres to their beliefs, be they majority or minority beliefs. And so for that reason the government is proposing a number of amendments to ensure we protect genuine religious freedom in schools. The Labor bill as it stands completely removes the ability of religious educational institutions to maintain their ethos through what they teach and through the rules of conduct they impose on students. This is because such teaching and rules of conduct will now expose the religious schools to litigation under the Sex Discrimination Act to which they were previously not exposed. Labor's bill is, thus, as it stands unamended, contrary to the basic human rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. As stated in 18(4) of the ICCPR most specifically when it comes to schools:

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Therefore, it's completely reasonable and in line with the principle of freedom of religion to ensure religious institutions are able to uphold their ethos.

As I have mentioned, the government's position is that we don't want to see discrimination against students, but what we also don't want to see is the freedom of religion taken away through changes that are done in a hasty manner without considering the consequences. There are now a growing number of warnings about those consequences. Under the Sex Discrimination Act, unless it is reasonable in the circumstances, a condition, requirement or practice will unlawfully discriminate against a person on the basis of a protected attribute—for example, their sexual orientation—if the condition, requirement or practice has or is likely to have the effect of disadvantaging a person with that protected attribute.

Government amendments clarify the operation of section 7B of the act, which sets out criteria for determining whether a condition, requirement or practice is reasonable in the circumstances. The new provisions will clarify that religious educational institutions may continue to impose rules regarding student conduct consistent with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of that institution. These amendments are necessary to provide certainty to the Australian public, particularly students, their parents and those attending or sending students to religious educational institutions, that no student should be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation and that reasonable rules at that institution should be allowed so as to maintain that institution's religious ethos. A further amendment from the government protects the ability of religious educational institutions to teach in accordance with their faith, which is fundamental to their character as religious educational institutions. It is a modest, sensible amendment that clarifies that, if an educational institution is established for religious purposes, it does not contravene the Sex Discrimination Act by teaching in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of that institution if that teaching is done in good faith.

The next elements of our amendment are also modest, sensible amendments to protect the ability of religious schools to impose reasonable rules in relation to behaviour and conduct. These amendments give certainty to Australian students and families by ensuring they are protected from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, marital or relationship status or pregnancy and preserve the ability of religious educational institutions to impose reasonable rules in good faith that necessarily have regard to the best interests of the student.

Finally, item 1 of this bill is clearly out of step with Australian community expectations when it comes to religious bodies and flagrantly infringes the fundamental human right to freedom of religion. As Mark Fowler, adjunct associate professor at Sydney's Notre Dame law school, wrote in The Australian on the weekend: 'On a plain reading, this would capture the Sunday morning sermon, the Friday khutbah at the mosque, a Buddhist meditation course, the children's Sunday school, the midweek Bible study, the Friday night youth group talk. It is clear to both the preacher and the recipient in all of these exchanges that they are participating in an act of education that expands upon religious principles.' I ask senators: do they and we as a nation really want to go down this path? This item puts these institutions at risk of expensive litigation and threatens the very foundations of religious freedom. That is why we are proposing to remove that item so that churches, synagogues, mosques, prayer centres and seminaries are not compelled to admit students who clearly have no intention of upholding the ethos of the institution.

In conclusion, schools must be allowed to uphold their ethos, not only through what they teach but in all aspects. This is fundamental to freedom of religion, and this bill, if left unamended, does put that at significant risk. I would urge senators to consider this matter seriously. I think it is unfortunate that this debate is being curtailed in the way that it is being. But in the time—

Then why did you do it?

Well, we didn't vote for this particular motion.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

No, that's not true. I'm getting interjections from the senator. We didn't vote to gag debate on this bill.

You gagged the inquiry instead.

Well, we're having a debate about something which we would all agree is pretty fundamental and important. And there is going to be about three-and-a-bit hours of debate on this bill, which could have profound implications for religious schools and religious bodies in this country. But in the short time available to consider in this debate, I would urge senators to consider this matter seriously, to look at the implications of the bill, to listen to religious leaders and teachers who foresee a future where religious education is put under serious threat.

I spoke on Thursday about the concerns held by the Catholic sector, the Anglicans, Christian Schools Australia, the Association of Christian Schools and the Islamic Schools Association. Between them, they represent a huge majority of faith based schools in Australia and they've all raised serious concerns. And this goes to the nub of it. We're all in agreement that no-one wants to see a student expelled for being gay. The government supports moves in that direction. No-one wants to see that and that's not what occurs now.

It hasn't happened. This is a political crisis of your own making.

The senator interjects, and seems to argue against her own case. The point I'm making is that we're all in agreement on that. And that's right—it doesn't happen. But to avoid doubt, we're happy to change pieces of legislation, but without actually having any sort of positive protection for religious institutions in this country, any sort of positive protection for religious institutions in this country—

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Order! Senator O'Neill.

Thank you, Deputy President. So we agree with that. But the bill, as it stands, unamended, would go much further than that. And Labor appears intent, unfortunately, on following the Greens down a path of persecuting religious schools or for pursuing a majority test for religious freedom.

Our amendments clarify that faith based schools and other educational institutions should still be allowed to teach in accordance with their faith, by ensuring they can hire people according to their ethos and allowing them to put in place reasonable rules of conduct to preserve their religious character. I firmly believe that reasonable senators here support freedom of religion and the freedom of schools to teach their values. And if you support those fundamental rights and freedoms, I would urge you to support the government amendments to this bill, which will ensure there is no unjust discrimination but will protect the rights of faith based schools. I commend those amendments to the Senate.

And perhaps at the outset, to assist Senator Macdonald here, I should explain that this is an opposition bill rather than a Greens bill. This bill deals with, as indicated in its title, removing discrimination against students, and does not deal with the issues associated with staff as covered by the Sex Discrimination Act. The reason for that, as I'll come to it, is because this process has been an absolute shambles. But what we are doing here is holding the Prime Minister to account, the Prime Minister who said we would see the Ruddock review within weeks back in May and the Prime Minister who said we would deal with the issues around discrimination and students this year. That is what we're dealing with now—the issues around discrimination and students.

I think it behoves the chamber to reflect on what a shambles this overall process has been, which adds to the growing list of matters that this government has completely messed up. Talk about confusion, talk about rushed consultation and rushed processes, talk about changed positions and confusing rhetoric: if we in this parliament are confused, then what can the Australian community possibly make of this shambles? We know the Australian community are keenly interested in this issue, the issue of religious freedom and the issue of discrimination against children in schools. We know this because of the substantial number of submissions to the Ruddock inquiry and to the Senate committee inquiry. Despite that, the Australian government has snubbed the Australian people, rushing through a committee process that did not need to be rushed and, not surprisingly, here we are now.

I will give one example of how confused people are about the processes occurring before this parliament. A senior member of a religious community said to me that the Senate committee asked them for further information, but it reported before it was even possible to receive such. So that everyone can be clear, that was because of the time frame this government and the Australian Greens put on that inquiry. I've made these points previously in a discussion on a matter of public interest and I've made the comments I'm making now in the discussion on the Greens bill, but I should reiterate the rush here was of the government's own making. But, even worse than that, in the absence of Senator Macdonald they colluded with the Greens to create a farcical time frame that could only lead us to where we are now. Whether they were creating subterfuge to do nothing, who knows? The motivations of this government are very hard to understand.

Let's look at the government's bona fides on this issue, because close examination shows how dishonest and insincere they have been from the very beginning. Firstly, we have the Prime Minister today accusing Labor of acting in bad faith. Who would have thought any responsible government or governing party of the day would act in this way? It is outrageous. At this point, a brief history lesson is required. It was in mid-November last year, in the midst of the parliamentary debate about same-sex marriage, that we started discussions around the important issues of religious freedom. It was then that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull kicked the can down the road. On establishing a positive right to religious freedom he kicked the can down the road and took with him whatever numbers there might have been from the government side to support amendments, and we had to wait longer to address those issues. Announcing that Mr Ruddock would head an expert panel and conduct an inquiry had the result that government senators lost sufficient support for their amendments. So nothing happened way back then, and it was not other senators' doing that generated this. It was that of the government of the day and the Prime Minister of the day.

So then we had the much publicised Ruddock review, with its panel of experts, its public hearings up and down the country and its more than 15,500 submissions received. So where is that? Where is the campaign to establish a positive right for religious freedom? It's stuck with that Ruddock review, because what the Ruddock review did was fix an immediate problem for the Prime Minister of the day. For Malcolm Turnbull, it peeled government senators off amendments that might have been successful at that point, and it has stagnated ever since.

A report on SBS News on 18 May—the day that the Ruddock report was handed down to the government—stated:

The Prime Minister's office confirmed it may be 'weeks' before the Ruddock review is released to the public, giving the government time to consider its response.

That was 'weeks' back in May. Clearly, the government is getting its weeks and months confused, because we've now been waiting more than six months. And, just so anyone listening understands, six months is a standard time for government to respond to parliamentary committee reports. This has been longer than that six months.

It's under a cloud of vagueness and lack of clear evidence and information that Labor has called for a Senate inquiry to look closely at religious freedom to inform a way forward to address competing demands. But, again, the government showed its sleight of hand by colluding with the Greens to have a short reporting date, meaning that the committee was rushed in its effort to carefully scrutinise the Greens bill and other proposals and give adequate time to stakeholders to articulate and argue their positions.

I'd like to speak briefly about stakeholders in this debate, particularly Christian schools and communities. It's not surprising that stakeholders would have preferred that the debate were conducted in a more consultative and collaborative environment. In fact, stakeholders were hoping there might even be a bipartisan approach on an amended bill that could pass through parliament—as were we. Labor also hoped that this might be possible, but not with a government that is so is deceitful in its approach to dealing with such sensitive matters.

Moving now to Labor's position on the amendments that are before us, our position is as follows: with amendment KQ149, I foreshadow a second reading amendment that will cover those issues. I think it should now have been circulated in the chamber. With respect to government amendment KQ148, Labor believes it's already covered off these issues in the explanatory memorandum. In relation to other outstanding matters concerning students, Labor's position is that these issues can be dealt with in the further discussions and consultations to be had in relation to dealing with teachers, as well as in terms of developing a positive statement in response to the Ruddock review.

And this is the difference here. This is where Labor is not posturing, like those on the other side. The Labor Party has a longstanding commitment, very clear in our platform and subject to further discussion at our next national conference, supporting religious freedom and creating positive rights in that respect. That's the difference between this side and the other. Our bona fides are established here. What religious communities hear from the other side is somewhat very confusing, contrived posturing rather than substantive proposals.

I should say on that note, in relation to the amendments, that it's also important to indicate Labor has legal advice that says section 7B covers off on the concerns in amendments KQ148 and KQ149. But to give extra reassurance, we're putting our position in the explanatory memorandum of this bill and we're also moving this second reading amendment. We don't need to put clumsy provisions into an act where they sit uncomfortably and create the same types of problems in terms of public regard that exemptions do, as we've seen in the case of the leaking of the Ruddock review and the exemptions with respect to students.

Labor knows that most schools—religious, non-religious, government and non-government—have the best interests of their students front and centre. We know this. We have an established policy position to protect religious freedom and we're getting very impatient waiting for this government to get its act together in this regard.

So much uncertainty has lingered and grown since the parliament passed the same-sex legislation. This government lacks any bona fides on this important matter. This culminated today with the comments by the Prime Minister accusing Labor of bad faith. Again, this is an outrageous, disgraceful comment—irresponsible for a Prime Minister of the day. We cannot have confidence with the government proceeding with these issues. The public concern around the leaking of the Ruddock review recommendations and the government's failure to respond to calls for that report to be released in relation to religious freedom bring us to where we are now.

We believe that our amendments, and our statements in the explanatory memorandum, respond to much of what the religious community has raised in relation to moving forward, with regards to students. We are open to addressing any outstanding matters as we move forward with other matters around discrimination, but, most importantly, the Labor Party is keen to progress the issues around a positive affirmation of religious freedom. We will not wait for this confused, distracted government for that to happen. I move the amendment standing in my name on sheet 8606:

At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate is of the opinion that nothing in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 renders it unlawful to engage in teaching activity if that activity:

(a) is in good faith in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed; and

(b) is done by, or with the authority of, an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with those doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings."

I rise to speak on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018. It was almost a year ago that Australians, almost with one voice, voted to remove discrimination against LGBTIQ Australians. We came together as a nation—we were forced to do so under a process that we didn't support—and we sent a strong message to politicians in Canberra that we are a country that is committed to the principles of equality and that we are a nation that doesn't believe that there is one set of rights for one group of people in our community and a different set of rights for another group within our community. We came together as a nation, and we made it very clear that we won't stand for discrimination, whether that discrimination is based on someone's race or culture or ethnicity or, more importantly, whether that discrimination is based on a person's sexual or gender identity.

Here we are, a year on from that vote, from that historic moment in this place, and, despite the overwhelming message that was sent to the members of parliament, I don't think some of them actually got the message. It's hard to believe, but there are people in this place who simply haven't got the message: we are a nation that is committed to the principles of equality, and we won't stand for discrimination in whatever form that takes. I do hope that what we have now is an opportunity for people in this place to reflect, to acknowledge the humanity that is being debated in this chamber and to allow ourselves an opportunity to say to people in our community: 'You're all respected; you're all valued.'

Senator Wong's bill before us today, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill, is something we support as it stands. We support that piece of legislation because we don't believe that religious schools should be able to discriminate against LGBTIQ students. We just don't believe that that right should exist in law. Here's an opportunity for us to affirm again, as a parliament, that there is no place for discrimination in our schools. Of course, this is a long-overdue reform. It's been brought to this parliament on the back of a religious freedoms review, which I'm interested in discussing in a moment.

This piece of legislation supports—indeed, it mirrors—much of the legislation we had before the parliament in our Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018 and, on that basis, we will support it. However, there is a very important distinction to note between this piece of legislation and the legislation that the Greens were proposing to debate, the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018. This bill protects students against discrimination, but what it does not do is protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer teachers. If you are a teacher in a school and you are discriminated against on the basis of your sexuality or your gender identity, this bill doesn't protect you. This bill allows teachers to be discriminated against. It allows schools to continue to say to somebody who might be in a same-sex relationship, 'You've got no place teaching my kids,' and we won't stand for it. We will not stand for it.

Under the legislation we're debating today, teachers remain the subject of discrimination in schools. And, sadly, what we're saying with the passage of this bill is that there continues to be two classes of people in our schools. There are students for whom discrimination has no place—and that's a good thing—but we're saying to teachers, 'You are not a priority right now.' That is, indeed, what the Labor Party is saying right now, by not including teachers in legislation and therefore allowing discrimination to continue to occur against them.

We have to ask ourselves, why is that? Here we have something that this parliament could fix. With the support of the Greens and the crossbench, we know we've got the numbers to defeat this discrimination, and yet we've got legislation that doesn't reflect the wishes of our community. I think it was Senator Pratt who last week said, 'Having the religious exemptions in place gives a message that LGBT people are second-class citizens.' You know what? She's right. Senator Pratt is absolutely right. So what message are we giving when we say to teachers, 'If you're in a same-sex relationship, you can be fired for that'? What message are we sending to our community when we allow religious institutions and schools to discriminate on the basis of sexuality and gender identity? What we are saying is that they are, in Senator Pratt's words, second-class citizens. That's why we're so disappointed that, when we have the chance to end that discrimination, we're not taking it. We're only addressing half the equation. That's what's so disappointing right now.

No school should be able to tell a young person who might be trans, gay, lesbian or bi—or maybe somebody who is just struggling with who they are—that they don't belong, that they're not welcome and that they have no place. And no school should be able to tell a teacher the same thing—'Because of who you live with, you're not welcome in our school.' A person's sexuality or gender identity is who they are, and we have schools telling people: 'You're not allowed to teach in our school. We will not employ you because of who you are.' That's discrimination. And that's why we'll be moving an amendment to this piece of legislation—to ensure that we end discrimination not just for students but for teachers as well. We don't accept discrimination in our workplaces.

We don't accept it in other areas of our community. We should not allow it to continue in our schools. And it shouldn't be something that we're even debating in 2018. This is a basic question of decency. It's about time we fixed it. Of course the only reason we're here is because, on the back of the marriage equality legislation in an effort to appease the far right of his party, we had Malcolm Turnbull engage in yet another ill-conceived and poorly managed project of work—the Religious Freedom Review. This was an attempt to tell the right wing of his party: 'Guess what? If we get marriage equality over the line, we're going to work hard to ensure that we entrench discrimination in other areas of Australia.' All it's done is allow us to shine a light in areas like this. We Greens have long campaigned for an end to discrimination in schools for both students and teachers, but now we're having a national debate about it, and that's a good thing.

The government's seeking to hide its report into religious freedoms. We have to ask ourselves some questions about why that might be. Is it because this is a government that's so internally divided that simply putting forward a report, the result of months of work, would mean that the government can't keep its show together, or is it because, indeed, there are other areas of discrimination that it doesn't want the community to see the light of day on?

The news that the Morrison government was actually considering legislative change to entrench discrimination was shocking to a large number of Australians. Perhaps even more shocking was the realisation, which many people had, that the law already allowed it. So we're pleased that, in an effort to appease the hard right, we're now having this national debate. We're pleased that when governments act not in the interests of the community but in the interests of buying off people in their party who will never be satisfied, where that leads to is where we are right now—ensuring that we make our country a fairer, less divided community.

As I said earlier, we have amendments that would remove those provisions in this bill that allow for the continuation of discrimination against teachers and other staff in the provision of education on the basis of their sex, their sexual orientation, their gender identity, their marital or relationship status, or, indeed, their pregnancy status. Senator Wong's bill acknowledges that section 38(3), relating to exemptions for educational institutions in the provision of education or training, needs to be repealed to remove discrimination against students. All we are saying is that the same should apply to staff and other contractors in schools. That's all we're saying. Let's apply that standard across the board. Let's not make a distinction that says we end discrimination in one area but we're only going to go halfway rather than getting the job done properly.

Secondly in our amendments, we are proposing to remove the new carve out that Senator Wong's proposing in the proposed new section 37(3)(b). The provision highlights how simple it actually is to remove discrimination. This isn't hard. In fact, Labor have to add a new provision into their bill that explicitly allows discrimination against teachers and staff, so they've carved out an area to discriminate where it didn't exist before. We're removing discrimination in schools, but then we have to introduce a new piece of legislation that allows discrimination to occur against teachers. We're actively legislating to discriminate against teachers in this bill. That's remarkable. At a time when we should be applying this law across the board, we are actively legislating to discriminate against teachers. Unfortunately, it says everything about where we are right now. We have a government that, in an effort to appease the hard right, has allowed this parliament to end discrimination. Clearly this is not what was intended by the Prime Minister when he pushed forward on the religious freedoms review.

Of course, you only need to look at reports today to know what happens when you try and appease the hard Right. Indeed, Mr Turnbull is out there today arguing against the preselection of an existing member of the government on the basis that this is an individual whose views have no place in the modern Liberal Party. And yet, when he was the Prime Minister, he gave him, Tony Abbott and, indeed, the hard Right of the Liberal Party everything they wanted—and look where it got him. So it says everything about politics at the moment—where we have a divided government tearing themselves apart and refusing to release a report that was commissioned months ago, and now a debate in this chamber to remove discrimination when their express intent was to entrench it.

It also says something about the Labor opposition, which is trying to hedge its bets. We are thankful that we have legislation before the parliament that will remove discrimination against students, but why on earth would we seek to introduce legislation that will further entrench discrimination against teachers? We have a unique opportunity, with the support of the crossbench, with the numbers in the lower house as they are, to fix this properly, not do a half-baked job. And yet that is the legislation that's being proposed today. We have a Labor Party that will say one thing to its supporters on one side of the country and another thing to its supporters on the other side of the country.

You see, this is a pretty straightforward case. You either support discrimination or you don't. You can't make this a little bit better. Why is it that the Labor Party would say that students shouldn't be expelled because of their sexuality or gender orientation and yet they would say that that right doesn't apply to a teacher? Is it because they want to be able to say one thing in this place and go out and front a press conference and talk about what Labor's done to end discrimination, and then go to those religious institutions and say, 'We looked after you; we've allowed you to continue to discriminate'? Is that why they're doing it? Is it like Bill Shorten going to Queensland and talking about how important it is to mine coal and then coming to Melbourne to talk about how we need to phase-out coal and move to renewable energy? Take a stand and do this properly.

As I said earlier, we as a nation came together to end discrimination. When it comes to marriage, we said that all people are equal before the law, and that was a great moment for this nation. LGBTIQ people are sick of being used as political footballs—they are sick of it. The horrendous plebiscite that was imposed on our community and the pain and grief that that caused is something we should never see repeated, and yet here we are with an opportunity to do something good—something decent—and put an end to all forms of discrimination, and we're squibbing it. What we need is genuine reform. We will support this legislation as it stands because it does go some way into bringing us into the 21st century, but we are so disappointed that we couldn't do the job properly.

I suppose, when reflecting on what it is that we need to do as a nation to move forward, we can debate individual pieces of legislation like this and do that systematically, but we believe, ultimately, that we as a nation need a charter of rights. If we're serious about ending discrimination in law in all its forms, we need a charter of rights. We're one of the only Western liberal democracies without such a charter. It behoves all of us to ensure that, when it comes to passing laws in this chamber, we put an end to discrimination, rather than entrench it. So, over the longer term, we'll be continuing to campaign on ensuring that we do have a charter of rights in Australia. My colleague Senator McKim has done so much good work in that space, and we'll be making sure that, in the lead-up to the next election, we push both parties towards implementing a charter of rights. Until then, we will do what we can, with every vote we have in this place, to end discrimination. That means ending discrimination against people on the basis of who they are. Whether it relates to people's ethnic or cultural background or their sexuality or gender orientation, discrimination has no place in modern Australia. It has no place when it comes to students, and it has no place when it comes to teachers in our schools.

I, too, rise to speak on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018. One of the great flaws of Labor's bill is that it completely removes the ability of religious educational institutions to maintain their ethos through what they teach and the rules of conduct they impose on students. They should have the ability to do this. This is because Labor's bill would, for the very first time—and it is a very important point to note that it would be for the very first time—expose religious schools to litigation under the Sex Discrimination Act merely because they impose reasonable rules such as, for example, requiring students to attend chapel.

The coalition is going to be putting forward a number of amendments, and I will be speaking to those amendments, because, as you know, the debate on the bill is actually time-limited. The time available is exactly 63 minutes. So I will take this opportunity to put our case for our amendments on the record. In summary, what our amendments will do is ensure that religious schools can impose reasonable school rules without opening themselves up to the threat of litigation, or, in the event that litigation does occur, that the Human Rights Commission or courts would have to consider the religious nature of this particular institution in determining whether a rule was reasonable and was made in good faith. These are modest and sensible amendments, and they protect the ability of religious schools to impose reasonable rules in relation to the behaviour and conduct of the entire school. These amendments would give certainty to Australian students and families by ensuring that they are protected from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy, whilst at the same time preserving the ability of religious educational institutions—and, again, we're talking about religious educational institutions—to impose nothing more and nothing less than reasonable rules, and these rules must be imposed in good faith and also have regard to the best interests of the student.

As I've said, given that this debate is time-limited to, now, 61 minutes, I am going to speak to the amendments that the coalition government is putting forward. There are three major amendments that we are putting forward and the first is in relation to removing item 1 of the bill. What does item 1 do? Item 1 of this bill amends section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act to provide that the general exemption for bodies established for religious purposes in section 37(1)(d) does not apply in relation to the provision of education. The stated intention of this provision is to ensure that religious educational institutions cannot access the broader exemption in paragraph 37(1)(d) following the repeal of the specific exemption for religious educational institutions in subsection 38(3).

The purpose of the amendment that we are putting forward is very simple. It is to remove item 1, as it is not required to meet the stated intention of the bill, and it adds unnecessary complexity into the Sex Discrimination Act. The existence of the specific and more limited exemptions for religious educational institutions in section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act supports the propositions that a body established for religious purposes under paragraph 37(1)(d) does not include a religious educational institution. Even with the removal of subsection 38(3) by item 2 of this bill, subsections 38(1) and 38(2) will continue to provide specific exemptions for religious educational institutions in relation to staffing. The maintenance of these provisions clarifies that religious educational institutions can only access the narrower exemptions in section 38, and not the more general exemption in section 37. As such, it is the position of the coalition that item 1 is unnecessary.

But, even if it were accepted that item 1 was required as drafted, item 1 is overly broad and is not appropriately adapted to its stated intention. As drafted, item 1 would limit the general exemption in paragraph 37(1)(d) for all bodies established for religious purposes, not just for religious educational institutions. In practice, this would restrict the ability for intrinsically religious bodies such as churches, synagogues or mosques to provide education in accordance with their religious beliefs or ethos. Many religious bodies provide religious education to their adherents, such as through theological colleges. It is the government's position that religious bodies should be free to conduct such education in accordance with the doctrines of their faith. For example, a church which educates missionaries may require that all missionaries live in accordance with the doctrines of the church. This may include not accepting missionaries who are divorced or who are pregnant outside of marriage. Such requirements would be unlawful under item 1. The proposed amendments, therefore, omit item 1 to remove the risk of these significant unintended consequences.

We will also be moving an amendment to clarify the reasonableness test for religious educational institutions and insert a publicly available policy requirement. Our amendment will introduce a new section, 7E, into the Sex Discrimination Act. Amendment 1(a) will ensure that the repeal of the exemption for religious educational institutions to discriminate against students under subsection 38(3) will not undermine the ability of such institutions to make reasonable rules in relation to student conduct. Subsection 7B(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act currently provides that a person does not indirectly discriminate against another person in imposing a condition, requirement or practice if that condition, requirement or practice is reasonable in all of the circumstances.

New section 7E will provide that a condition, requirement or practice of a religious educational institution is reasonable where three specific criteria are met. Those criteria are: firstly, the condition, requirement or practice must be imposed in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed. This requirement ensures that there is an appropriate link between the school rule and the religious ethos of the particular institution. The good-faith test will also ensure that this provision does not protect rules which may be imposed in bad faith, such as rules which are designed to target particular students or which are applied inconsistently.

Secondly, the condition, requirement or practice must be opposed in a manner consistent with a publicly available policy of that particular educational institution. Subsection 7E(2) clarifies that such a policy must be in writing, be publicly available, set out the institution's policy in relation to adherence to its religious ethos and comply with any other requirements prescribed in the regulations. This requirement is essential in ensuring transparency and certainty for parents and students, allowing them to make choices about the best education for their particular circumstances.

Thirdly, in relation to the conditions, requirements or practices imposed on students who are children, the educational institution must have regard to the best interests of the child. This requirement reflects Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which places the best interests of the child at the centre of all actions concerning children. This requirement will ensure that religious educational institutions must have considered the best interests of the child in addition to the interests of the school or the school community. This paragraph, or the amendment we're putting forward, therefore ensures that an appropriate balance is struck between the right to freedom of religion and the rights of students to be free from discrimination. This provision will apply to all religious educational institutions, including primary, secondary and tertiary education providers. As a whole, this amendment will provide certainty for religious educational institutions that they are still permitted to impose reasonable rules regarding student conduct, appearance or dress consistent with their religious ethos whilst at the same time providing appropriate safeguards for students.

The third amendment that the coalition will move is an amendment to clarify that religious educational institutions may engage in teaching activities. This is amendment 1B, and it introduces the new section 7F to the Sex Discrimination Act. Amendment 1B will ensure that the repeal of the exemption for religious educational institutions to discriminate against students under subsection 38(3) will not undermine the ability of such institutions to teach in accordance with their religious beliefs. New section 7F will provide that nothing in the Sex Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for a religious educational institution to engage in teaching activities in good faith, in accordance with doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of their religion.

This amendment responds to the concerns that have been raised by many faith based schools that the removal of the exemption in subsection 38(3) may challenge their ability to teach in accordance with their religious beliefs or ethos. With the repeal of subsection 38(3) by item 2 of this bill, it is possible that a student could make a complaint that the teaching of certain religious doctrines, such as a biblical view of marriage, gender or sexuality, constitutes unlawful discrimination. The government is of the view that there should be no impediment in the Sex Discrimination Act to religious educational institutions teaching in accordance with their belief.

The right to manifest one's religion through practice or teaching is an inherent aspect of the right to freedom of religion. It is also necessary to provide certainty to parents and students as to the permissibility of particular religious teachings at such institutions. For the purposes of this provision, 'teaching activity' is defined to mean any kind of instruction of students, including by employees or other persons engaged by the religious educational institution. This provision will therefore protect teachers, tutors, coaches, pastoral care staff and any other persons providing instruction at, or on behalf of, religious educational institutions. It will also ensure that a religious educational institution can maintain its religious ethos across all teaching activities, not solely in relation to religious education classes. However, the requirement that the teaching activity be done in good faith acts as a safeguard to protect students against any actions done in bad faith, such as teaching activities which target particular students. This amendment will therefore ensure that religious educational institutions can maintain their religious ethos and teach in accordance with their religious beliefs without threat of legal liability. In the event that particular amendment, on sheet KQ149—the amendment to clarify that religious educational institutions may engage in teaching activities—does not get up, the coalition then proposes to move an additional amendment, and that amendment will seek to clarify the reasonableness test for religious educational institutions. In the event that amendment does not get up, then we will seek to move a further amendment to clarify the reasonableness test for primary and secondary religious schools.

Again, the amendments that we are putting forward are quite simple, but they are inherently necessary to improve what otherwise would be a bill—Labor's bill—which would completely remove the ability of religious educational institutions to maintain their ethos through what they teach and the rules of conduct that they impose as a religious educational institution on their students. These amendments, are actually quite simple, but they are inherently important. All they will do is give certainty to Australian students and Australian families by ensuring that they are protected from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy whilst, at the same time, preserving—all we're asking for is to preserve—the ability of religious educational institutions to impose nothing more and nothing less than reasonable rules. As I've already set out, these reasonable rules must be imposed in good faith and must also have regard to the best interests of the student. With that, I will also table five supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

I rise to speak on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018, which Senator Wong introduced into the Senate. This bill fulfils the promise that all sides of politics gave following the leaking of the recommendations of the religious freedom review, or the so-called Ruddock report. Mr Ruddock submitted his report to the government in May. Six months later, the government has not released that report—six months! On 9 October, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that one of the recommendations of the Ruddock report would be:

Religious schools would be guaranteed the right to turn away gay students and teachers …

As a result, Prime Minister Morrison gave a commitment that he would act to make it clear that no Australian school could expel a student on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity. This was in the context of the Wentworth by-election. These were fine words, but, as so often happens with this Prime Minister, they were not followed by any action. He has often done leadership by thought bubble. That is why Labor has decided to act. The Prime Minister may be happy to leave this matter hanging over the summer, but we on this side are not.

In this context, I want to make some observations about the position of religious schools in Australia. One of the foundations of our Western democratic way of life is respect for diversity of opinion. We rightly celebrate Australia's diversity of ethnic origins, language, cuisine and belief systems. We should equally celebrate our diversity of religious and philosophical views. We are not only a multicultural society, but also a multifaith society. It is my strong belief that societies with plurality of belief systems, such as Israel, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Australia—of course—and a myriad of other countries, are the countries where they are able to flourish because they can be true to themselves.

But religious freedom is not just a matter of passive acceptance that our fellow Australians have many different faiths. Like all our freedoms, it is often subject to incursion; like all freedoms, it needs to be actively advocated for and defended. An essential part of religious freedom is the right of parents to send their children to religious schools. It must follow from that that religious schools, whether those schools are Christian, Jewish, Islamic or indeed anything else, have a right to educate their students in a way that encourages them to adhere to the faith and practices of the religious denomination which established them. Remember, parents actively choose to send their children to these schools. They do that for a reason, or perhaps for many reasons, but they are doing it in the best interests of their children as they see those interests to be.

It follows from this that such schools have a right to require that both students and teachers act in a way which is broadly consistent with the faith and practices of the religious denomination. If they are to be denied that right, the school cannot serve the purpose for which it was established. However, there is also a majority view in Australia that Australians should not be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality or gender identity. In relation to schools, this is the view particularly in relation to discrimination against students. It is the need to reconcile these two broadly accepted propositions and the difficulty in doing so that has been brought into sharp focus in the wake of the marriage equality survey and subsequent legislation and the subsequent Ruddock report, which again I say we are yet to see.

The Sex Discrimination Act currently provides certain exemptions to religious schools. The act makes it unlawful to discriminate in, amongst other things, education against people who have certain protected attributes, as the act prescribes. These attributes include sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy and breastfeeding. The bill before us would require that religious schools conform to this provision of the act in relation to students. I point out, however, that while sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status and marital or relationship status are protected attributes under the act, political advocacy and activism are not. There has also been discussion around subsections (1) and (2) of section 38 of the act, and I think there is a need to reconcile and balance different rights. I believe the balancing of rights is desirable. In those circumstances, I believe an appropriately drafted, positively expressed right to religious freedom should be legislated.

I want to thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The committee worked together very well and productively and the secretariat worked—dare I say it—a miracle to produce the report in a very short time. Labor has decided to act, and it is on that basis that I'm happy to commend Senator Wong's bill to the Senate.

This bill represents a significant change to the Sex Discrimination Act and, as such, should not be rushed through this week. There is absolutely no urgency for this bill to be dealt with this week, as particularly religious schools generally don't rely on these provisions in practice. We support the intent of what Labor is trying to do with this bill for the simple reason that we do not support discrimination against students. We support the intent of the Greens to ensure teachers are not discriminated against and we also support the intent of the government to ensure religious freedoms are protected. Our view overall is that this bill should have been sent off for proper inquiry and scrutiny. This would provide all with the necessary time to properly consider all implications and input from stakeholders. As the bill now stands, our party considers the topic one for a conscience vote, but we all came to a united approach on this—and that is that we will support this bill because its intentions align with ours, but we cannot at this stage support any additional amendments. We have been forced into this position because we have not had a real opportunity to consider the implications and unintended consequences of all the amendments.

On these amendments we have been hearing, particularly in the last two hours, a very diverse range of views—many of them conflicting—which tells us that even those that seem somewhat straightforward may potentially open a Pandora's box of problems. For instance, we support what the government is seeking to do with ensuring teachers can teach in accordance with their faith. But this may simply create an avenue for discriminatory treatment of students to creep in. We are also unsure that we need to bolt on additional protections to the existing reasonableness test that exists at 7B in the act. Maybe it's appropriate or maybe it is unnecessary. We simply haven't had the time to fully consider the implications, so we will abstain on this and the other government amendments.

We know there is bipartisan support in this place and the other place for amending the Sex Discrimination Act so that schools cannot discriminate against LGBTQI students and teachers. It is unfortunate that there is no consensus about how to proceed. Labor's bill amends section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act and repeals section 38(3). In effect, this bill proposes to remove existing protections that currently allow religious schools to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex students if it's done in line with their religious doctrine or if it is to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion. We appreciate that this bill makes religious schools very nervous. Removing familiar protections will inevitably have that effect. We accept this might mean religious schools have to rethink their approach to some students in some instances. But, in practice, this should not stop religious schools from teaching their faith. But we also understand that these provisions are not heavily relied on by schools as it is. My office has also been told by Christian school stakeholders that they fear some students might be tempted to make mischief and abuse the weakened protections. I'm not entirely sure how or why a student would do so, especially if they want to be at that school. But that kind of fearmongering misses the point. We need to legislate to protect the rights of the many, not to quash the rights of the many in order to protect against extreme scenarios.

This bill may well end up not being legislated. We may yet see other attempts to amend the Sex Discrimination Act. Whatever we are faced with, in this parliament or the next, Centre Alliance will approach it with a view to ensuring equality of treatment for all students, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is ultimately about keeping our society moving on a path towards equality and acceptance of all people.

I have spoken on the second reading; I just want to briefly speak to the second reading amendment moved by Senator Collins, which is on sheet 8606. So I rise to speak on that amendment. Today, as I've previously said, we do have an opportunity to do what this parliament too often fails to do; to come together on an issue on which we all agree and change the country for the better. The bill does one thing, and one thing only; that is, to ensure that every Australian child, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, is treated equally. It will make this country a more equal place, nothing more. It won't prevent schools from requiring students to attend chapel, it won't prevent schools from requiring uniforms and it won't prevent—let me be very clear—the teaching of religious education. To put that issue beyond doubt, Senator Collins has moved the second reading amendment on sheet 8606 to that effect. I support that amendment.

Also, this bill does not deal with the issue of teachers. Whilst Labor has made clear that it supports the removal of that exemption too, it acknowledges there is not yet wide enough support across the parliament to get that done. We will continue to work with schools and religious bodies to find a way in which that exemption can be removed so as to protect religious schools' rights to practise their beliefs. As Mr Shorten has said, Labor will seek to remove that exemption early next year.

What we do not need here today, and what we have regrettably seen from Senator Stoker and some other coalition senators, are false accusations and prolonged debate in this chamber. Enough of the false accusations—we saw enough of that in the marriage equality debate. The country doesn't need more of that. On this matter, we are all agreed. Mr Morrison has said he supports doing this. The Treasurer has said he supports doing this. The Attorney-General has said he supports doing this. What we are doing in this chamber is seeking to give effect to the promise made by the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the Wentworth by-election. It is something that the parliament can pass today with the support of all parties. I commend the second reading amendment, moved by Senator Collins, and the bill to the Senate.

Many in this place will recall that, late in 2016, I was appointed to chair a Senate select committee looking at religious freedom, should the parliament choose to go down the path of passing a law to change the definition of 'marriage'. In the chair's foreword, I said that the change to the definition of 'marriage' would:

… potentially enliven the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in a range of areas. Evidence demonstrated that there are substantial matters of law and individual human rights to be dealt with that extend well beyond the Marriage Act itself. I note that if Australia is to remain a plural, tolerant society where different views are valued and legal, legislators must recognise that this change will require careful, simultaneous consideration of a wide range of specialist areas of law as opposed to the common perception that it involves just a few words in one act of parliament.

I finished off by saying that there are:

… fundamental rights that must be carefully considered, respected and balanced in any future legislation that a Parliament may approve.

That brings us to where we are today.

I have some concerns about the bill that's before us, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018, both general and specific. In general, religious freedom requires the ability for individuals and groups to articulate, to discuss and, where appropriate, to debate religious doctrines, tenets and beliefs. Our forebears have fought authoritarian rulers in years past for their attacks on the freedom of thought and speech, the freedom of association and the freedom of religion. This approach in this bill, both the time frame and, for example, the lack of a committee stage, undermines those same freedoms and therefore undermines pluralism and democracy in Australia. Further, by precluding the ability of religious believers to associate, to form groups of like-minded people and to maintain educational institutions that can operate consistent with their beliefs, this bill actually breaches the right to equality and freedom of discrimination on the basis of religious belief.

On a couple of specific concerns: the act as it stands has two specific sections, sections 37 and 38. Section 37 goes to the issue of bodies formed for religious purposes, and section 38 goes more to those around education. The bill before us not only amends section 38 with regard to religious educational bodies but also proposes amendments to the general religious bodies exemption at section 37(1)(d) that would remove the ability of those bodies to provide education that is consistent with their doctrines, tenets or beliefs. Where this is of particular concern is that, while the EM and the title of the bill talk about schools and students, the actual text of the bill—and the bill is the key part here—talks about education in religious bodies. There are no further definitions that would narrow this to schools and students as we would know them: primary or secondary schools or even tertiary bodies. By the letter of the law, the wording in this amendment exposes churches, synagogues and mosques that provide education to their adherents, whether that be in the form of teaching on a Sunday, Saturday or Friday morning, or through seminars or workshop. There is a whole range of areas where education is provided, and it leaves those people exposed, because the word 'education' will take its ordinary meaning within section 37.

The bill also provides that the limitation on section 37(1)(d) doesn't extend to an act or practice connected with the employment of persons. We've just heard an explanation on how that doesn't affect teachers, but what it leads to is a situation where, currently under this reform a body may be able to say, 'Look, we want to engage someone to teach who supports and is willing to teach the beliefs and the doctrines of this organisation,' but then the law would not allow that person to teach those elements.

The third area of concern I have is that the explanatory memorandum to Labor's bill says that section 7B of the SDA, which is known as the reasonableness test, means that there are defences remaining. In the current climate, the definition of 'reasonable' is debated broadly in our society. I would argue that what Archbishop Porteous did in explaining the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage and distributing that to parents who had their children at a Catholic school in Tasmania was reasonable. I would argue the same for Jason Tey, the photographer in Perth who agreed to provide a service to a same-sex couple but said, 'Look, I just need to disclose that my personal beliefs aren't in line with where you're at.' He said, 'I'm happy to provide the service, but, if that's of concern to you, I just need to disclose that.' He's been taken before the Equal Opportunity Commission, and it's now before the State Administrative Tribunal on the basis of it being discriminatory—not for some action he has taken, but merely for stating his belief. There can be no more clear example of what would have been considered reasonable not more than 12 or 18 months ago and is no longer considered reasonable in the current climate by many in our community and, importantly, by people who are holding statutory positions in bodies of the state—whether that be Commonwealth or, in this case, Western Australia—who have the ability to apply law.

We've also seen, recently, laws passed in Tasmania's lower house pertaining to gender. It highlights how the views of one part of Australia's community, if they manage to get a political majority in a parliament, can pass a set of laws. That's okay—that's democracy at work—but my concern is that the nature of that bill also seeks to shut down dissent and to shut down commentary from people who disagree with that view. That is not democracy; that is not the plural democracy that Australia is built on. The bludgeon of antidiscrimination law should not be allowed to completely stifle the expression or teaching of a religious view, or the conscientious view of any individual or group.

Going to the Tasmanian example, the Johns Hopkins University and Johns Hopkins Hospital, for example, have long been the centres of research into debate around issues of gender and sexuality, and there is still debate between academics there—eminent academics—on whether the transgender theory is based on ideology or science. So, shouldn't this place protect the right of an Australian academic or a religious school or organisation to debate or discuss with others their views on such matters without being subjected to the accusation of discrimination or even the claim that they've engaged in hate speech? That is what a plural democracy is about: we allow for a plurality of views within our community.

Is there evidence to support the need for these measures? As Senator Wong has clearly and accurately stated, there have been people calling for this and there was a commitment made by various leaders. But the evidence that's come from churches and schools is that these provisions, whilst not having been used, are necessary. A lot of people have said: 'How can that be? That's a contradictory position.' But what's been explained to me by multiple principals and church leaders is that this is the balance, as they see it, of grace and truth. Grace is the acceptance to say, 'There's not one of us who is without fault.' That grace is exemplified by the teaching from John 8 of the Jesus who didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery. Grace is to accept the student for who they are and to support them and their family if they choose to be part of that religious community. But the truth is that it's the same Jesus who talked clearly and unapologetically in Mark 10 regarding marriage for men and women, and the same Jesus who finished his interaction with that woman caught in adultery by calling for her to commit to the model of sexual fidelity and marriage that he taught.

Religious schools and organisations need this same freedom to teach, to have that balance between grace and truth. The evidence from Archbishop Porteous and Mr Tey in Western Australia indicates that they're unlikely to have this freedom protected under the amendments in this Labor bill that we're considering today. That's why the government has brought forward amendments to seek to allow those schools to continue in that balance of grace but truth—of clearly and unambiguously teaching their position. This is no different, if you think about it in terms of freedom of association, to what we allow many other people and many other groups in our society with regards to who would join them and their freedom to teach things that perhaps a broader section in the community, or different sections of the community, wouldn't agree with.

The first amendment is a new section 7E of the SDA that would ensure that a religious educational institution is able to impose general rules without that opening up claims of sex discrimination. So, just as I talked before about the general teaching on the church's view of marriage being between a man and a woman, they also teach that the moral aspects of that mean that they don't condone or support heterosexual activity outside of marriage. If they set rules around that which also happen to impact on people who are same-sex attracted, that shouldn't be seen to be discriminatory, because what they're doing is positively holding up their teaching of what a relationship of marriage should look like. The fact that that doesn't accord with many people in Australia who are in de facto relationships, or people who might be same-sex attracted, shouldn't mean that they can't say, 'This is what we believe the ideal relationship of marriage looks like.' New section 7F ensures that religious educational institutions are able to teach in accordance with religious doctrine without that opening them up to claims of sexual discrimination.

New section 7B(2)(d) ensures that, when a human rights commission or a court decides whether a rule imposed by a religious school or tertiary institution is reasonable, they have regard to the religious nature of that institution and whether the institution has had regard to the best interests of the child—that is, the school has to consider the best interests of the child, rather than the court making that decision retrospectively about what it thinks is in the student's best interests. That's an important thing, because many people tend to think that religious education only occurs in primary schools and in high schools. In fact, there are a number of tertiary organisations in Australia—and they're not just seminaries—that also teach a range of topics such as social work, counselling or even other vocational skills within a faith based setting. And those organisations, under Australia's support for the ICCPR and article 18, have the same right to protection as anyone else. Finally, sheet KQ147 removes the ALP provision that would strip churches, monasteries, mosques, synagogues, prayer centres, theological colleges, seminaries and other similar institutions of their exemptions under the act in relation to education.

I'm calling on senators in this place today in the context of this debate—which was brought on very quickly last Thursday for a vote by 2 pm today without a committee stage that would enable people to go through this bill and explore the potential unintended consequences—to recognise that the freedoms that our forebears fought for, in terms of freedom of association, of speech, of thought and of religion, should still be afforded to our schools. They have indicated very clearly and consistently that, because they work in this balance of grace and truth, they have not used the exemptions to expel people purely on the basis of their sexual identity, but they require the ability to still operate in truth and to faithfully put forward the teaching of that particular group. If we are to remain an open, plural democracy, where the rights of minorities who don't enjoy the support of a parliamentary majority are to endure, then senators in this place need to support the government amendments to this bill that have been put forward today.

A few of my colleagues have noted in their remarks the path this proposal for reform has taken. The Morrison government joined Labor and some of the crossbench in October this year in promising to remove the right of religious schools to discriminate against students on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. To date, the Morrison government has not acted on its own promise, but Labor has. And, if this bill passes, as I very much hope it will, it will have the distinction of being one of the few legislative advances for LGBTQI people during a conservative government.

It's no accident that it has taken a Labor bill to achieve this. The history of LGBTQI law reform in Australia is a proud and important part of Labor's history. In 1975, the South Australian Labor government decriminalised homosexuality. In the eighties, Neal Blewett and the Hawke Labor government adopted a public health response to the AIDS crisis unlike the stigma we saw in other countries overseas. In 2005, the Victorian Labor government abolished the 'gay panic' defence. In 2010, the New South Wales Labor government legislated to allow same-sex couples to adopt. And the last federal Labor government wound back the religious exemption that applied to faith based aged-care facilities. Each of these actions is important in its own way. However, it is their arc that is the most compelling. Together they represent a legal recognition over time of the inherent dignity and humanity of LGBTIQ people, and this bill represents the latest expression of that recognition.

It has been a long journey to get to this point, and I know that it must feel even longer for the gay community and the activists who have fought every step of the way for their rights. They are the ones who have done the hard work to build the public case for acceptance and for change. The case has been well and truly made here. Polling has shown that 82 per cent oppose the discrimination law exemptions that allow schools to expel gay and lesbian students, and the submissions to the Senate committee that looked at this issue showed that the overwhelming majority of religious schools have no intention of discriminating against children and no desire to maintain the right to do so. The reason for this is obvious. The idea of stigmatising children and discriminating against them on the basis of who they are is abominable to decent Australians. It is a proposition that requires no explanation and no analysis in 2018.

Labor is also committed to ending discrimination against LGBTIQ staff at religious schools. The right to do so is inconsistent with who we are and who we should aspire to be as a nation. Senator Wong has spoken about our approach in her recent remarks. As the Senate leader explained in debate on this bill last week, given the short number of sitting days left between now and the election, we have to prioritise, and children are our priority. We don't want to give the government an excuse to walk away from the promises they made during the Wentworth by-election. This is something that the parliament can and should pass today with the support of all parties.

Labor will, as we always have, work constructively with churches and religious schools to ensure that they can continue to practise their beliefs. We respect the right of free exercise of religion and the ability for religious institutions to act in a way that is consistent with their faith, but the right to discriminate against children is inconsistent with our understanding of who we are as a nation. It is inconsistent with the journey that we have been on as a nation, and it has to end.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to consideration of the bill.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Cormann moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to consideration of the bill may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I'm going to put the motion to suspend standing orders.

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong! Please resume your seat. I am required to put the motion.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! That's it! The Senate has voted to put this motion without debate; I am required to reflect the will of the Senate. I put the motion moved by Senator Cormann to suspend—

I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave is not granted.

This is an outrage—

Senator Wong, I ask you to resume your seat. I'm going to put the motion.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

I am required to put this. This had better be a brief point of order, Senator Collins. The Senate has voted to put the motion.

It is. I've had a chance to see the motion that has been circulated, as other senators have not—

What's the point of order, Senator Collins?

The point of order is: is it a rescission of an earlier decision of the Senate from last week?

I have not been advised of such and I do not believe it is. The Senate voted to put the motion to be moved by Senator Cormann. He will then have an opportunity to move a substantive motion. I put the motion. The question is the motion to suspend standing orders, moved by Senator Cormann, be agreed to.

I move:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Point of order.

You'll raise a point of order after Senator Cormann has the—

I've stood up first.

Senator Cormann has precedence, which I—

It's 1.50.

Order! I have just sought advice on the matters that I could predict would come up.

You didn't give us any courtesy.

Senator Collins, please resume your seat. I'm going to allow Senator Cormann to move it, and then I will take your point of order. But Senator Cormann does have precedence. It's a tradition I respect for both the leader of the government and the Leader of the Opposition on numerous occasions. Senator Cormann.

I move:

Opposition senators interjecting—

I've called Senator Cormann. He's going to finish doing this—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

I have called Senator Cormann. I have sought advice from the Clerk on the matter of the time, and I'm going to rule on it, but Senator Cormann had the call.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Yes, and I'm allowed to let the person who had the call—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I sought advice from the Clerk on this matter and the matter of 1.50, which I will soon explain, is not relevant to Senator Cormann moving this motion, which I will explain after the courtesy is granted to him to put what he wants to on the record.

I move:

That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Now, Senator Wong, on the point of order on time, I sought advice from the Clerk on this matter during the last division, before it reached 1.50, while the numbers were being counted, and the Clerk has advised me that, consistent with past practice, we have already suspended standing orders, and that allows the minister to move this particular motion, because the effect of that motion was the 1.50 cut-off did not apply to the moving of this subsequent motion subsequent to the previous vote. The Clerk has advised me that that is consistent with past practice. Senator Collins.

The question I raised earlier that I was hoping for you to illuminate us on was on standing order No. 87. That has not yet been addressed. What all senators in this place need clarification on is how this motion, circulated very late in the piece with no notice, no warning, no consultation, was that he would move that the limitation of debate of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 no longer operate. We determined this matter last Thursday. We went through the correct processes to do—

Are you raising a point of order? Senator Collins, please resume your seat. You've raised your point of order, which is: does the motion moved by Senator Cormann contravene standing order 87. Now, that motion cannot be ruled on, by the way, until Senator Cormann has had a chance to move the motion, which is why I wanted to give him an opportunity to actually move the motion.

Without debate.

Hang on. You can't raise a point of order about a motion being outside the standing orders until the motion is moved. So I have sought the advice of the Clerk on this matter, and you were kind enough to provide me with your query earlier to allow me to seek advice from the Clerk, and the Clerk has said, again, consistent with past practice, the suspension of standing orders means that standing order 87 does not apply to prevent the moving of this motion and that that is also consistent with the past practice of the Senate. I wanted Senator Cormann to move it, because the point of order can only be raised after it is moved. Senator Collins.

If we are, indeed, dealing with the motion that Senator Cormann has now moved—which, as I said, is that the limitation of debate on the Sex Discrimination Amendment—

What is the point of order, Senator Collins?

No, I'm speaking to the motion.

No, he's moved 'and the motion be put'.

How can he move that such a motion now be put?

He has.

We have the capacity to debate whether we should change our affairs in the way that he has proposed.

Senator Collins, please resume your seat. The question is now that the motion moved by Senator Cormann be put—the procedural matter that the question be put. The question is that the question be now put.

The question now is to grant precedence to the motion to be moved by Senator Cormann to allow it to be put without amendment or debate.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the limitation of debate on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018, agreed to on 29 November 2018, no longer operate.

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

Responding to concerns expressed by a number of crossbench senators about the complexity of the issues relating to government amendments on this bill, I seek leave to move a motion to refer the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 to a committee.

Leave not granted.

I'll just flag that the government will move this motion at the earliest opportunity in the ordinary course of events.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

I appreciate leave and thank the Senate. I think that's just belled the cat, hasn't it? The shenanigans we've been through have been aided and abetted by Centre Alliance, who, contrary to their indication that they would support LGBTIQ kids, have walked in here and helped Senator Cormann put off a vote on a bill they reckon they support. And this is a bill that Mr Morrison supports. Let us be clear. The only reason why we have had the shenanigans we have just seen—no notice, coming in and upending the Senate, overturning the previous agreement of this Senate to vote on this legislation for which there was broad support in this chamber by 10 to two—the only reason Minister Cormann had to suspend standing orders and pervert the process of the Senate is because he's worried about the House of Representatives. He's worried about the survival of the government on the floor of the House of Representatives. He's lost control. This is an indication of the chaos that is the Morrison government. They upend the Senate to not vote on protecting LGBTIQ kids because they're so worried about the lack of control they have of the House of Representatives. Do you know what the decent thing to do would be? Call an election. Call an election, and stop perverting the processes of the Senate by voting against the position the Prime Minister had and trying to desperately avoid a vote in the House. Call an election instead of lying the way that you have about this issue through the Wentworth by-election and through this week. And shame on you, Senator Patrick, for doing this and aiding and abetting it.

by leave—The government does support what this legislation is seeking to achieve, but it supports it with reasonable amendments to ensure that, for example, religious schools can provide appropriate rules for the proper conduct of their schools. The government put forward five very sensible amendments. Some of the crossbenchers indicated to us, in good faith, that they needed some more time to consider the issues that they raised.

Rather than doing what Senator Wong has indicated—up-ending the Senate—what we are doing is making sure that the Senate has the proper opportunity to consider all of the issues, which is actually its job. What was in place was a guillotine to prevent the Senate from properly considering all of the issues. We are actually, as a government, facilitating the proper consideration of what is a very important issue. We do want to see this legislation passed, but we want to see it passed in an amended form. We thank the Senate for having made a sensible decision today and for having backed our judgement.

by leave—This is an appalling use of Senate process, and it is leaving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students in despair. Three-quarters of the Australian community want to see discrimination ended in schools, full stop—no ifs or buts—and they want it to end now. The Prime Minister himself said, before the Wentworth by-election, that it was urgent to act to end discrimination now. Yet we have just seen this appalling use of Senate process. This bill has been pushed off into the long grass.

We had the opportunity today to change our laws for the better, so that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students would have been protected, would have felt safe and would have felt supported in their school communities regardless of what school they went to. But the appalling actions of this government, together with Centre Alliance—who have shown their true colours in what they are doing today—have meant that this opportunity is passing us by. The Greens believed that we had the numbers in this place to end discrimination against teachers as well. But the government, coupled with Centre Alliance, is not allowing this debate to occur and not allowing a vote to occur today. It is an absolute travesty and it is incredibly sad for those many people in our community—the same people who fought a year ago for marriage equality—who were hoping that, a year later, as part of the anniversary of marriage equality, we would act to end discrimination and support young people in all of our schools. But it is not to be, because of the outrageous actions of this government and the Centre Alliance senators.

by leave—I thank the Senate and those observing this need to understand the process that has occurred to date. Indeed, Senator Macdonald has misrepresented the comments that I made during my contribution on this bill. Let's be very clear about what process occurred. We moved to have these matters referred to a committee for a report and for an interim report, to allow the Greens' bill and, indeed, other proposals, such as the now government amendments, to be considered in detail. What this government then did was come into the chamber, in a deal with the Greens, and circumvent that time frame—so severely that we have received complaints from people who appeared before the Senate committee that they were asked to provide further information to the committee and the committee reported even before such information could have been received by the committee. That was the farce, that this government agreed with the Greens about how we deal with issues related to discrimination against students.

The Labor Party had no part in that farce. Let's be very clear: things change on that side, on the government's side, every second minute. Now they're arguing we need more time. In the week before last they were arguing, 'Oh, no, we've got to do it right now,' and would not allow proper and due consideration. This is the chaos of the Morrison government. They cannot decide on a process that is legitimate, that is open, that is honest. Instead, we have the stunts, such as that we just received, where, with no notice, with—

Oh, sit down.

Mr President?

All interjections are disorderly, Senator Collins, and I will call all senators to order.

Thank you.

That was not the loudest interjection I've had so far this afternoon.

No, no, Mr President, it was not the loudest, but, in terms of other matters we discussed last week, senators interjecting across the chamber with that tone—'Oh, sit down!'—is exactly the point just made, and should be refrained from. You shouldn't refer to people in that fashion. But aside from that, don't let me be diverted from my point. The point is that—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Order. Let us continue this debate so we can get to question time. Senator Collins.

Thank you, Mr President. The point is, this process has been a farce because of the behaviour of government senators. It reflects the standing of the Morrison government and, indeed, reflects the position the former Prime Minister left this matter in. Let's try and deal with protecting religious freedom for the Australian community with more respect and with more dignity.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

What has happened here in the 20 or so minutes before now is simply a matter of the Senate indicating its will on a matter, and what the Senate has indicated is that it wishes to have more time to debate this legislation.

Senator McAllister interjecting—

Mr President, I'll take the interjection from Senator McAllister. The will of the Senate has been expressed, and the government alone does not have the numbers in this place. Crossbench colleagues indicated that they desired to have additional time to consider this legislation. That is something that the government took into consideration; hence, Senator Cormann sought leave to move his motion in order to allow a substantive motion to provide additional time. This is a case of the government listening to what crossbenchers, in good faith, have expressed, of it putting that matter to the Senate and the Senate deciding that there should be additional time. That is what happened. As we see time and time again, those opposite are always happy to crow about the will of the Senate right up until the point that the Senate doesn't agree with them. Then the will of the Senate doesn't seem to count for much.

This is important legislation; we all recognise it's important legislation. We want to make sure that there are appropriate and reasonable safeguards, and the Senate has expressed its will that the time should be taken to make sure that that is the case. There should be no doubt at all about the desire of this government, the desire of this parliament, the desire of both chambers, to ensure that students are not ever placed in a situation where a school would see them not continue. We are all agreed with that. But it is important that there are appropriate safeguards for school institutions, so that they can go about their business, as we would all want them to. That is why Senator Cormann moved the motion that he did—in order to ensure that the Senate has the opportunity to properly discharge its responsibilities to examine the legislation carefully.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

by leave—I will be very brief, because I've expressed my views on this appalling situation many times before. I want to go on record as saying I support the amendments by the Greens to this bill, that have now been abandoned, to ban discrimination by independent schools against any pupil on the grounds of their sexual orientation. I feel as fervently on the issue of discrimination against teachers, too. I am surprised and disappointed, but, after being so gung-ho about protecting gay teachers last week, the opposition dropped the second part from its bill when it got here. That is why I supported several important Greens amendments which I believe would have passed and could have passed. I'm not surprised that the government has abandoned teacher protection for now, because Prime Minister Morrison made it quite clear to me personally that that would not happen. The Libs also, of course, have watered down the gay student protection with some of their amendments today. Now, of course, they've kicked it all to the long grass, as somebody earlier said.

I had a failed motion on this issue earlier this year, and another failed one that would have stripped discriminatory schools of any government funding or charity tax concessions. I still stand by that, although it failed. I suspect that the government and the opposition feared Catholic and Uniting school backlashes, even though neither has threatened, as far as I know, to expel a child or sack a teacher solely because of their sexual orientation.

Finally, going back to a hypothetical I've raised before in here and with the PM: if I were a person of faith—and I'm not—and I had three teenage kids, two straight and one possibly gay or unsure of their sexuality, could two of my kids go to a school of my choice and the third not be allowed to? How the hell do you explain that to a possibly troubled, insecure child? That's why what has happened here today is a bloody disgrace.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of the Right Hon. Enele Sopoaga, the Prime Minister of Tuvalu. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

Mr President, I have a point of order I wish to raise with you. The other day, in response to my query about Senator Waters wearing 'Stop Adani' earrings in the chamber, you invited me to wear my own earrings, which I'm doing. But you did say you were going to take it on notice—

Thank you, Senator Macdonald. I am endeavouring to deal with that matter privately before I bring it back to the Senate. Developments this morning prevented me doing so. I intend to do so later in the day, so I may have something to say later in the day or tomorrow. Senator Macdonald, I think it is fair to say your point has been made, but the wearing of a sign—in any form, in my view—is contrary to the rulings of myself, former President Parry and others. I intend to speak to senators involved, including yourself, Senator Macdonald.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann: This morning, former Prime Minister Turnbull said:

… when I was prime minister we were two points behind on the Newspoll, level pegging effectively, and we were four points ahead on our own private polling - but we know that's not the government's position today.

Given even President Trump is asking what happened to Mr Turnbull, why is Mr Turnbull no longer the Prime Minister?

As I've indicated to the chamber on a number of occasions now, the reason Mr Turnbull is no longer Prime Minister is that he lost the confidence of a majority of members in the Liberal Party party room. The Liberal Party party room elected Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg as our leader and deputy leader. It is very clearly understood that, under our Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, prime ministers need to both enjoy victory at the election and continue to enjoy majority support in their respective party room—something I know that the Labor Party understands very well, because I know Mr Shorten has been involved directly in changing prime ministers on the Labor Party's side on two occasions. I don't think that Mr Shorten has any difficulty understanding what happened, because he has been directly involved on two occasions.

Senator Urquhart, a supplementary question.

Former Prime Minister Turnbull went on to say:

… the government’s electoral woes, if that’s the right term, are a consequence of the decision made to change the leadership on the 24th of August.

"I mean, the polls—whether it’s the opinion polls or the [Victorian] election results—tell that story. It was … a destructive, mad, pointless exercise and the Australian people have been appalled by it."

Is Mr Turnbull correct?

I'm sure that Mr Turnbull, like many Liberals around Australia, is very, very focused on seeing and very keen to see this government do well and be successful at the next election. We as a government continue to do everything we can to ensure the economy is as strong as possible, that as many jobs as possible are created in the economy and that the budget gets back to surplus as soon as possible.

Remember, in case you have forgotten, we inherited from the Labor Party back in September 2013 a weakening economy, rising unemployment and a rapidly deteriorating budget position. Of course, as a result of our work as a government, a Liberal-National government, over the last five-and-a-bit years, the economy now is stronger, the economic growth outlook is stronger, more jobs have been created, the unemployment rate is well below where it was and well below where it was anticipated it would be and the budget is on track to return to surplus.

We know, of course, that if there were a change of government at the next election— (Time expired)

Senator Urquhart, a final supplementary question.

Former Prime Minister Turnbull went on to say in relation to the government's electoral woes:

… the people who should take responsibility for that are the people who moved to remove me as Prime Minister, Peter Dutton, Greg Hunt and Mathias Cormann and others …

When will you, Senator Cormann, take responsibility for the government's electoral woes?

I think it's very clear that I'm here taking responsibility and being accountable every single day. I've well and truly explained my position, in relation to the events of the last week in August, publicly and privately. I don't have anything further to add.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. How is the Liberal-National government working with the international community to address 21st century security challenges, protect Australia and ensure a safer, more secure region?

This is a very important question from Senator McGrath because, of course, the first duty of any government is to keep Australia and Australians safe. As senators on this side know only too well, in 2018 that task is becoming increasingly complex. Whether it is in cyberdomains, space or terrorism, advances in technology are having far-reaching impacts on national, regional and global security.

On cyber, we are particularly working to ensure that countries act in accordance with accepted norms. At home, we're working with the private sector to deter and respond to cyberincidents, and we're building regional capacity with our neighbours to improve cyber-resilience, as we did through our $38 million program in the Indo-Pacific. I will note that I opened Papua New Guinea's National Cyber Security Centre in advance of APEC in Port Moresby recently.

Technology is also bringing access to space within the reach of more countries and businesses, including in Australia. Space, particularly the openness that satellites give us, is now more integral to our day-to-day lives and more crowded. There's a growing risk associated with so-called dual-use technologies, where a satellite might also be used as perhaps a weapon to deliberately collide with a peaceful-use satellite. These are very complex circumstances. So this government continues to work very hard with our international partners on processes that can deliver better trust and transparency in space.

Unfortunately, Mr Terrorist—Mr President!—we also know that terrorists are proving very agile and innovative. It's a significant part of our work in this area to promote strong regional and international counterterrorism frameworks to ensure that would-be terrorists can't plan, communicate or operate with impunity. We are absolutely focused on ensuring that we keep Australians safe and that we keep us together in the face of 21st century challenges. (Time expired)

Senator McGrath, a supplementary question.

How is the government's strong economic agenda supporting our international efforts to create a safer and more secure region?

A strong economy, as Senator McGrath has alluded to, does enable us to invest more in regional security initiatives, whether it's the Pacific Fusion Centre that I announced during the Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru—and I acknowledge our friend and colleague the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, who is here today—the Lombrum Naval Base in Papua New Guinea, or the Black Rock training centre in Fiji, to name just a couple of this government's recent initiatives. They enable us to work more closely with our regional partners to address security challenges of importance to them and to work in partnership with them. Not only does a strong economy enable us to invest in the essential services that Australians rely on, it also adds weight to our diplomatic efforts. That's why we place such importance on our economic diplomacy that continues to promote Australia as an attractive place to visit, to study and in which to invest. And, last week, we launched our new Economic and Commercial Diplomacy Agenda, which will enhance our support to Australian exporters looking to break into new markets.

Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question.

Given the success of the government's policy agenda and strong economic management, what are the risks posed by other approaches?

There are significant risks posed by other approaches. The best example we've got of that is, of course, the period of government between 2007 and 2013, when those opposite were supposedly in control. When you're in control, that apparently means that you do not invest in one new naval vessel from an Australian shipyard, you use the Defence budget as an ATM and you take $18 billion out of the Defence portfolio during that time in office. Our contrast, of course, is to increase government spending to two per cent of GDP ahead of our target date, ensuring that we can effectively contribute to both regional and global security challenges in the years ahead. Those opposite also lost control of our borders. We know well what it meant when they dismantled the successful border protection policies of the Howard government, because, during their time in office, more than 50,000 people arrived on 800 boats, and tragically more than 1,200 people died at sea. Those— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. After stating that both he and the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, had intended to go to the polls on 2 March, former Prime Minister Turnbull has warned:

… the brand damage to the party which arose from the leadership change in August, when I was removed as prime minister—and … we've seen that taken out in a state by-election in Wagga, we've seen it obviously in Wentworth, and we've seen it in the Victorian state election. I am very concerned that this will put at risk the Berejiklian government.

Is Mr Turnbull correct?

No.

Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.

Mr Turnbull has refused to deny reports that he said Mr Morrison is delaying the federal election because he is only interested in 'keeping his arse in C1'. Is Mr Turnbull correct?

Before I call Senator Cormann, I will ask all senators to reflect on their language. I do not know the antecedents of whether that word has been ruled parliamentary before, but I will check and come back to the chamber. Senator Cormann.

No.

Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question.

Given Mr Morrison is willing to inflict the damage to the Liberal Party on the Berejiklian government, isn't it clear Mr Turnbull is correct when he says, 'The Prime Minister's determination is to stay in government for as long as he possibly can'?

Firstly, that question assumes a different answer to the first two questions. My answer to the first two questions was no. On that basis, I reject the premise of the question, and the final answer is also no.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Cash. Minister, how is the Liberal-National government's strong economic management and firm focus on border security giving it the resources and the resolve that it needs to protect Australia's borders and keep Australians safe?

I thank Senator Smith for his question. As we move towards the next election, there is a very clear choice when it comes to border security. To keep Australians safe the Morrison government understands that you need to ensure that our borders are secure. It is a result of the Liberal-National Party's border protection policies that the people smugglers' business model has been destroyed. In fact, they have been unable to illegally bring people to Australia for five years now. But, as we know, and as Senator Smith knows, this does not happen by accident. It comes because of a very strong minister at the time for border protection, Scott Morrison, and a very strong minister we have now for home affairs, Minister Peter Dutton. It comes because we have put in place policies that are tough and policies that ensure we have constant vigilance. Why? Because we know the people smugglers. They watch very carefully, and they are looking for the first sign of weakness in a government. That sign of weakness means that the borders will be reopened, and what we will see again is people flooding down to Australia.

It is an undisputed fact that the former Labor government were unable to stop the boats. In fact, they used to laugh at our suggestions that we could implement tough border protection policies. I will quote the then-immigration minister Brendan O'Connor. He actually mocked our policies of turn-backs. He told the parliament:

The 'turn back the boats' policy is an element of the 'stop the boats' fraud … Their 'turn back the boats' policy does not exist except in the minds of those opposite.

Labor said we could not stop the boats, and we did. Labor said we couldn't break the people smugglers' model, and we did—a clear distinction between Labor and the Liberal-National— (Time expired)

Senator Smith, a supplementary question.

Why is it important for the government to take a tough stance against people smugglers?

Senator Smith, as you know, when you outsource immigration policies, as the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government did in conjunction with the Australian Greens, the result is catastrophic. Let me just remind the Senate that under the former Labor-Greens government 50,000 people arrived in Australia illegally on 800 boats. In fact, many will recall that at one stage there was a press release almost on a daily basis announcing yet another boat arrival. Tragically, in excess of 1,200 people lost their lives at sea as a direct result of an open borders policy. In fact, I recall at the time that Senator Hanson-Young famously said 'accidents happen' in relation to people drowning at sea. But Senator Hanson-Young, who was the spokesman at the time for the Greens, failed to ever admit it was a result of policies that the Greens supported when Labor was last in government.

Senator Smith, a final supplementary question.

Given the success of the government's strong border protection policies, is the minister aware of any risks to Australia's border security and the safety of the Australian people?

It is those who do not believe that a fundamental responsibility of government is to ensure the security of the nation, and we absolutely know that the Greens advocate for the come-on-down policy—'Come on down to Australia.' And they are encouraged by the Labor Party. A Labor-Greens alliance yet again will be the greatest threat to border security and, ultimately, keeping Australians safe. If Labor are ever elected to office again, what we will see is history repeat itself. The last time Labor and the Greens were in government, it actually cost the taxpayer in excess of $11 billion as a result of the policies that they implemented. Labor can pretend all they like, but they are on a unity ticket when it comes to border protection. But when they are in office, they capitulate to the Greens, and what we see is a complete outsourcing of border protection to the people smugglers endangering border security.

My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate representing the Prime Minister, Minister Cormann. Today, world leaders are meeting in Poland at COP24 to work out how to end the existential threat of climate change, yet, without any irony, when the state of Queensland was on fire and burning with record-breaking temperatures, the multinational Adani Group, backed by the Liberal and Labor parties, announced that they would self-fund and move ahead with this carbon bomb. Is it true that your government could stop Adani's mine going ahead by revoking its environmental approval under section 145 of the EPBC Act, based on new information like the IPCC's climate warnings or the evidence of Adani's overseas and domestic breaches? If so, why won't you do this?

I thank Senator Waters for that question. Firstly, Adani Mining's announcement of 29 November that it will fully fund its Carmichael mine and rail infrastructure project ends the uncertainty on financing for this project. The project is subject to over 180 environmental conditions from Commonwealth and state regulators. The conditions fully implement the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development advice. The government is committed to ensuring that important projects such as this progress in a way which also protects the environment. Expert advice is being sought from Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO on Adani's groundwater plans, to ensure that water sources are properly protected. Adani's North Galilee's water scheme is being assessed under the EPBC Act for significant impacts on listed threatened species and ecological communities. The scheme includes a dam and pipeline and will use an existing surface water licence from Queensland.

Directly to the question, an assessment of the project is now being undertaken before a decision is made about whether the proposal can proceed under national environmental law. There will be an opportunity for public comment during the assessment of the project. The government is applying the law to this project just like it would to any other project. Labor, of course, has done nothing in relation to this but play politics with this mine, whether that's saying they oppose it to win inner city seats or saying they support it when they're campaigning in Queensland, and the Greens of course are no better. Unlike the Labor opposition and the Greens, the coalition is not going to play politics with this project. We have been clear that we support developments like this mine, subject to appropriate environmental approvals.

Senator Waters, a supplementary question.

Minister, is it also true—and thanks for clarifying that you could stop Adani but you're choosing not to—that your government could also stop Adani's mine going ahead by not ticking off on their groundwater management plan, given that 58 per cent of Queensland is in drought? If so, why won't you do this?

We make decisions based on science and objective evidence, not politics. We have a responsibility to follow proper process and we will continue to follow proper process in relation to this important project. I can also advise the Senate that Adani still needs to provide further information in relation to aspects of the plans before they can be approved and, as I've already indicated, expert advice is being sought from Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO on the groundwater plans to ensure that water resources are properly protected.

Senator Waters, a final supplementary question.

Thanks, Minister. And thanks for confirming that, yes, you could stop Adani by not ticking off on their groundwater plan. Is it true that your government could also stop Adani's mine going ahead by refusing to approve the pipeline that the mine needs? If so, why won't you do this?

We support projects like this. We support developments like this, subject to appropriate environmental approvals. Those approvals of course have to be obtained through proper processes—not based on discretionary political decisions. That is the process that we will continue to follow.

My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that Mr Morrison has intervened to save Liberal member for Hughes, Craig Kelly—Mr Kelly—after he threatened to resign from the Liberal Party and bring down the government if the Prime Minister failed to secure his preselection. One member of the New South Wales Liberal Party executive said the decision to save Mr Kelly had come after pressure from the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister intervene to save Mr Kelly when he failed to intervene to save Senator Molan, a man who has served his country?

I thank Senator McAllister for that question. I don't want to upset Senator Collins again but, whenever I am asked questions about preselection matters in the Liberal Party, Senator Marshall for some reason is absent from the chamber. I just wonder whether that is just by coincidence.

I would also like to correct an inaccurate assertion in the question. I'm not aware of any accurate suggestion that Mr Kelly has threatened to resign from the Liberal Party. In fact, on the basis of all of my conversations, Mr Kelly is a very proud member of the Liberal team and, indeed, the Prime Minister has taken steps to back incumbent members up for preselection in the great state of New South Wales not unlike Mr Shorten has done on various occasions. I'm looking here at 'Bill Shorten forbids preselection challenges ahead of election', which is an article in The Australian from 10 July 2018. I'm not quite sure how Senator Marshall missed out on Mr Shorten's protection. On the same basis, to reflect on what you've just said, Senator Collins, 'Bill Shorten asks ALP's national executive to decide Victorian preselections as tensions rise'.

The point I'm making is that those who are in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. We well understand that, in the lead-up to preselections and in the lead-up to elections, competition is part of a democratic process and from time to time leaders of either political party make certain judgements about what is in the best interests of the party, the government and the country.

Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?

Why did the Prime Minister intervene to save Mr Kelly when he failed to intervene to save Mrs Prentice, Mrs Sudmalis or Senator Gichuhi?

When I go back to my office, I will send Senator McAllister a Liberal Party membership form and then I will make sure she gets invited to the next branch meeting of the Liberal Party and the next state council meeting of the Liberal Party. I will get her—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Order! Senator Carr, you've been particularly voluble today.

I'm just helping him out!

I'm sure he appreciates it! Senator Wong on a point of order.

Direct relevance. As fond as I know Senator Cormann is of Senator McAllister, the question is actually not about whether he wants to try and get her to join the Liberal Party—which he will not succeed in—but why the Prime Minister saved Mr Kelly but not Mrs Prentice, Mrs Sudmalis or Senator Gichuhi.

You've taken the opportunity to remind the minister of his answer. I could barely hear his answer. If I am allowed to hear the answer, I'll be in a better position to rule on points of order.

If Senator McAllister wants to participate in Liberal Party preselection processes, I advise her to join the Liberal Party.

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.

Given Mr Morrison has refused to save Mrs Prentice, Mrs Sudmalis and senators Molan and Gichuhi but has today saved Mr Kelly, how does Mr Morrison decide when to intervene? Why is there a quota for clowns but not for women?

Government senators interjecting—

Colleagues on my right, please let me hear the question in silence. Senator Bernardi on a point of order?

You can't refer to members of parliament as clowns in the question there.

If there was something—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I actually couldn't hear the second part of that question due to noise from my right. So, if there was something unparliamentary, I'd ask it to be withdrawn, but I did not hear the second part of the question. I was giving the minister the courtesy to respond. He may have heard it. If there was nothing on that, someone can bring something on Hansard to my attention. Senator Bernardi.

That's fine. Senator McAllister suggested that the Prime Minister intervened in preselection of clowns. It's simply inappropriate, and Senator McAllister knows it is. She should withdraw it.

If there was a reflection on—Senator Hinch on the point of order?

Isn't truth a defence in New South Wales?

I will review the record. I honestly could not hear it. Senator Cormann, I'll ask you to respond to the question to the degree that you heard it.

To the degree that I heard it, I want to refer Senator McAllister to comments by none other than Emma Husar, the member for Lindsay, who said that she deliberately missed the vote on how the Liberals treat women because, in her view as publicly stated, the Labor Party is not without fault:

The NSW ALP are not without fault on the same things they (Labor) claim to be calling out. On principle and my values I missed the vote given the treatment, isolation and lack of support shown to me.

That is clearly a reflection on Mr Shorten, so, again, those in glass houses should not throw stones.

Senator McAllister, on a point of order?

The point of order is direct relevance. I asked about how Mr Morrison made decisions about interventions, and the minister has gone nowhere with that question.

To the extent that I heard the question, it did mention women in preselections. Again, I'll happily correct it if I was wrong—there was a lot of noise in the chamber—but if I was correct then I think the minister is being directly relevant to the answer.

I think that the comments by the member for Lindsay stand for themselves. With the list of members that Senator McAllister mentioned, some of those preselections took place well before Mr Morrison became Prime Minister.

My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. Minister, procedural order of continuing effect No. 20 on page 138 of the Senate standing orders requires, inter alia, that the full text of any bilateral or plurilateral agreement with other countries is to be laid on the table at least 14 days before signing. This was not done with the recently signed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, TPP-11, or with the agreements with China, Korea and Japan. In fact, these agreements were all presented to the Senate as a fait accompli, giving the Senate no opportunity to debate the agreements and fulfil its responsibilities to the Australian people. This rule has been in place since 11 December 2013. Would the minister explain why he did not comply with procedural order of continuing effect No. 20 with regard to the TPP-11 and these other agreements?

I thank Senator Hanson for her question. I will take on notice the details in relation to your question, Senator Hanson. I'm not aware of the precise dates on which tabling of the different agreements to which you have referred was undertaken. I am, of course, aware that the trans-Pacific partnership, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Japan-Australia free trade agreement and the agreement with South Korea all went through the normal parliamentary process of exhaustive examination through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and had, in other instances, multiple inquiries of different parliamentary and Senate committees. The government provided the standard national interest analysis in relation to each of those cases and, indeed, there were often other instances of modelling that were undertaken. For example, in relation to the TPP that modelling demonstrated that Australia's national income would be some $15 billion or so higher per annum by 2030 as a result of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership coming into force.

The government are very proud of the fact that, under us, we have provided greater access for Australian farmers and Australian businesses to more markets around the world. When we were elected, just 20-odd per cent of Australian goods and services could get tariff-free or preferential access into key export markets. That figure now stands closer to 70 per cent. What that means is that our farmers and our businesses are more competitive. They can get their goods into more export markets and they can sell their goods and services at a more competitive rate in those export markets, with lower tariffs, which means lower taxes on those goods and services. This is good news, and it's what has helped to fuel the growth of our economy over the last few years, ensuring our economic growth outstrips that of other G7 nations and our jobs growth has been at record highs, and providing more opportunities for more Australian families.

Senator Hanson, a supplementary question.

Well, Minister, I can say that you didn't present it to the table under the procedural orders. Is the minister at all aware of how concerned the people of Australia are about free trade agreements: their negative impact on our car, footwear, clothing and whitegoods industries, to name a few, and how this affects the livelihoods of many Australians who are losing their jobs due to this, and that, under your free trade agreements, you are bringing 5,000 workers into the country?

I acknowledge, as indeed the government always has, that when there are instances of economic change that presents challenges and that not every corner of Australia always benefits at the same time from every element of growth occurring. However, under our government, over the last 5½ years we've seen more than 1.1 million jobs created and added to. Last year we saw the fastest growth in youth employment in recorded history in Australia. This doesn't just happen by accident; the government creates the type of environment in which businesses can grow and invest. A key way in which Australian businesses grow and invest is by being able to sell more goods not just to each other but to consumers in the rest of the world. That's what we've seen under our government: growth in goods exports and growth in services exports creating more job opportunities for more Australians.

Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question.

Does the minister hold the rules of the Senate in such little regard that he feels he does not need to comply with them? Will he be tabling the Indonesia free trade agreement, as per the procedural orders, before it's actually signed?

As I indicated at the outset, I don't accept the analysis that Senator Hanson has made. Indeed, each of the agreements that our government has successfully negotiated, signed and brought into force are agreements that went through exhaustive parliamentary processes in terms of the legislation that was required to enable them to come into force. They're also agreements that are providing extensive benefits to Australian farmers and businesses, giving them more markets and more places where they can sell their goods and services. That's why the National Farmers' Federation, the Winemakers' Federation of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and a range of different farming, business and industry entities and organisations have consistently welcomed the agreements our government has negotiated; because those agreements are providing more markets and more consumers for Australian goods, which means more jobs for Australian families.

My question is to Senator Canavan, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. I'd ask him, as resources minister, to follow up on the answer that Senator Cormann gave earlier in question time about the exciting new announcements in Queensland in the resources sector, and I ask the minister: will these announcements mean jobs for my state of Queensland and support for the Queensland economy, which desperately needs the money from coal to keep operational? I ask the minister: how does this stronger economy that flows through to the whole of Australia help Australia provide the essential services that a modern country needs?

I thank Senator Macdonald for his question. He is right to outline that there was exciting news last week for Queensland—very exciting news—that jobs will be created in Queensland, thanks to the announcement that Adani has secured finance for its Carmichael mine. Immediately, that will mean 1,500 new jobs in North Queensland. I know Senator Macdonald knows how important that is for the state of Queensland and how important that is for regions like North Queensland and Townsville, the city he lives in, but it is important for the rest of the country to understand this. In the rest of the country, jobs growth is very strong. As Senator Birmingham was just outlining to the Senate, there has been record jobs growth around the country. That is not the case, though, in Queensland. In Queensland, at the moment, the unemployment rate is at 6.3 per cent—the highest in the country. In other regions of Queensland, like Townsville, where Senator Macdonald is from, the unemployment rate is 8.9 per cent—it has averaged that over the last 12 months. In Fitzroy, which covers Rockhampton—where I live—and Gladstone, the rate has been 6.8 per cent over the last 12 months. These areas need jobs; they need these opportunities. It is most important because of the personal impact that that has on people's lives.

I think the CEO of Adani, Lucas Dow, summed it up well:

On a personal level, my old man was an interstate truck driver. It has always struck me how hard he worked to give us a go and how well remunerated I have been as a result of the opportunities he and the mining industry have afforded me. That was all on the back of the Bowen Basin coal industry being opened up. I started work in the coal industry at the Goonyella mine. I am a parochial Queenslander and I really want to see this get up. This is personal, there is a personal drive there.

It is personal for Senator Macdonald and me as well, because we want to see our communities prosper. We want to see people like Mr Dow go from being the son of a truck driver to being the head of a major company in this country. It's that which the coal industry and the resources industry offers average Australians.

Senator Macdonald, on a supplementary question.

Could I ask the minister if anyone else is supporting the development of mines in the Galilee Basin? I know the Labor city council in Townsville is. I wonder if the minister could tell me if anyone else is supporting them, and also supporting the flow-on benefits for the economy and the essential services that governments have to provide?

Jobs are one of the most important benefits from this project, but perhaps the other important benefit is the views of the traditional owners of the land on which the mine will be built. Many of us in this place start our speeches by recognising the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and we should actually live out those statements by respecting the fact that the Wangan and Jagalingou people there do support the development of the Adani Carmichael mine. Two years ago, they met in Maryborough and voted 294 to one in favour of the mine. So if traditional ownership, if native title are going to mean something, it should mean that we respect the views of those people. And once again, Patrick Malone, a Wangan and Jagalingou traditional owner, sums it up best when he says Green activists are happy to maintain the status quo of the Wangan and Jagalingou people of low socioeconomic outcomes while they enjoy jobs, education, housing, et cetera, and, I guess, the electricity generated by coal-fired power stations. And I couldn't have said it better myself.

Senator Macdonald, on a final supplementary question.

The minister has mentioned responses from two people vitally involved in the expansion of coalmines in the Galilee. Are there any other comments by locals in the area, Minister, to this proposed expansion of the Adani and other mines in the Galilee Basin?

There's a lot of support from locals for this development because of the opportunities it provides to north and central Queensland. There are some opposed and, to put these comments in context, I need to outline that earlier this year, a couple of months ago, the member in the other place, Mr Mark Butler, the Labor shadow minister for energy, said on Facebook, 'I do not support opening up new mines in the Galilee Basin'. Under that post that Mr Butler posted, someone called Mr Stephen Smyth, who is the district president of the CFMEU, who Senator Macdonald and I know well, said, 'Very disappointing to see another ALP politician condemn those blue collar workers in coal. Never forget, ALP, the road to Canberra is through central Queensland. You are out of touch.' Those Labor members who continue to oppose jobs in North and Central Queensland are out of touch because the people of North and Central Queensland want jobs, they want economic opportunity, they want a future for their children and that's what we stand for.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. In response to the reports that Craig Kelly threatened to resign from the Liberal Party and bring down the government, former Prime Minister Turnbull this morning declared, 'that is the worst and the weakest reason not to have a preselection process'. Does the Prime Minister agree with former Prime Minister Turnbull?

Government senators interjecting—

Order! Again, I remind senators on my right: silence during questions, so that I may hear them.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald, take a breath after I make a ruling. Senator Cormann.

Firstly, the assertion underpinning that proposition is wrong. Mr Kelly did not threaten to resign or bring down the government. So that is No. 1. And I can indicate to the chamber, as is a matter of public record now, that the Prime Minister did take steps to support a number of incumbent members of parliament in the House of Representatives in New South Wales that were up for preselection. Given that we are getting to the pointy end of the electoral cycle, that seems like a sensible thing to do, and it is not unlike something that Mr Shorten has done on a number of occasions. Again, this is just a matter of party organisational management, and I think that Mr Morrison has demonstrated great leadership in securing the outcome that he has secured.

Senator Keneally, a supplementary question.

This morning, former Prime Minister Turnbull said:

I mean what the Prime Minister should be doing if Mr Kelly has made that threat, he should stand up to him and say 'if you want to go to the crossbench and create trouble that's your responsibility.'

Why did Mr Morrison fail to stand up to Mr Kelly?

I think that the good senator didn't listen to the answer to the primary question. As I've indicated in response to the primary question, Mr Kelly did not make that threat, and consequently the question doesn't make sense. The question doesn't make sense because it makes an assumption on something that did not happen, and there is nothing further to it.

Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question.

Thank you. Former Prime Minister Turnbull has said that giving into threats like those made by Mr Kelly is, 'The antithesis of good government.' Given the Morrison government is so chaotic, so divided and so dysfunctional it no longer has an agenda and it can't even govern itself, isn't Mr Morrison's capitulation just another example that his is the antithesis of good government?

Here is a question asked by the exemplar of good government in New South Wales—the absolute exemplar of good government in New South Wales. Let me—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order. Order, on my right.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald. Senator Wong, on a point of order?

She's better than you, mate.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order.

Point of order—relevance. Senator Cormann used to care about what Malcolm Turnbull said. We've asked about what Mr Turnbull said.

The minister has been speaking for 11 seconds. You've reminded him of part of the question. I invite the minister to continue his answer.

Thank you very much, Mr President. Not only was Senator Keneally not a very good Premier of New South Wales; she's also not very good at adjusting her questions, because if she had listened to the answers to the first two questions—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order, Senator Cormann. Order. Senator Collins, on a point of order.

Thank you, Mr President. Yes, the question was asked by Senator Keneally, but the question is not about Senator Keneally; it's about the former Prime Minister.

The minister spoke for 10 seconds and I could barely hear a word he said due to the interjections. You've reminded the minister of part of the question and its nature. I invite the minister to continue.

Thank you very much, Mr President. Well, the second supplementary, asked by Senator Keneally, repeated for the third time an assertion that is wrong and that I dismissed in my response to the primary question. So the point I'm making is that there was no such threat by Mr Kelly; hence, all of the consequent suggestions are wrong.

Mr President, my proper, policy related question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. How is the Liberal-National government helping Australian businesses benefit from trade, tourism and investment opportunities with our G20 partners? How does this help create a stronger economy that guarantees the essential services that all Australians rely on?

I thank Senator Duniam, indeed, for his policy focused question that looks very much to how it is Australians can rely on a government that will back them in their jobs, back them in their aspirations and back them in ensuring that they can deliver for their families.

The Prime Minister has just returned, along with Senator Cormann, from a successful G20 summit in Argentina. The Prime Minister went there with a very clear message—that trade plays a key role in underpinning Australia's prosperity and, indeed, the prosperity of all G20 nations. That message was heard loud and clear. We welcome the fact that G20 leaders unanimously agreed that trade is an engine for growth, for productivity, for innovation, for job creation and for economic development. That's why our government has been a consistent and strong supporter of free and open trade, and why we've worked so hard to give Australian businesses more opportunities to sell more goods and services around the world. In doing so, we now support a trade ecosystem that sees around 2.2 million Australians, or one in five Australian jobs, underpinned by our trading relationships.

The discussions Prime Minister Morrison had with world leaders were about advancing more opportunities for Australian farmers and businesses. That's why the Prime Minister in his meeting with the European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, agreed to accelerate our FTA negotiations with the EU, where our farmers have long battled for better access. Prime Minister Morrison equally agreed with UK Prime Minister May to reaffirm our commitment to commencing bilateral FTA negotiations with Britain as soon as they leave the EU.

These are important opportunities to build on our successful relationships with China, with Korea, with Japan, with the United States, through the new TPP-11, with Indonesia, to make sure that we continue to create more opportunities for Australian farmers and businesses, to sell more goods around the world, and in doing so sustain more opportunities for employment and jobs for more Australian families.

Senator Duniam, a supplementary question.

Will the minister inform the Senate about the key highlights for Australia at the G20 summit?

The Australian government welcomes the fact that, thanks to the advocacy of many nations, including Australia, G20 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to working with the World Trade Organization, to a rules based international order capable of responding to those international developments. The Prime Minister went to the G20 advocating for Australia and other nations to take the lead in modernising elements of WTO rules and to show leadership in commencing negotiations around new e-commerce provisions, because the way the world trades is changing dramatically. Australian businesses are playing a leading role, with more digital trade and e-commerce activities, particularly within our region with ASEAN nations and across the Indo-Pacific region. We want to make sure that we take leadership to guarantee that future business opportunities are underpinned by the types of rules that have guaranteed our trading relations so successfully in the past, and the Prime Minister's leadership delivered that in the G20 communique.

Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.

Finally, will the minister outline how our broader international efforts will create a stronger economy that guarantees the essential services that Australians rely on?

It's no accident that Australia has enjoyed 27 years of consecutive economic growth. It's no accident because that's been underpinned by the fact that, through a range of economic reforms undertaken by both sides of politics but, importantly, one of them being the market access guarantee that Liberal-National governments have secured with most of our major trading partners, we have created more opportunities for us to earn more income for Australia by selling more goods and services around the world.

In terms of the benefits of those agreements, just ask our winemakers, who have seen their exports to China almost quadruple under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Also, dairy farmers have seen phenomenal growth across the Japanese and Korean markets. What do those increased exports mean? They mean more revenue for Australia, higher taxes paid in Australia, more jobs for Australians and the ability for government to invest more in the essential services whilst keeping our taxes lower, which is what our government is doing by reducing tax for small businesses and for hardworking Australian families. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Housing and Disability Services, Senator Fifield. Today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities, a day which not only recognises the four million disabled Australians and the contribution we make but also acknowledges that we still face discrimination at all levels of society, including in employment, education and social participation. Minister, it is in this spirit of dual recognition that I first draw your attention to one of the most horrific ways in which this discrimination manifests itself. I talk, of course, of the violence, abuse and neglect we are so often subjected to. In the light of the 184 incidents of violence, abuse and neglect which have been reported to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, will the government now commit to establishing a royal commission into the violence, abuse and neglect of disabled people in institutional and residential settings?

Thank you, Senator Steele-John, for your question. The government, as I'm sure do all colleagues in this place, takes abuse and neglect of people with disability extremely seriously. The government is engaging in substantial reform to improve the treatment of people with disability. There have been, as colleagues are aware, a number of inquiries that have looked at issues of abuse and neglect of people with disability at both a federal and a state level.

As responsibility for specialist disability services shifts from the states and territories to a national system through the NDIS, the government has established new, significant and comprehensive safeguards in relation to abuse and neglect of people with disability. The government has committed $209 million to establish the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission—

Senator Steele-John, on a point of order?

My point of order goes to relevance. I've given him a minute. I'm aware of the safeguards you have established, Minister Fifield, and my question goes to the fact that, under those safeguards, there have been over a hundred cases reported—

Senator Steele-John, you're stretching the liberties of a point of order. Your point of order is on direct relevance. I will say that you are referring to the part of the question at the end. The minister is being directly relevant to the question asked, because he needs to be directly relevant to all or part of the question asked. I cannot instruct him on how to answer a question. There's an opportunity after question time for debate. Senator Fifield.

Thank you, Mr President. The government has committed $209 million to establish the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, which commenced operation on 1 July 2018. The commission continues to provide the National Disability Abuse and Neglect Hotline. The royal commission to investigate the quality of care and safety provided in residential, home based aged-care services announced by the Prime Minister will complement the action the government is already taking to improve the treatment of people with disabilities. The establishment of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, in large part, forms the basis of the government's response to the Senate committee report into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings.

Senator Steele-John, a supplementary question.

Secondly, I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that there are well over 400,000 Australians who are not able to access free-to-air television due to Australia's absence of audio-description capability. There have been two audio-description reviews and one working group. Given that we are now the only nation in the OECD not to have audio description, when will the government take action?

The government understands that audio description can provide people who are blind or vision-impaired with improved access to television services. The government formed the Audio Description Working Group to examine options to increase the availability of audio-description services in Australia. The working group included representatives from the broadcast industry, audio-description service providers and consumer representatives. The report identified a number of new and cost-effective methods to sustainably deliver audio-description services. The government is grateful to the working group for its deliberations and is undertaking further work to determine the appropriate next steps towards the delivery of audio description.

Senator Steele-John, a final supplementary question.

Given the minister's failure to outline any new, concrete steps that are being taken to alleviate the discriminations that I have outlined, I would like to ask him very directly: how does the government intend upon apologising to the millions of disabled people for whom his inaction leaves them at risk and excluded?

The report I referred to in my answer to the previous supplementary question has been released to enable greater public discussion and engagement with stakeholders. Since the finalisation of the report, the government is aware that there have been further technological developments in some of the options identified. The government will, in the coming weeks, further explore these developments and consider the policy steps necessary to give effect to the findings of the report. This is an area which is important and where more work is being done upon, and I can indicate to Senator Steele-John that, as always, we're very pleased to work together on this issue.

Thank you, Mr Terrorist—I mean Mr President! My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. In an article in Saturday's The Sydney Morning Herald entitled '"How about he rings?": PM's woman problem hits peak farce', it is revealed that, after meeting with South Australian senator Senator Gichuhi to discuss her experience of bullying and intimidation within the Liberal Party, Mr Morrison told Senator Gichuhi, 'Leave it with me.' What action has the Prime Minister taken since August to resolve Senator Gichuhi's concerns?

Having spent 44 hours inside an aircraft over the 87 hours between Thursday, 4.30 pm, and 7.30 this morning, I am not aware of the article that Senator Farrell is referencing. I'll take that question on notice.

Senator Farrell, a supplementary question.

Senator Gichuhi revealed—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left! Senator Farrell—hold. Order on my left. Senator Farrell.

Senator Gichuhi revealed that three months after meeting Mr Morrison to discuss her experience of bullying and intimidation within the Liberal Party she hasn't 'heard anything back—nothing'. Why has Mr Morrison failed to respond to Senator Gichuhi's complaints of bullying and intimidation within the Liberal Party?

I've already taken the substantive issue on notice. I would say, as the Prime Minister has indicated publicly, that of course he's raised the broader issues with the Liberal Party organisation and in all of the state divisions. Again, this is of course an issue that needs to be handled carefully. It's not as if the Labor Party doesn't have its own internal issues in relation to some of these matters, including the former Labor candidate in Hasluck, who indicated publicly in July that, essentially, she's no longer the candidate because of bullying from various elements inside the Labor Party in Western Australia. I've taken the substantive question on notice and I'll get back to the chamber.

Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.

Given that Mr Morrison has failed to respond to serious complaints of bullying and intimidation within the government, is it any wonder that he has already lost two seats to the crossbench?

I don't accept the premise of the question. As I've already indicated, I'll return to the chamber in due course.

My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation, Senator McKenzie. Minister, how will the Liberal-National government's commitment to guaranteeing access to the essential services that Australians rely on, including health services, benefit all Australians, particularly those in regional Australia?

Thank you, Senator Williams, for the question. The Liberal-National government has a vision to see all Australians have access to high-quality health services, no matter where they live. But high-quality health service delivery actually requires highly trained experts out of capital cities. Our $550 million Stronger Rural Health Strategy will deliver thousands more doctors, thousands more nurses and hundreds more allied health professionals to rural and regional Australia. This is a 10-year strategy that is only possible because of Australia's strong economic position.

But this is not all that we're doing. The Liberal and National government are not content just to deliver the most transformational package for general practice training in over three decades; we're also taking this one step further. Last month, I convened the first-ever national summit on rural medical specialist training to continue our work in revolutionising how we train our doctors and specialists to ensure we have more opportunity for them to work in our regions, because we know from the research that this will mean they're more likely to practice out in the regions.

The summit heard from leaders in the field: the Australian Medical Association; the medical deans association; eight regional universities offering medical training; the specialist colleges, which are so integral to this working—the physicians, radiologists, pathologists et cetera; and our states and territories. Delivery of medical specialist training out in the regions will require a hand-in-glove approach with our state and territory governments because they actually run public hospitals. We need to make sure that they have training positions out in the regions.

From the summit there were clear aims and goals to encourage collaboration, particularly between our states, territories and the Commonwealth and the training colleges to develop support for rural medical trainees, ensuring job security and pathways for a successful and prosperous medical specialist career in the regions.

Senator Williams, a supplementary question.

I ask the minister: what action has the government taken to support aspiring regional doctors and health professionals so as to guarantee and deliver essential health services?

Thanks to our record funding in health year on year and as far as the eye can see for each and every state and territory, we're determined to drive real change in the way we train our medical cohort. We've invested in general practice training through the Stronger Rural Health Strategy, but there's still more to do to increase the number of doctors practising out in the regions. It's a long-term plan and it's only able to be delivered because Australia's economy is in a strong position. That allows us as the government, state governments and, indeed, medical junior trainees to make career decisions and life-changing decisions about where they're going to train, where they're going to practise, where they're going to run a business and where they're going to raise their families. Our rural medical specialist training summit was the start of replicating the transformational approach. It will help us develop the national medical workforce strategy that we're looking forward to taking to the COAG Health Council in the near future.

Senator Williams, a final supplementary question.

I thank the minister for that answer and I ask: how is the government's strong economic and fiscal management allowing it to implement measures that will improve the health outcomes of patients across regional Australia and guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on?

You can't deliver record funding to each and every state and territory year on year and as far as the eye can see for the provision of health services in our capital cities, in our public hospitals and in the regions without having a strong economy. Right now Australia, with its growth of over 3.4 per cent, is the envy of the G7, and that is as a result of us increasing employment, backing small business and having the policy settings to see more revenue delivered to government for us to spend on the things that Australians expect, need and deserve. Because of the strong economy, our government's commitment and relentless hard work are strong, and we've been able to make investments, for example, in the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network, to improve health outcomes for people across regional Australia. That is an absolutely transformational way of training young people out in the regions. Instead of training in capital cities and dipping out to the regions, these young medical trainees will be embedded in our communities and serving them into the future.

Mr President, 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 and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cameron and Urquhart today relating to processes for the selection of Liberal Party candidates.

This government is in absolute chaos. This government is an absolute rabble. This government is so busy carving each other up and doing deals to keep the extremists in parliament while kicking women out of parliament that the general public has got no faith in this government at all. This is a government that has lost the confidence of Australia. The party room is divided. Those in the Liberal party room are at each other's throats. This is a destructive government. No wonder they're being called mad. No wonder they are being called muppets. They are a divided government. There is a schism right through this government. This is the government that told people they were going to be a grown-up government. What has been grown-up about this government in the last period of time?

When the community wants action on health, when the community wants action on education, when the community wants action on infrastructure spending, when people want action on TAFE, when they want action on skills, when they want more apprenticeships for the kids, this government is too busy carving each other up. When regional communities need more spending in regional communities, this government supports cuts to penalty rates. Some of the poorest people, the working poor in this country, get hammered by this government. When housing is a huge issue, when young people are faced with a massive inequality, when the biggest single inequality issue for the future is housing, this government has got no policy on housing.

It is a pathetic government—a government that has run its race, a government that needs to go to an election as soon as possible and let the public decide what's in the interests of this country. It's not the coalition. It's not the division in the coalition. It's not the lack of decent policy. It's really a need for a change of government so a government can focus on the needs of this country. When you get the climate change deniers, the extremists in the coalition such as the member for Hughes, Craig Kelly, being supported by this Prime Minister to maintain his position when his views are clearly not in the long-term interests of this country, it shows you the depths that this government has sunk to.

I think one of the happiest people around will be the Labor candidate for Hughes, Ms Steinwall. She is looking at the key issues. All that Craig Kelly wants to do is go on Sky News at night with all the extremists and run the same rubbish on climate change, the same rubbish on global warming and the same rubbish on renewable energy. This is a government that doesn't get it.

I'll tell you what else they don't get: they don't get the need to make sure they are representative of this country. Fifty per cent of the population are women, and what does this government do? It kicks out a senator, Senator Gichuhi, who was enticed to come across to the Liberals to try and give them another number in the Senate. What happens to Senator Gichuhi? She gets kicked out. Senator Molan, a former general, gets kicked out, yet all of the extremists get kept in. All of the women get kicked out. Look at what's happening: Jane Prentice, the member for Ryan, Ann Sudmalis, the member for Gilmore, and Senator Gichuhi—women representatives in this place—are kicked out, and we see Craig Kelly kept in. I think that says it all about this government. They have lost the plot. They are an absolute rabble of a government. They have got no idea what the Australian public need. They are pathetic. (Time expired)

I think that speech really tells the whole story we need to know about Labor's priorities, and that story is this: the story we've just heard from Senator Cameron is that he is interested in politicians talking about themselves, sniping and carrying on. We, on this side, are focused on the substance. He says that the Australian people want action on jobs and health and education. They get it from this government. We've just heard an hour's worth of questions that were about the petty squabbles of people talking about themselves. On this side, we're focused on getting the real stuff done. He didn't ask a single question—no-one on that side asked a single question—about jobs, not a single question about health and not a word about education, but they were happy to talk about the petty nonsense.

Here, we like to get on with what matters. That's why every time they come up with something petty and silly, we will come back to the fundamentals—that is, Australia's economy is growing at 3.4 per cent, more strongly than at any time since 2012, and that was at the height of the mining boom. They can talk all they like, but they have no plan for Australia's economy. Under this government, Australians have had the first opportunity in a long time to start to see their assets grow in value, to start to see their wages move up—and they have started moving, Senator Cameron, you'll be pleased to know.

There are more jobs available for Australians now than there have been in any time since 2013. In fact, from 2017 to now, we have had more jobs created in this calendar year than in any other year on record. Let's have a think about that. That is enormous. That makes an awful difference when you consider that these aren't more public servants being put on—these are overwhelmingly full-time, private sector jobs for Australians. Even better still, there has been the largest number of young Australians getting their first job in the last year than in any other year on record. This is not small stuff. These are huge achievements. Those opposite will talk about petty nonsense because they want to run from the facts, that when you face the big picture, when you look at what is really going on in the lives of Australians, there is more opportunity for success coming to every Australian than has been the case in more than a decade, and that is really very good news.

The percentage of working-age Australians who receive welfare in this country has fallen to just 15.1 per cent. That's the lowest rate of welfare dependency we have seen in this country in over 25 years.

Because you attack poor people!

It's a great news story. We are giving people who are struggling an opportunity for something so much better than welfare, and that is the economic freedom, the pride and the self-morale that come from work, and that's a really wonderful thing. To back that up, as those people move into work, as those people start to go from being those needing help from the taxation system to those contributing to it because they're in work, we are providing tax relief. In the year ahead 4.4 million Australians will get tax relief in the nature of around $530 a year. In fact, over 10 million taxpayers will get at least some relief. It's enormous what we're able to do for Australians when we start to get the fundamentals of the economy right, and it's wonderful to see that this is really happening.

Get the fundamentals of your party right.

Senator Cameron can carry on with his petty snipes as much as he likes, but the facts don't lie. We have so much to be proud of as a nation, and this is a terrible way of talking down the things that Australians are achieving every day. It's Australians—their efforts to build businesses, their efforts to employ other Australians, their efforts to help their communities get ahead—that we should be celebrating here. They are making enormous strides, more than you will ever see under a Labor government and more than was achieved under the past Labor government, when people struggled with lower economic growth and higher welfare costs. There was so much less available to spend on Australians and their essential services under the Labor government, every day of the week.

Just before I do get to the substance of the motion to take note of the answers given today by Senator Cormann, I listened to Senator Stoker. I know it's a tough gig when you're tapped on the shoulder and told: 'Can you take note? We have no idea what we're going to be talking about.' Senator Stoker, if you think the shambles of this government are petty nonsense, you are sadly delusional and stuck in the Canberra bubble. It's the same for the senators on that side who want to talk about giving opportunities to young Australians but can't wait to get in here and gain the support of the crossbench and some of that lot over there, particularly One Nation, to rush through as quickly as they can the opportunity to slash penalty rates for 700,000 Australians. I'd really like to talk to all the people out there whose kids rely on a part-time job, who probably don't have a union agreement through, say, Coles or Woolworths or Red Rooster or McDonald's or something like that. It would be interesting to know how many on that side, as they went through university—not all of them went through university; there are a few real people over there, like Senator Williams—how would they have felt if their penalty rates were slashed? Listening to the nonsense that somehow brilliant jobs will be created if we can take penalty rates backwards and that there will be opportunities for young kids to work their way through life and earn a few bob while they're studying: unbelievable. I have to tell you, I've seen the movie and read the book, and the sad part is here: how many people in the gallery respect your politicians? Put your hand up if you do. Absolutely none. I don't blame you.

Senator Sterle, direct your comments to the chair.

It's so embarrassing, it is—sorry, Madam Deputy President?

I was just reminding you to direct your comments to the chair.

Sure. Yes, okay; no worries. I thought you were saying, 'Hear, hear!' What a shambles this government is. Tell me the last time we had a statesperson in control of this nation. We have seen three PMs taken out—their throats slashed out the front—for what reason? Because they're full of hatred. There is absolute bile flowing through that side of the chamber as they fight themselves. If you don't believe me, go back to who were the frontbenchers each time there was a Prime Minister rolled then look at who the frontbenchers are—the ones who can't wait to get in line and say, 'I'll give you my vote. Slice this one's political throat and then I'll get a promotion.' What we see over there—seriously—is they don't give a flying toss about those things that matter to us as Australians. You're no different from us over here. We're worried. We have mortgages, kids. We've got grandkids and that's what's in the front of our minds—we want the best for the next generation to come. We're not worried about who sits on those frontbenches while they're slicing each other up—absolutely disgraceful.

Every Western Australian I talk to wants to talk about the opportunity for employment for their kids. They want to talk about the opportunity for their kids to get a great education. They want to talk about world-class medical. They want to talk about being safe in their home. They want to talk about all the things we all want to talk about. What do we see from our government? The internal fights, the anti-women. When they get taken out and belted up, it's amazing they all come out with the same line: 'I now want to move on,' and 'I want to spend more time with my family,' and we're supposed to believe that—seriously. I tell you what, there were friendships over here that will never be joined again. Do you know why? Because they hate each other that much. My colleagues will tell you, they can't wait to share their anger with us.

There are some decent people on the other side of the chamber. Some people go into parliament who actually do want to make a change. They want to leave it better for the next generation, they put their life on hold, they nominate and they get preselected. They go out and raise money, they get volunteers and then they work day and night to represent their electorate, their state. I tell you where all this trouble starts. The trouble starts normally from those on the other side who have had their nose put out of joint because they didn't get promoted or those senators who are No. 1 on the ticket normally, because they've got six years and don't have to face the people, or the ones who are in a safe seat. Their lives are on hold trying to represent their people, trying to do the best for the people in their electorate while this lot have the internal slicing up. It is absolutely disgraceful. And you wonder why people have no respect for us? You wonder why people hold us so low? In the employment chain, I don't think there are many people below us. I don't think that I'm wrong. And it actually hurts, when a lot of us come from decent jobs. But we didn't come here because we had an epiphany in the play yard one day that we want to become a senator; we come here because we want to make a difference for the next generation. Thanks for nothing.

I'll put a few things on the record. Senator Cameron said we don't care about the poor. Let's look at your franking credits plan you're going to do away with.

They're the poor? They have $2.4 million in super and they're poor? Give us a break!

Can I continue? You sit and listen. People on $37,000 income or less, you'll take their credit away because they saved a bit of money and bought some shares. Is $37,000 a high income? Outside, they're very good at blaming us for their mistakes. Let's talk about the penalty rates. Let's look at the facts of it—no porky pies, no fibs, nothing misleading. The Labor Party set up Fair Work Australia. Fair Work Australia set up the Fair Work Commission. The Labor Party appointed the commissioners. And they said, 'Every four years, review the standards.' This is a fact, Senator Cameron. So the independent body set up the umpire to set wages and made a decision to have a slight reduction in penalty rates from 2.75 to 2.5 in various industries—

A slight reduction? Tell that to people in Inverell.

I know about slight reductions in wages. I've been paid a lot less in my life than you have, I can assure you, if you want to go into wealth accumulation of what I did in my life.

No, we don’t want to know.

We can go there. Remember, you lot, when the shearers started your party under the Tree of Knowledge at Barcaldine? The Shearers Party. Any shearers on that side? Not a one. Wouldn't know how to load a hand piece. You wouldn't know how to knock the wool off a sheep. There are only two shearers in the parliament—three actually, with Mark Coulton—Andrew Broad, Mark Coulton and me—all National Party people from the bush who understand what bending a back is like and having a go. While you took them out on strike for wide combs—

I rise on a point of order. I draw the attention of the senator to the taking note and what the question actually was. It was nothing to do with shearing sheep.

Thank you, Senator Urquhart. I do remind senators that this is a broad-ranging debate and the questions asked were—

Senator Williams interjecting—

Just a moment, Senator Williams. The questions were to Senator Cormann.

What happened to Senator Singh—a good senator from Tasmania—in a preselection? Ah, they dumped her three years ago! They put her down the ticket and she was good enough to get up on her own, wasn't she, Senator Urquhart? Where is she this time? Down off the ticket again!

The hypocrisy of this place is amazing to me at times. Senator Cameron was talking about cuts to regional Australia. That is absolute rubbish! How many mobile phone towers did you build in the bush in your six years? Answer: zero! Not a one. The only thing you cut were live exports of cattle to Indonesia—what a great way to treat your neighbour! And you want to block them again. You want to stop them again. You want to get there with the Greens and the people pushing you in the crossbenches and ban our live exports so other countries will fill that gap. You know how to treat our neighbours: 'We'll cut the supply of meat off! That's the way we'll go. Don't fix the problems, we'll just cut the whole thing down.' We weren't shipping cattle to Indonesia, instead, we were carting them from the top of Western Australia down to Inverell, where I live, to the abattoirs. What a journey on a truck! That's what you did; what a mess! Of course, as far as the friendship-building goes, what a great way to treat your neighbours! As I said, the hypocrisy is amazing in this place.

Then we come to mining and the Adani mine talk today. Who opposed the Adani mine? Mr Shorten and the Labor Party opposed it. That is for sure. Mr Shorten said it's not necessary. I can't believe how the former CFMEU, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, has given money to the Greens in the past. The Greens hate construction, they hate forestry, they hate mining and they hate energy, unless it's renewable. But they donate to the Greens political party and then they donate to Labor, and here is Labor not supporting it. We're building all these new coal-fired power generators around the world. I highlighted a few weeks ago the number being built: 270 power stations are under construction around the world as I speak. We have just 22 in Australia. Are they going to burn the cleaner, more-efficient Australian coal or are they burn second-rate brown coal out of Indonesia, China—you name it—and put more emissions into the atmosphere? This is their answer: shut down all Australia's industry. I can't believe how the CFMEU can support you lot over there, I really can't. You've betrayed them, the people who got behind you! You don't like coal mining, you don't like jobs and you don't like mining at all; you're just begging to the Greens, that's what you're up to.

Of course, with the criticism of us in government: in April you'll see the black print finally on the bottom line of the budget. It's something the people over there promised under the Treasurer named Wayne Maxwell Swan: 'Next year there'll be a surplus,' but we didn't see it. Then it was: 'Next year there'll be a surplus,' and they borrowed $50 billion. At least come this April—not far away—we'll see the black print and the stopping of borrowing, until that lot over there get control. We know where the debt will go: to where Labor has taken it all of my life. State or federal, it's borrow, borrow, borrow and spend, spend, spend. They buy their way into government and mortgage the children's future. You talk about futures for children: don't leave them wallowing in debt, because that's what you've done all your lives! (Time expired)

I too rise to take note of the minister representing the Prime Minister's answers this afternoon to questions relating to the ongoing chaos of this government. When this government was elected in 2013, the member for Sturt stated that the adults were now in charge. Well, look at how far and how fast they have fallen! What a do-nothing farce they have become! Three prime ministers, three deputy prime ministers and three treasurers in just over five years. Former prime ministers are commenting publicly on the decisions of their successors—nay, haunting them; members from the moderate wing are now sitting on the crossbenches; and members from the conservative wing are threatening to do the same. Others are talking openly about being courted by minor parties. Backbenchers are fighting to save their preselections and seeking to have results overturned when things don't go their way. And, of course, we have a sitting calendar that would see this chamber sit for just five days before May. These are all signs that this government has descended into chaos. They have ceased even pretending to govern in the interests of the Australian people. Every day there are new revelations about the infighting, the chaos and the dysfunction of those opposite. The news is coming so fast that it's hard for observers to keep up.

Today The Australian reported that former Prime Minister and former member for Wentworth Malcolm Turnbull was urging colleagues to deny the current Prime Minister, the member for Cook, his plan to save the preselection of the member of Hughes by having the New South Wales state executive automatically declare all incumbents preselected, and, at the same time, reported that the former member for Wentworth revealed that he and the member for Cook had agreed to go to an election on 2 March to try and save the New South Wales government, which has enough problems of its own, from becoming embroiled in the federal coalition's nightmare. It's no surprise, though, that this government wants to hide from both preselectors and electors. That news followed reports in the Fairfax papers over the weekend that a deal had already been done behind closed doors to stitch up the remaining preselections, including the preselection of the member for Hughes, and that now seems to have occurred. This followed reports about the state of civil war in relation to the New South Wales Senate ticket, and, of course, the decision of the member for Chisholm to defect from the Liberal Party last week and sit on the crossbench, with her speech timed to the minute to coincide with the member for Cook's announcement about the date of next year's budget.

In the words of the member for Chisholm, referring to the leadership coup:

Led by members of the reactionary right wing, the coup was aided by many MPs trading their vote for a leadership change in exchange for their individual promotion, preselection endorsements or silence. Their actions were undeniably for themselves—for their position in the party, their power, their personal ambition …

This followed the Wentworth by-election, when voters in their thousands abandoned the Liberal Party after the removal of Mr Turnbull. It also followed the Victorian election last weekend, when voters did the same, the aftermath of which has led to the resignation of the state president and further infighting about the direction of the party. And, of course, it followed the Liberal Party leadership coup itself, when senators opposite were so divided between the former member for Wentworth and the member for Dickson that the current Prime Minister was able to slide through the middle and take power for himself. I note that the Prime Minister, the member for Cook, has still not been able to explain why he's now the Prime Minister.

Websites such as The Betoota Advocate and The Shovel are often regarded as satirical. I suspect their writers must be getting increasingly concerned that it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between their material and reality. Or is it actually a deeper tragic comedy that we're seeing at the moment? Is it Shakespearean or a tale from Dickens; Twelfth Night or maybe A Christmas Carol? While the chaos and division of those opposite is good fodder for the satirists, every day that this government spends focused on itself is a day it is not focused on the interests of the community—on education, on health, on fair workplaces, on properly addressing climate change. It is surely now well past time to put an end to this chaotic and divided government. To take a quote from Twelfth Night, as we approach the twelfth night, 'the whirligig of time brings in his revenges' and it's coming for those opposite.

Senator Hanson.

Senator Waters interjecting—

Sorry, just a moment please; I'm giving the call to Senator Hanson, thank you, Senator Waters.

Even though I was on my feet first?

Senator Waters, please resume your feet—I mean seat.

I was on my feet! I'm happy to stay on them.

Senator Waters, I've given the call to Senator Hanson. Please resume your seat.

With regard to those comments made by Senator Sterle earlier—that One Nation voted for cuts to penalty rates—I want to put on the record here that, in March 2017, One Nation actually supported the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017, a bill by Senators Cameron, Di Natale and Lambie. The bill summary states:

The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017 will ensure that modern awards cannot be varied to reduce penalty rates or the hours to which penalty rates apply if the variation is likely to result in a reduction in the take-home pay of an employee.

Further, the bill:

… provides that any determination of the Fair Work Commission made on or after 22 February 2017 … is of no effect.

Even at that time, Senator Roberts, the One Nation senator for Queensland, tried to move an amendment to that to restore penalty rates to fast-food and hospitality workers. He was denied leave to move that. These penalty rates were actually introduced in the first place by Bill Shorten, the opposition leader, in the lower house. He destroyed the penalty rates when he was a union leader.

I am so annoyed that One Nation is continually accused of voting against penalty rates and cuts to penalty rates, which was not the case when we voted with Labor on their bill here in this parliament. I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.

I rise to take note of the answers given by Minister Cormann to my question, which related to the Adani coalmine. We can still stop the Adani coalmine. My question listed three methods that either this government or the Labor opposition could use to stop this mega coalmine, right when the international scientists are begging us to not put any more coal in the system; right when 58 per cent of Queensland is in drought and doesn't need a water-hungry coalmine; and right when half of the state is on fire from climate induced extreme-weather events.

I listed the three ways under our current weak laws that this mine could be stopped. Of course, the mine could be stopped if Labor would agree with the Greens to simply not let the Galilee Basin be opened up and not let new coalmines proceed. But, even if that is not going to be the case, because they take money from the coalmining companies, this government has the power to overturn the approval for the Adani coalmine. There are three ways they could do that.

There's new information, which is a trigger for the minister to revoke the approval given to the Adani coalmine. There is a whole long list of new information that, legally, could be the basis for that approval to be revoked: whether it's the IPCC's latest climate instalment, which says we are running out of time and cannot afford to mess about and put even more coal into the system; whether it's the evidence about Adani breaching their environmental conditions overseas; or whether it's the evidence about Adani breaching their conditions here in Australia, that they have been investigated for by the federal department and are being prosecuted for by the Queensland government. It beggars belief that both sides of politics are still backing this ridiculous proposal for a company that has a litany of environmental breaches. They both crow about how strong the conditions are. This company has a track record of ignoring those conditions. I take no comfort at all from the minister's think these conditions written down on a piece of paper will be complied with. The company has shown they won't comply with those conditions.

The minister agreed it's also true that they could stop Adani's mega coalmine from going ahead if they simply didn't tick off on their groundwater management plan. Like I said, more than half of our state is in drought. Why should this mine get free groundwater—while everybody else has to pay and tighten their belts—on top of the 12½ billion litres of surface water that they've been granted by the Queensland state government? It shouldn't. It's water management plan could be not approved, and therefore their whole approval would fall over.

The third thing that this government could do—or Labor could commit to doing—is refuse to approve the pipeline for this mine. Again, Adani does not have all of its approvals. This government or the Labor Party could simply commit to reviewing those approvals—to refuse the water pipeline and refuse the water management plan. The people are going to stop this mine, and it's about time you lot got out of the way.

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Cameron to take note of answers be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That:

(a) the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 be considered on Wednesday, 5 December 2018 from noon to 12.35pm, at the time allotted for consideration of government business;

(b) if, by 12.35pm the bill has not been finally considered, the questions on all remaining stages shall be put without debate;

(c) paragraph (b) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(d) the provisions of standing order 115(3) shall not apply to the bill, so that the bill may be further considered even if it has been referred to a standing or select committee for inquiry and report. (general business notice of motion no. 1305)

This is a chance for the Senate to actually ensure we protect LGBTIQ kids before we leave this place.

I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

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

Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018

Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018

Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018

Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018.

I also table a statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement s read as follows—

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2018 SPRING SITTINGS

Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill

Purpose of the Bill

The bill will amend the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 ('the FITS Act') and the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 ('the NSLA Act').

The bill will effect two key changes, both of which are intended to ensure that the FITS Act will operate as always intended:

a. The FITS Act will be amended to require the Secretary to continue to publish certain information about registered persons after they cease to be registered, including information that was published about them before their registration ceased. While it was always intended that such information should be published, the FITS Act does not presently allow this. Amending the FITS Act to change this will ensure that the public can access information about both past and present instances of foreign influence registered under the FITS Act.

b. The grace period granted under the NSLA Act will be shortened to a 3 month period which will be further subject to the issuing of election writs. If election writs for either House of Parliament are issued before the end of the new 3 month grace period, persons who would otherwise have been entitled to the grace period will have to register within 14 days of the issuing of the writs. This will ensure that the FITS Act scheme is fully operational in time for the next election as always intended.

Reasons for Urgency

It is critical that the measures in the bill commence in time for the FITS Act's commencement, on 10 December. This will ensure that the FITS Act operates as it was always intended to from the time it first takes effect.

It is also critical that the provisions in the bill commence at least 14 days before the expiry of the shortened three month grace which the bill stipulates, and before election writs for either House of Parliament are issued. This will ensure that FITS Act scheme is fully operational in time for the next election. Undesirable consequences could follow if the shortening of the grace period were to commence later on: the period within which certain persons must register could be retrospectively deemed to have run out; or persons could be left with less time to register than the 14 days that the FITS Act would ordinarily allow.

(Circulated by authority of the Attorney-General)

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2018 SPRING SITTINGS

Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill

Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill

Purpose of the Bills

The bills establish an application fee for bodies wishing to be approved as higher education providers under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) whose students are entitled to FEE-HELP assistance; and a new annual levy for higher education providers whose students receive HECS-HELP assistance or FEE-HELP assistance under HESA. The application fee and annual levy will assist the Department of Education and Training to recover the costs of administering the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP).

Reasons for Urgency

The bills will ensure that the Department of Education and Training's cost recovery arrangements are brought into compliance with requirements of the Australian Government Charging Framework.

To date, the Government has not recovered the costs of administering the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP loan programs from higher education providers. The Australian Government Charging Framework requires that the full cost of regulatory activity be recovered from those entities that generate the need for the activity unless there is a sound rationale for less than full cost recovery – for example, where new charges are being phased in.

For this reason, the annual levy will adopt a partial cost recovery model that will assist with phasing in the new levy on HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP providers in the higher education sector. The FEE-HELP application fee will adopt a full cost recovery model and will only apply to new applications from providers.

The new charges are scheduled to be implemented from 1 January 2019. Therefore, passage of the legislation before the end of the 2018 Spring sittings is essential. This will provide adequate time for higher education providers to familiarise themselves with the detail of the annual levy and the FEE-HELP application fee, and to adapt their systems for its implementation ahead of the 2019 academic year.

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Education)

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2018 SPRING SITTINGS

Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018

Purpose of the Bill

The Bill will improve and modernise the legislative framework that governs the use of force by the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) to address key operational challenges and issues.

The Bill will do this by amending the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (IS Act) to:

The Bill includes strict limitations and commensurate oversight mechanisms for such activities including requirements for Ministerial approval following consultation with the Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Defence Minister other relevant Ministers, together with additional measures in respect of oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) and the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Intelligence and Security (PJCIS).

Reasons for Urgency

The urgency for the Bill is the need to provide greater certainty and hence protection to ASIS officers in the use of force while undertaking operational activities. In particular, in respect of the ability to:

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Honourable Marise Payne)

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2018 SPRING SITTINGS

Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the Bill is to address the impact of encrypted communications and devices on national security and law enforcement investigations. The Bill will allow agencies to adapt to ubiquitous encryption by using alternative collection capabilities including computer access and increasing penalties where people fail to unlock devices in accordance with a judicial order. It also proposes the development of options to require domestic and foreign companies supplying services to Australia to provide greater assistance to agencies. In particular, the Bill provides a framework for agencies to work with the communications sector to assist law enforcement to adapt to the increasingly complex online environment. The Bill requires both domestic and foreign companies supplying services to Australia to provide greater assistance to agencies.

Reasons for Urgency

The Bill requires urgent passage in the 2018 Spring sittings in order for the Australian Government to respond to the increasingly complex online environment.

The measures in this Bill are critical to the Australian Government's ability to pursue investigations of national security significance that could otherwise be frustrated by encrypted communications and devices. Current investigations are being frustrated by the use of anonymising technologies and encryption.

Passage in the 2018 Spring sittings is urgently required to provide law enforcement agencies with alternative collection capabilities and give effect to the Government's commitment to strengthen law enforcement responses to the evolving use of technology in crime.

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Home Affairs)

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2018 SPRING SITTINGS

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018

Purpose of the Bill

To strengthen the penalties and enforcement powers of the corporate regulator (ASIC) to protect Australian consumers from corporate and financial sector misconduct.

Reasons for Urgency

To ensure timely implementation for the regulator to be armed with greater powers to effectively deter and prosecute corporate and financial sector misconduct and allow time for any subsequent changes to meet the introduction of the Bill.

(Circulated by authority of the Treasurer)

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Marshall from 3 December to 6 December 2018, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish the independent Social Security Commission, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION BILL 2018

As independents it is our job to put forward solutions to problems impacting our communities, to give an independent voice to the issues that are ignored by the major parties and to suggest effective solutions to these problems.

At the outset, I must acknowledge the considerable effort of my fellow independent, Cathy McGowan MP, who is responsible for drafting this Bill and introducing it into the House of Representatives in August 2018.

The parliament should be provided with independent advice on the minimum level for social security payments that meet an acceptable contemporary minimum standard of living to ensure that recipients can live with dignity. These payments should be seen as a long-term investment in those that require them, particularly for our younger people.

Specifically with regard to one of the payments that has not increased in 25 years in real-terms, and which has a number of other payments tied to its level, the Newstart Allowance, the time has well come to have a standalone expert body provide independent, reasoned and publically available analysis on its adequacy.

Calls have consistently been made for Newstart to be increased to an amount that would not leave many of the unemployed living in poverty and arguably with financial support so low that it actually reduces their chances of getting a job.

In August 2017, the University of New South Wales's Social Policy Research Centre found that the single rate of Newstart and Rent Assistance fell $96 short of the absolute minimum required to cover the basic cost of living.

In 2012, and repeated in years since then, including in 2018, the Business Council of Australia argued that Newstart 'may now be so low as to represent a barrier to employment', when getting people into the workforce is surely its principal purpose.

"The best form of welfare is a job" has been a declaration from a number of our political leaders, but there has been a failure in matching that catchphrase with results and the level of Newstart is a primary reason. Nearly half of all Newstart recipients are without a job after two years or more, and more than 15% for at least five years.

A recent report by Deloitte Access Economics on the economic and equity case for raising a range of allowance payments, notably Newstart for unemployment benefits, by $75 a week calculated a cost of $3.3 billion a year. However, in nominal dollars the "prosperity dividend" would see the Australian economy grow by $4 billion dollars as a result of increased spending, creating 12 thousand extra jobs as well as lifting wages and leading to increased Federal and state taxes.

The report further found it would create a "fairness dividend" with a tightly targeted impact, with the bulk of the impact on the lowest income quintile, a focused relative boost to disposable incomes for the lowest quintile, and a regional focus due to unemployment levels in regional areas, and a tight correlation to the least well-off districts in Australia.

If Australia is to live up to its reputation for equity and fairness, social security payments need to be adjusted to a level which (in the case of Newstart and related payments) actually ensures the employability of recipients.

Letting it fall further and further behind national living standards for so long has just not worked. Successive governments of both political persuasions have failed to address this issue.

For this reason, and more, the major issue of the level of social security payments should have an independent expert body which can provide independent advice to parliament on what is fair and adequate.

Summary of the Bill

This Bill will establish a Social Security Commission to provide the parliament with independent advice on the minimum level for social security payments that meet an acceptable contemporary minimum standard of living.

The primary function of the commission is to conduct social security payment reviews. As part of a review, the commission would determine:

(a) the acceptable standard of living for recipients of the payment;

(b) whether the current level of the payment provides adequate support; and

(c) a recommended increase to the payment level or rate of indexation.

The commission will consider all social security payments made under the Social Security Act 1991, including pensions, Newstart and Youth Allowance.

This Bill will bring compassion and fairness to a critically important system. It will provide independent, expert and evidence based advice on what is fair and adequate.

I call on the Senate to consider this Bill.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) 3 December marks the International Day of People with Disability,

(ii) this day represents an opportunity to celebrate people with disability and the invaluable contribution that they make to the Australian and international community,

(iii) the theme of this year's celebrations is 'Empowering persons with disabilities and ensuring inclusiveness and equality', and

(iv) for the first time, people with disability are holding their own National Awards for Disability Leadership, and these will be shown on a dedicated YouTube channel and hosted jointly by the Disability Leadership Institute, Disabled People's Organisations Australia and the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations; and

(b) encourages everyone to participate in these celebrations online and in the community; with events taking place all over the country, the International Day for People with Disability on 3 December is a fantastic opportunity to embrace the theme of this year and work to foster inclusiveness across the nation.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1279 as moved by Senators Brown and Reynolds.

Leave not granted.

In lieu of suspending standing orders, I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Today is, indeed, the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. As a disabled person, I join with my community around Australia in recognising, celebrating, commemorating and recommitting ourselves to the work that needs to be done in order to see justice and equality realised for disabled people.

We are sick and tired of marking this day over and over with platitudes, with meaningless words said by those without lived experience who then expect us to thank them. We demand that action is taken, that words of substance are said. Those are the words which I sought to amend this motion with, and they will reappear in this place tomorrow in the form of my own motion. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) welcomes the Federal Government's recent announcement of an additional $498 million over 10 years to expand the Australian War Memorial to commemorate recent conflicts;

(b) acknowledges that:

(i) between 2000 and 2015, 325 members of the Australian Defence Force and veterans have been lost to suicide,

(ii) NSW RSL have reported that 85 veterans suicided last year,

(iii) suicides amongst veterans are not always recorded and, thus, these figures are likely to be much higher, and

(iv) the most recent report available suggests that between 2007 and 2009, and between 2013 and 2015, there has not been a statistically significant change in the suicide rate among ex-serving men; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) increase funding for veteran support payments and health services, and

(ii) look after the living, as we rightly honour our war dead.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Suicide can affect everyone and is the leading cause of death for Australians aged 15 to 44. Current and former Defence members are not immune, and the government is determined to support those at risk. Suicide prevention and improving mental health support is a high priority, and we invest significantly in it. Each year, over $200 million is spend on veterans' mental health support, which is needs based and uncapped. We introduced free treatment for any mental health condition for anyone with a single day of defence service and some reservists. We've also invested $31 million to improve support for veterans and their families, including new payments to ensure vulnerable veterans have financial support while their claims are being assessed. In addition to treatment, we know that recognition of our veterans' service through commemorations can support good mental health and wellbeing. Over $275 million has been spent to reform the Department of Veterans' Affairs and ensure it is putting veterans and their families first.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor has raised concerns that, whilst Treasurer, Scott Morrison ripped $40 million of funding from veterans', critical, allied and dental health services from our veterans, which Senate estimates confirmed in October will result in fewer services for veterans. This comes on top of the repatriation medical schedule freeze, which was already seen as a reduction in access to critical medical services for our veterans. Labor has said that, if there is more we can do to bring more support to our veterans, we should be doing it. Today Labor has announced a number of policies to assist our veterans and provide tangible support, including $4.9 million for the Scott Palmer Service and Veterans' Support Hub in the Northern Territory, $1 million to a veterans' recovery centre for the Ipswich and Somerset region, commitment to signing Australia's first military covenant and announcing $121 million for a comprehensive veterans' employment program. We will develop a family engagement and support strategy, will establish the Western Front Fellowship Program and have established the Senate inquiry into the use of antimalarials in the ADF. (Time expired)

I talked to Senator Hinch about this last week. I ask for the Senate's indulgence to vote on parts (a), (b) and (c) of this motion separately. I ask leave to make a one-minute statement as to why I propose that.

So you're requesting parts (a), (b) and (c) be put separately?

I request that part (a) be put separately and parts (b) and (c) be put together.

Leave is granted for one minute.

In 2015, the Greens initiated the first Senate inquiry into veteran suicides in this country. I and members of this chamber travelled all around the country and heard heartbreaking stories about the struggles that vets were going through, particularly when they left the Defence Force and were passed onto the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Senator Lambie also initiated an inquiry following that which followed up a lot of the information that we uncovered. We fully support better services for veterans—it's the cost of war that often goes unseen in this country—but we can't support $500 million being given to the Australian War Memorial. I've personally had discussions with Dr Brendan Nelson about this. The Greens have opposed the money going to the War Memorial because we don't want to see Operation Sovereign Borders, for example, being given its own exhibition in the Australian War Memorial and that kind of cruelty and inhumane treatment of refugees being normalised in this country as part of a propaganda war that this government is fighting. So we support parts (b) and (c) but not part (a). (Time expired)

The question is that part (a) of general business notice of motion No. 1258, standing in the name of Senator Hinch, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that parts (b) and (c) of general business notice of motion No. 1258, standing in the name of Senator Hinch, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1274, standing in my name for today, relating to West Papua, be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal?

Yes.

Senator Di Natale, the motion's been denied.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Once again, the hypocrisy of both the government and the Labor Party is exposed. They are quite happy to put forward foreign policy motions when it suits both of their agendas but not when it results in exposing an uncomfortable truth. The reality here is that, for one of our closest neighbours, people have described what is going on there as a 'slow-moving genocide at the hands of the Indonesian authorities', and yet we cannot even table a motion in this parliament to highlight the terrible human rights abuses that are occurring in that region right now. Since 1969, the opportunity to determine their own future has been denied to the people of West Papua. For 50 years, they've been shackled to Indonesia and denied the right to self-determination. They can't even raise their own flag without risking imprisonment. How about we show a little bit of respect for our neighbours and call out those abuses that are going on in the region? (Time expired)

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

In line with the government's longstanding view, motions that cannot be debated or amended should not deal with complex foreign policy matters. The Australian government recognises Indonesia's sovereignty over the Papua provinces, which is reflected in the 2006 Lombok Treaty between Australia and Indonesia. The international community also widely recognises Indonesian sovereignty over the Papua provinces. The government condemns all violence in Papua, whether directed against civilians or security personnel. Our consistent position has been that the rights of all citizens in Indonesia, including in the Papua provinces, should be upheld.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1275, standing in the names of Senators Wong and Singh for today, relating to nuclear war risk reduction, be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal?

Yes.

It's been denied, Senator Urquhart.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

This motion is intended to demonstrate support for nonproliferation. What it does do is expose the absolute hypocrisy of the ALP's position. If you're concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons, the obvious thing to do would be to support Australia's signing and ratifying of the nuclear weapons ban treaty. If you really want to make the world a safer place, sign on to the treaty. How about remembering those people who just won the Nobel Peace Prize, for which Australia should be incredibly proud. That's a position that you guys still can't bring yourself to support. We've given up, of course. We know that the government are the lackey of the United States and won't do anything, even when it advances our national interests and the global interest towards peace and disarmament. But you have an opportunity now, at your national conference, to do the right thing. I urge you to listen to Australians. If you're committed to nonproliferation, then sign the treaty.

At the request of Senator Singh, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) observes:

(i) that 2 December 2018 was International Day for the Abolition of Slavery,

(ii) more than 40 million people are in modern slavery, including 24 million in forced labour and 15 million in forced marriage,

(iii) one in four victims of modern slavery are children; and women and girls account for 99% of victims in the commercial sex industry, and 58% in other sectors, and

(iv) some of these individuals are based in Australia, or are connected to Australian companies' supply chains;

(b) recognises:

(i) the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Hidden in plain sight: An inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia,

(ii) the work of countries, such as the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, in enacting legislation to combat modern slavery, and

(iii) that Australia needs an enforceable Modern Slavery Act; and

(c) calls on the Morrison Government to establish an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and civil penalties for noncompliance.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Liberal-National government's modern slavery bill passed this parliament last week and is a wonderful example of the parliament at its best. Despite our wide range of views, we all agree on the fundamental principle that modern slavery has no place in our community and in the supply chains of the goods and services we buy. The bill will hold large organisations accountable for their supply chain practices and create a level playing field for industry to address and disclose their modern slavery risks. This bill is a first step, and there will be a comprehensive three-year review. The modern slavery business engagement unit is the most effective way to implement the reporting requirements, an independent anti-slavery commissioner and penalties are not required at this stage.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The regulation of onshore mining activities is a state responsibility. The government recognises the importance of farmers' rights over their land but also the value and economic importance of secure rights to exploration and development. The government encourages states to balance all of these factors when legislating these matters.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1271, standing in the names of Senators Hanson-Young and Waters be agreed to.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor supports the motion and urges the current Australian Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, David Littleproud, to review the Greyhound Passport Scheme and to assist those in the greyhound industry who are wanting to ensure the animal welfare of greyhounds is being addressed. Greyhounds Australasia itself has introduced a passport scheme which requires compliance to prevent greyhounds being exported to countries that do not meet Australian animal standards. However, Greyhounds Australasia can only impose the passport scheme on its own members. Nonmembers are not currently legally required to comply and may choose to export their dogs to countries with poor animal welfare standards.

All of us in this place know that the former agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, undermined animal welfare standards through his reckless actions in abolishing the Animal Welfare Strategy in 2013 and ignoring issues such as the requirement of a passport number before the export of greyhounds can occur. The Australian community expect action on this matter.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Hundreds of Australian greyhounds were exported to be raced to death in Macau. This is Australia's shame. With the closure of the Canidrome, hundreds of Australian greyhounds have been rescued and are awaiting rehoming. It's time the government took responsibility for their role in this disgusting chapter and helped these groups desperately working to save these really gentle animals. At the moment, there is nothing to stop this travesty from happening again. While I think we should ban greyhound racing altogether, stopping the export of dogs to countries with no animal welfare standards is one of the very rare things that I agree with the greyhound racing industry on. Animals are not property to be abused for profit. They are living, sentient beings, and we will not stop fighting for them.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1269 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1270, standing in my name for today, relating to supporting LBGTIQ+ people and their families.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) a new political lobbying organisation called Binary Australia was launched this week,

(ii) this organisation is a rebrand of Marriage Alliance (MA),

(iii) MA, during the marriage equality debate, circulated misleading and damaging material about transgender and gender diverse Australians,

(iv) the organisation has stated that they will target and campaign against critical and life-saving anti-bullying and LGBTIQ+ centered programs that work to protect LGBTIQ+ young people in schools, and

(v) since becoming Prime Minister, Mr Morrison has consistently attacked and devalued the rights of trans and gender diverse Australians, most recently in relation to Tasmania's proposed removal of gender from birth certificates;

(b) condemns the anti-transgender sentiment displayed by Prime Minister Morrison and organisations such as Binary Australia;

(c) commits to including transgender and gender diverse voices, particularly transgender and gender diverse people of colour and Indigenous people, in policy making;

(d) recognises the importance of anti-bullying and LGBTIQ+ centred programs for young people, including in schools, physical and mental health care services;

(e) supports the provision of essential health, social, cultural, and community services and programs for transgender and gender diverse people and their families, delivered with the meaningful input and involvement of these communities; and

(f) commits to:

(i) promoting standards for healthcare providers, that ensure transgender and gender diverse people receive appropriate treatment, and

(ii) ensuring that best-practice healthcare is widely available within the public health system without unreasonably long delays or waiting lists.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Liberal-National government supports inclusive healthcare and policy development that delivers the best outcomes for all Australians regardless of race, sexual orientation or gender. This commitment is demonstrated by unprecedented levels of funding for fair and equal access to world-leading healthcare, education and social systems. The government is opposed to divisive and discriminatory policies and practices in all areas, including government, education, health and community services, and consequently rejects this egregious attack on the office of the Prime Minister.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1270, as amended, standing in the name of Senator Rice, be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion 1272, standing in my name for today, in relation to shark mitigation and deterrent measures.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the two tragic human-shark interactions in Cid Harbour, the Whitsundays, in September 2018, and the trauma and hurt that has resulted,

(ii) that the Queensland Government culled at least six sharks in response to these interactions,

(iii) the fatality of Dr Daniel Christidis in Cid Harbour, in November 2018, from a shark bite after these culls; and extends condolences to his family and friends,

(iv) that there is no evidence that lethal shark mitigation methods, such as nets or drum lines, make the ocean safe,

(v) an ancient 4.65-metre Great White Shark was recently killed by shark nets at Maroubra Beach, Sydney,

(vi) that the Great White Shark is a threatened species and protected in Australia by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and is protected internationally through a number of mechanisms,

(vii) that, as apex predators, sharks play an important role in the ecosystem by maintaining the species below them in the food chain and serving as an indicator for ocean health; and that a number of scientific studies have demonstrated that the depletion of sharks results in the loss of commercially important finfish and shellfish species down the food chain, including key fisheries such as tuna that maintain the health of coral reefs, and

(viii) the recommendation of the Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry into shark mitigation and deterrent measures, that the Australian Government should establish a national working group to develop strategies and facilitate information-sharing about non-lethal measures with the objective of ending lethal shark control programs; and

(b) calls upon:

(i) the Australian Government to establish this working group, and

(ii) the State and Federal Governments to phase-out the use of lethal shark mitigation methods and invest in non-lethal methods as a way of protecting the environment without putting human lives at risk.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Thank you. This motion acknowledges the sad and traumatic interactions between sharks and humans that have occurred recently in Queensland. Sure as the sun rises tomorrow morning, we are going to see more interactions in this country, as we have seen in the past. It's a fact of life in Australia that the ocean is not a risk-free environment. This is something I know personally, as I spend a lot of my spare time in the ocean.

We have to get the balance right, the Senate Environment and Communications Reference Committee had an excellent 18-month inquiry into shark mitigation. It went all around this nation and came up with a very sensible set of reports about phasing out lethal mitigation measures for sharks and replacing them with non-lethal methods that still can protect human life and reduce risks while also protecting our marine life. Shark nets and drum lines kill not only tens of thousands of sharks that are essential to our ocean health; they also have bycatch—whales, dolphins, turtles and dugongs. It's time to move on with this debate and this motion— (Time expired)

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Public safety is this Liberal-National government's first priority. States are responsible for protecting people from sharks. The full range of options should be considered consistent with national law.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1272, as amended, standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1273 standing in my name for today relating to turtle bycatch before asking for it to be taken as a formal motion.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) 6 out of the world's 7 turtle species are found in Australian waters,

(ii) fisher logbook reports from 2013 indicated that 16 turtles, one whale and no seabirds were caught as bycatch,

(iii) in 2017, 199 turtles, 34 marine mammals and 47 seabirds were reported caught in Australia's Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery,

(iv) these most recent figures demonstrate a 12-fold increase in turtle bycatch and an alarming overall increase in the amount Australia's marine life being caught as bycatch, and

(v) turtle bycatch is particularly concerning in the Coral Sea Marine Park, which is not protected from tuna-longlining, despite being listed for protection in the 2013 marine park management plans; and

(b) calls on the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources to urgently undertake public consultation with the industry, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, and the Department of Environment to reinstate turtle bycatch trigger limits in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The increase in reports of interactions with turtles in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery is mainly due to better reporting through the introduction of e-monitoring in 2015, including through onboard cameras, resulting in more accurate reporting of interactions. The government's policies aim to mitigate interactions with turtles, noting that most turtles caught in the ETBF are released alive. The government's policies impose strict management requirements in the ETBF that ensure increased survivability of hooked turtles. Under the previous trigger limits, if the trigger limit was reached the Australian Fisheries Management Authority was required to implement the measures that are now in force. The government therefore does not agree with the need to reintroduce trigger limits.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor understands that the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery is a valuable and longstanding industry. The local regional economies depend heavily on these fisheries, and they generate valuable export earnings. This is why Labor will be supporting this motion and call on the minister to urgently undertake public consultation with the industry, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Department of the Environment and Energy to ensure the long-term sustainability of the industry and on how the reduction of turtle bycatch can be achieved.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senators Cameron and Siewert, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Government has claimed public interest immunity in response to the order of the Senate of 14 November 2018 for the production of a document, namely, the independent review by KPMG of the Serco pilot program, which saw an additional 250 staff engaged to answer phone calls at Centrelink through Serco;

(b) further notes that, despite this claim of public interest immunity, significant portions of the final report have been referred to in the media, including:

(i) by the Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation, Mr Keenan, in an opinion piece published by The Courier Mail on 30 October 2018 entitled, 'Adding 2750 staff will improve Centrelink waiting times, says Minister',

(ii) in an article entitled, 'Time to dole out the facts', published by The Courier Mail on 30 October 2018, in which the Minister is quoted referencing the findings of the report,

(iii) in an news item entitled, 'Hundreds of Centrelink call centre jobs are set to be privatised', by Channel Seven on 30 October 2018,

(iv) in a report on the Channel Nine Today Show on 30 October 2018, and

(v) in an article entitled, 'Coalition defends Centrelink contractors', published by the Canberra Times on 31 October 2018 in which the Minister is quoted referencing the findings of the report;

(c) in light of the publication of significant portions of the document, including by the Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation, is of the view that there can be no legitimate claim that the public interest is served by withholding the document; and

(d) insists that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation, by no later than 9 am on 5 December 2018, the independent review by KPMG of the Serco pilot program.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

In line with the government's response on the matter last Monday, the report is a cabinet confidential document that has informed the decisions of the government on this matter. The government will not undermine the longstanding principle of cabinet confidentiality and reveal the deliberations of cabinet on this matter.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1277, standing in the names of Senators Cameron and Siewert, be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion 1278, standing in the name of Senator Moore for today, relating to the refusal of a visa for Mr Gavin McInnes, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 24 October 2018, Mr Nyadol Nyoun created a change.org and Federation of Community Legal Centres petition calling on the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) to cancel the visa of Mr Gavin McInnes - the founder of the extremist group, The Proud Boys; to date, more than 80,000 people have signed the petition,

(ii) The Proud Boys was recently classified as an extremist group by the FBI and labelled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre,

(iii) Mr Gavin McInnes has repeatedly and publicly advocated for violence against women and has pledged to "assassinate" his enemies,

(iv) on 25 October 2018, the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection formally wrote to the Minister asking him to refuse a visa for Mr Gavin McInnes, given the significant risk he poses to the Australian community; and

(v) the Minister for Immigration, in response to the voices of more than 80,000 people, has denied Gavin McInnes a visa, as of 1st December, for entry into Australia.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

It is important that the process for considering any visa is conducted according to law, including the provision of natural justice as outlined in the act. All non-citizens who apply for entry to Australia must meet the character requirements as set out in the Migration Act 1958. For visitors who may hold controversial views, any risk they may pose will be balanced against Australia's well-established freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs, amongst other relevant considerations. Whilst the government does not make a habit of commenting on individual cases, I can confirm to the House that Mr McGuinness has been refused entry into Australia. However, the motion is incorrect to state that the decision was taken as a result of the petition. As a result, the government does not support the motion as it is factually incorrect as to the decision-making process.

Question agreed to.

I, and on behalf of Senator Hanson-Young, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) a study published last week by the Drug and Alcohol Review found that, in a 10-year period, a total of $7 million was gifted to the Liberal and Labor parties by alcohol interests, $2 million by gambling businesses and $1 million from tobacco,

(ii) the study found that gambling, alcohol and tobacco industry donations peaked both before elections and during parliamentary debates about policy that directly affect their bottom line, and

(iii) this study quotes an ex-politician stating that 'If someone donates $1000, they support you. If they donate $100,000, they've bought you"; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) ban donations from the property development, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, defence, pharmaceutical, banking, and mining industries, and

(ii) cap all other donations to $1000 per year.

I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The opposition will not be supporting this motion. Just this month, when an actual donation bill was before the chamber, the Greens again failed to engage constructively with the policy debate. They chose instead to grandstand for their Facebook videos. The opposition voluntarily refuses foreign donations and donations from tobacco companies, yet the Greens were quite happy to take a $1.6 million donation from a single corporate donor and accept half a million dollars from a professional gambler being investigated by the ATO for tax fraud. The Senate grows tired of stunts from the Greens on donation reform. The Senate grows tired of their hypocrisy on issue after issue, and, given the recent election results, so do the voting public.

The question is that the general business notice of motion No. 1280, standing in the names of Senators Waters and Hanson-Young, be agreed to.

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

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

Fully funding public schools, including funding for extra teachers and resources; more individual attention for students; and extra support for kids with special needs.

Is the proposal supported?

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

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

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this matter of public importance, because it is indeed a matter of great importance to every family who prepared this morning, got the lunches ready, got the bags packed and sent the kids off to school with the great hope of public education to be the transformative agent in their life to ensure that they fulfil their potential as great Australians, giving them every chance to be the best Australian they can be, whether they walk through the gate in a regional area of your state of Queensland, Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, in the middle of a city in my state of New South Wales or, indeed, down in Tasmania or across the nation.

Young people going to school in Australia deserve access to the very best education that this country can afford to give them. Today I rise to speak to this very important matter of making sure that our public schools are fully funded in order that the extra teachers that are needed are actually able to be in schools, do the teaching and enable the learning that helps create that success in schools. They also need teachers' resources—great resources that help young people. Especially in this digital age, the capacity to really individually tailor students' learning using resources that exist outside the classroom but under the careful facilitation of great educators makes the world of difference to success for individual learners so they reach their potential at whatever stage of education they may be. Indeed, we all know as we send our kids off to school—I'm a mother of three—that they're individuals. They all have individual learning needs that are very varied child to child. And we know that more money to allow that individual attention, to deal with the real-time learning of individual children, is going to enhance the outcomes for this nation.

The final matter that's indicated in this MPI this afternoon is support for kids with special needs. Sadly, we have this government's record in terms of discerning the needs of children with special needs and going through with their many, many commitments to provide transparency to the parents who are waiting and yearning for information from this government. Sadly, they were very disappointed, because information was stripped back and contained within the government. It was made unavailable to parents, who wanted to know what was going to happen with the disability funding that was so needed for their particular child. This government has failed on all of those fronts—in fact, there have been very significant cuts to education.

They will try to do the old pea-and-thimble trick and say, 'Oh, we've got more money here.' The reality is that this government has cut funding very significantly for young Australians across this nation. Across the country, Labor is fighting very hard to make sure of the funding our kids need, the proper funding where this government said—if we can remember as far as back when Mr Abbott came in as Prime Minister—that they would match Labor's funding, the Gonski funding, dollar for dollar. Well, they've reneged on that.

While we were all out living our lives, they've gone back to a deal, which they call Gonski 2.0. They're trying to pretend that it's better, but in fact it's a cut. I am, like other great advocates for our community and for education, and as a member of the Labor Party, out there fighting to make sure that this government is not returned and that we can make the proper investment in education that the first Gonski model offered, which was to deal with the reality that kids across the country are all at different levels because of the way this federal government and the state governments do deals about how things are funded. It's not fair, if one state is very severely underfunded, to just give them all the same—that's not fairness. If you happen to be born in Tasmania and you're missing out, that won't give you the start you need in life.

Right now, in New South Wales, I'm working closely with a number of great candidates who are going to seek election at the federal election. That may come, as Mr Turnbull wants it, on 2 March next year. Or perhaps Mr Morrison will win and it will be in May or any time in between. We just don't know from day to day what this government is doing, it's so chaotic and out of control. But Labor knows what it believes. We will retain our commitment to public schools and to public education always. There is $14 million in play to make sure that we get the full funding to public schools—funding for extra teachers, funding for resources, funding for individual attention for students and extra support for kids with special needs. That's what that $14 million will do.

And what did this government want to do? They wanted to give billions—billions!—to the big banks. We have prevented that—that's what an opposition does—but we want to make sure that the kids who have been sacrificed by this government, with its failure to commit properly to public education, don't miss out any longer.

I want to talk about the great candidate that we have in Robertson, Anne Charlton. Anne Charlton is fighting for $18 million for the Central Coast, which it will miss out on if this government is re-elected. Brisbane Water Secondary College's Umina campus would lose $1.2 million. Imagine what they could do with that for local kids? Terrigal High School—this government thinks that the suburb of Terrigal is their friend and that they're not going to be contested at all. But Terrigal High School parents are smart enough to know that Anne Charlton, Labor's candidate, will stand up for them, and that Lucy Wicks, who has let our community down on so many fronts, wants to take $1.13 million away from Terrigal High School. Gosford High School is one of the schools that we're very proud of in the region. It draws students from all over the area. It's a school for very talented young people. They will lose $1.12 million under this government because it went to Gonski 2.0 and took $14 billion away from education. Narara Valley High School will lose $1.2 million.

But it's not just where I live on the Central Coast that's going to be impacted, it's right across the country. I will go to the seat of Hume. Mr Angus Taylor, the member for Hume, is currently out there telling everybody what a great job he's doing for them. He's waving around his big stick that he's going to fix electricity with. Today he said that he might be able to put it back in the bag. I don't know what you do with a big stick in a bag or why you'd pull one out. Surely, the government should be doing better than that.

But, with regard to education, our candidate, Aoife Champion, is fighting really, really hard to make sure that schools don't miss out: Picton High School, $1.4 million; Camden High School, $1.34 million; Elizabeth Macarthur High School, $1.13 million; Elderslie High School, $1.13 million. In total, the seat of Hume stands to lose $20,970,000 if this government is re-elected. But Labor will invest in education.

In the seat of the Riverina, Mr Mark Jeffreson is fighting for $24 million for his local community—for Wagga Wagga High School, for Kooringal High School, for Parkes High School, and Mount Austin High School—they will lose over $1 million. In the seat of Parkes, I spent a fantastic day campaigning with young Jack Ayoub. He lives in Coonabarabran and is running for Parkes. He is fighting for $34 million for his local schools: $1.2 million for Dubbo College South Campus; Broken Hill High School, $990,000—what a difference do you think $990,000 could do for kids who live right out on the border of the great state of New South Wales?—Moree Public School, $970,000; Dubbo South Public School, $91,000.

In the seat of Cook—the Prime Minister's own seat—Simon O'Brien, who grew up in the area and is a true son of the shire, is fighting for $15 million that the Prime Minister wants to take away from the kids in his own area—shame on him—$1.2 million taken away from Port Hacking High School; Endeavour Sports High School losing $1.1 million; Cronulla, $1 million, Woolooware High School. Finally, can I talk about the teacher amongst this great crop of candidates for Labor, Kieran Drabsch. He is the candidate for the seat of Farrer, and he is fighting for $24.8 million for his local community, in schools like Albury High School, Wade High School, James Fallon High School and Griffith High School.

I do enjoy working on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services with Senator Williams down there, but this has happened. The problem I describe is because the National Party has not stood up to the Liberal Party and those seats that I spoke to you about have country kids—country kids in New South Wales, who need great investment in them. I believe in them. I'm sure you believe in them. The problem is this government doesn't believe in fair funding for education. (Time expired)

It is a pleasure for me to join the discussion on education funding as outlined by Senator O'Neill. The letter about this MPI was sent in by my colleague from Tasmania, Senator Urquhart, and has us talking about this important issue of 'fully funding public schools, including funding for extra teachers and resources, more individual attention for students, and extra support for kids with special needs'.

I am a parent of three boys, two of whom are in the Tasmanian public education system, which is an excellent education system, and one that is improving every year and receiving more and more funds every year. I will focus on the improvement in funding levels in the Tasmanian public education system shortly, just to provide a contrast with what Senator O'Neill was saying in her contribution. But one thing I do want to point out is that part of the Labor mantra when it comes to dealing with matters of education is, 'it doesn't matter how much money you throw at it, it's never going to be enough'. This letter points that out: 'fully funding public schools'. What does that mean? What is 'fully funding'? It doesn't matter how much is put in, they are always going to be saying that we need more. I think we have to ask the question: are we making sure that we spend this money appropriately?

Of course we should always invest more. As I will outline later on, in the Tasmanian example more is being invested but it is being invested strategically so that we do see results—improvements in student results and retention rates, which have been woefully low. We remind ourselves that in Tasmania, historically, we've had an adult functional literacy and numeracy rate of 48 per cent, an indictment on our education system in Tasmania and something that I'm glad to see is going to be improved by proper investment in the public education system in Tasmania.

So I urge caution on this issue, for those listening to this debate. Money is not the only measure of whether a government supports an education system or not. It's how that money is spent. Of course we should invest as much as possible, but it needs to be done wisely, not throwing good money after bad, based on figures that, as Senator Williams pointed out in his contribution, have been plucked out of thin air—random candidates from across the state of New South Wales, random schools and random communities, with figures of money just being thrown at these schools we don't know what for. I wonder whether Senator O'Neill knows what that money would be used for?

It's important for us to test what's being said in contributions like Senator O'Neill's and others that I'm sure we'll hear today. The best way for us to do that is to look at the facts and consider things in a historical context as well. If you listened to Senator O'Neill, you would think that Labor were the patron saints of education, that they've never cut funding to the education system across this country or misspent. We only have to recall the Building the Education Revolution, where we saw school halls being built at every school in the country. I remember one school hall in the state of Tasmania in a beautiful community called Waratah, at a school which could barely keep its doors open. Sadly, in mining communities where the mining industry has long gone and population numbers dwindle, you would expect numbers of students at schools to also drop. But the Labor government at the time insisted that hundreds of thousands of dollars be spent on building a new hall at this school which barely had a student. The school, of course, closed not long after. What a waste of money. How did students at the other schools in the region benefit from that? They could have used that some other way.

Labor have a record when it comes to wasting money in education, and that's why I say it's not just how much we throw at schools in funding but how we spend it that is important. We have to be strategic, and Labor have proven they cannot be trusted on that. It's important to make sure the money that we allocate to the schools that need the funding is in line with needs, not just where we think it should go.

We saw in the same period of time Australia slip under Labor from 12th in the world to 22nd when it came to the quality of maths and science education and then from 24th to 37th in the overall quality of our education system—sorry, that was from 8th to 23rd in the world in rankings. Labor's track record is pretty woeful when it comes to managing our education system. So when Senator O'Neill comes in here, along with all of her Labor candidates, pretending to be the heroes of the education system, we have to think twice about exactly how they will manage things.

Let's look at what is being invested here in Australia, how we are spending the very limited taxpayer funds available to this government to enhance our education system and ensure that the students of today are better for it tomorrow. We're providing an extra $37.6 billion to schools in the schools package, which means that funding for each student will grow, on average, by 62.6 per cent. Funding for state schools out of that pool—noting that we have state schools and non-state schools, so independent and Catholic schools—will grow by 101 per cent and, for non-state schools, it'll grow by 70 per cent over the term of the package. The government is also providing a record $309.6 billion in investment in recurrent funding to all Australian schools from this year through to the year 2029. The rate of spending is growing fastest in state schools at a rate of 6.3 per cent per student each year from 2019 to 2023.

They are some of the facts federally and, as I said, I would like to spend the last few minutes remaining in my time today to speak about Tasmania. States and territory governments have primary responsibility for education, particularly when it comes to primary and secondary education. They are the ones that administer our schools, that set the policies and determine how funding is spent. In Tasmania, it is a good news story. We're seeing the Hodgman government spend an additional $324 million over the next six years, employing 358 more staff in schools, including 250 teachers—teachers that were cut under the last Labor-Greens government. They're also extending high schools to year 12—38 have been extended. This is the thing: we had an education system in Tasmania where high schools went to year 10. So the attitude of young people was, 'Oh, I'm done by year 10.' They didn't go on to complete years 11 and 12. There were woeful retention rates, with kids dropping out and not doing anything else with their lives. Very few went on to get a trade or tertiary qualification or, indeed, complete years 11 and 12.

They're the sorts of changes we need to make to our education system. Yes, there's a cost attached, but it's a strategic investment—not just throwing money willy-nilly—and it's yielding results in regional communities. We need to focus on those communities. School nurses have been reintroduced into schools, with another 142 teachers and 63 more support staff, including psychologists, social workers and speech pathologists, employed since 2014. Again, those much-needed professions were cut in these schools under the Labor-Greens government in Tasmania. And, of course, the state Hodgman government will provide an extra 400 hours of free early learning for disadvantaged and vulnerable three-year-olds across the state. And that's just the beginning. They have done so much.

I like to compare the pair when it comes to how things are going in Tasmania in areas like health and education. When you look at the record left by the Labor-Greens government in 2014, education investment in the state of Tasmania was $1.35 billion. This year, in 2018, the state Liberal government is spending $1.6 billion. We had 4,202 FTE teachers; we now have 4,345 in 2018. In 2014, we had 787 teacher assistants; in 2018, we have 980. These increases mean that students are getting access to the support they need. Exactly what Senator Urquhart says we need to be doing is happening in Tasmania, her home state, and I hope she looks at this speech today and notices what's happened in Tasmania.

Of course, in 2014, the number of high schools in Tasmania that went through to year 12 was zero. It's now 38, and the apparent retention rate has risen from 70 per cent to over 76 per cent. The rate of attainment of the Tasmanian Certificate of Education has risen from 48.8 per cent to 58.9 per cent. And, of course, funding for students with a disability—another point that Senator Urquhart raises in her letter—has gone from $69 million to over $88 million per annum. That's the set of facts we need to be looking at. Don't believe everything you hear. Labor's tactic is to repeat a falsehood often enough that people believe it, but let me tell you it's not true. Those facts speak for themselves, and I hope, at the next federal election and at any of the state elections that are coming up, people remember this: the Liberals, the coalition, do invest in schools. That was just rubbish.

I'm a strong believer in the power of education to transform lives. Labor, in government, worked to create a school funding system that was based on the principle that every child could get a school education that gave them the same opportunity in life, regardless of background. That's why we created a system that gave the required extra attention and support to the students who needed it most—students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Indigenous students, rural and remote students and students with disability. One of the first acts of this heartless and out-of-touch government was to completely dismantle this approach and cut $30 billion from school funding. And, unfortunately, many Australians took former Prime Minister Abbott at his word when, on the eve of the 2013 election, he uttered the words, 'No cuts to education.' Mr Abbott broke his promise, Mr Turnbull did not honour it and it appears that Mr Morrison does not intend to honour it either, because the school cuts remain. It seems that no matter how divided, how chaotic and how shambolic this government is, they always seem to agree on one thing, and that's cutting essential public services like education.

This government has announced some investments in school education which go some way towards reversing the damage to Catholic and independent schools, but the position they have arrived at now still amounts to a $17 billion cut, $14 billion of which comes from public schools. Are we supposed to thank them for that? Should we thank them for announcing funding for Catholic and independent schools that is basically just replacing the funding that they already cut? Should we thank them for leaving many of the schools worse off than they were when Labor was in government? And should we thank them for their funding announcements for the Catholic and independent sectors when public schools are still being left way behind?

It's often pointed out in this place that this government's policies are continually aimed at attacking the most disadvantaged people in our community. Once again, those on that side have demonstrated this with their school cuts, because these cuts hit public schools the hardest. Eighty-two per cent of the most economically-disadvantaged children attend public schools. Public schools also educate 84 per cent of Indigenous children and 74 per cent of students with disabilities. These are a few of the groups which the Gonski review, after examining all the evidence, said needed extra support in classrooms, and yet they were exactly the groups primarily targeted by this government's $17 billion in school cuts.

Let's look at where this funding could be going. It could help reduce class sizes or employ education support staff, such as teacher aides, offering the ability for teachers to provide more one-on-one assistance for students who need extra attention. These would include not just the students who are struggling and need help but also gifted and talented students looking for extension work to help them reach their full potential. It could help to fund school counsellors, speech therapists, occupational therapists or language assistants—specialised professionals who can ensure that students have special needs or mental-health needs addressed. It could also fund extra professional development for teachers, particularly to build their skills and capacity around issues that are prevalent in their school communities. These are some of the things Australian schools most in need could be doing if it wasn't for the Liberals' $17 billion in school cuts.

Many of the schools that have been hit particularly hard by these cuts are rural and remote schools, and this begs the question: where are the Nationals in this debate? This is just another example of the National Party, which claims to represent rural Australia, simply caving in to their coalition partners, instead of standing up for regional services. I do encourage Senator Martin, as the Nationals' newest senator, to consider how these cuts have affected some of the most disadvantaged schools in north-west Tasmania, where he comes from, and to urge his party colleagues to reconsider their support for these cuts.

As if the government's $17 billion in school cuts isn't bad enough, I've spoken recently in this place about the government's $440 million cut to kinder and preschool by ending the partnership on universal access to early childhood education. As a former early childhood educator who was seeing the benefits of early learning firsthand, this decision absolutely appals me, especially at a time when other OECD countries are investing more, not less, in early childhood education. That's a stark contrast to Labor. We have announced that we will extend the partnership agreement and offer federal funding for two years of early learning. We've seen clear evidence that investing in early learning, as well as investing in disadvantaged schools, will pay economic dividends in the long run. If those opposite are going to question Australia's ability to afford the funding that our public schools need, then I ask this question: with Australia continuing to fall behind on our international performance on literacy and numeracy, how can we afford not to?

On the question of affordability, it's worth reminding Australians that, up until recently, the government were pursuing legislation to give the big banks a $17 billion tax cut. Now, I'm not clear as to whether the government has abandoned that legislation or just shelved it, or whether it officially remains government policy or they'll just revive it after the next election—who's to know?—but let's not forget that this Liberal government were claiming they couldn't afford to reimburse their $17 billion in cuts to schools, yet they were going to give the same amount of money to the big banks, which are currently fronting the royal commission to answer questions about ripping off their customers.

This speaks volumes about the priorities of those opposite compared to Labor's principles. Australians can be assured that Labor will always prioritise better schools over bigger bank profits. A Shorten Labor government will reverse the Liberals' cuts to school funding, which will see an extra $3.3 billion invested in schools over the next three years and $17 billion over the next decade. The majority of that $17 billion will go to the schools that need it the most, which overwhelmingly includes public schools. And, unlike this heartless Morrison government, Labor will not turn our backs on the 2.5 million children who attend public schools. That's two out of every three children comprising the majority of the most disadvantaged students for whom those opposite are providing the least support.

Those opposite, in their predictable fashion, are going to accuse us of irresponsible spending and demand to know how we will pay for our commitment, but we've made it abundantly clear how we'll pay for it—by making tough decisions on negative gearing, capital gains tax and the taxation of discretionary trusts.

Raising taxes.

I remind those opposite who are trying to interject that I worked with yelling three-year-olds for many, many years. So, Senator Williams, I'm not really interested in what you are yelling from over there. When you live in a glass house, though, you shouldn't throw stones. That's what I will remind those opposite. This government never, ever explained to the Australian people how they were going to afford their corporate tax cut when they were pursuing an $80 billion tax cut for big business, including $17 billion for the banks.

The other predictable argument that will come from those opposite is that you cannot fix a problem simply by throwing money at it. As I've pointed out time and time again in this place, this is a bit of a strawman argument, because that's not all that Labor is proposing to do. Not only is it a strawman argument; it's also hypocritical. It was those opposite who ditched Labor's school improvement plan, a national agreement aimed at improving students' results in reading, maths and science. What did they replace it with? Nothing. That's right. For five years, those opposite have handed over federal school funding to the states and territories without any accountability.

We accept that funding isn't the only solution. What we don't accept, though, is the suggestion that funding isn't part of the solution, especially funding that is directed at schools and students who need it most. I'm a regular visitor to local schools and, in the course of visiting schools, I've spoken to dozens, if not hundreds, of teachers. From speaking to teachers in the most disadvantaged schools I understand what additional funding would mean for them and what they could achieve with their students if they had more resources.

In my home state of Tasmania, our commitment to reverse the Liberal school cuts would mean another $50 million for Tasmanian schools over the first three years. Depending on each school's needs, we would see more support staff, extra teachers and teacher assistants or smaller class sizes—or some combination thereof. Australians with children in the most disadvantaged schools, especially public schools, understand that, if they want their kid to get the best start in life, they will need to elect a Shorten Labor government.

I rise to speak on today's MPI. I notice we once again have an MPI from those opposite in which they are attempting to cast themselves as having a positive agenda, when all they really want to do is score political points in this place. Series of falsehoods have been trotted out again and again because those opposite think that, if you say something often enough, it will become true. Well, in actual fact, it won't become true, and we've got plenty of evidence to the contrary.

There is record funding for schools. Everybody in this place knows that's the case. There's record funding for government schools, record funding for independent schools and record funding for Catholic schools. There is record funding for all schools. Those opposite trying to pretend, based on their own false assumptions about future projections, that there has been a cut is just nonsense. This is the same Labor Party who said, 'We're going to deliver a surplus next year.' There was a deficit. They said, 'We're going to deliver a surplus the year after that.' There was a deficit. It's the same Labor government that could never balance the books. It's the same set of figures that we inherited and that we've spent the last five years cleaning up.

As a fellow Western Australian, Mr Acting Deputy President Dean Smith, you would know some of the evidence from our own home state of WA, where we have, over the last couple of years, seen a change of government from Liberal to Labor. Education is, of course, one of those areas where there is some shared responsibility. Under the Liberal government in Western Australia, which sadly did lose the last election, there was record funding for schools. In fact, the Western Australian school system was the best resourced school system of any state in the country. Western Australian teachers were the highest paid in the country. Principals were the highest paid in the country. Communities had more say in how their schools were run and principals had more say in how their schools were run.

So we have an on-the-ground record of Liberal Party investment in schools. But what did the Labor Party do when they came to power in WA? They targeted the weakest, most vulnerable parts of the education sector. They cut funding to Morawa agricultural college—Morawa residential college, an agricultural school in regional Western Australia that serviced the local farming communities with a residential school system that supported Aboriginal communities with residential school places. It was a vital part of that community and they cut it. A grassroots community campaign over months and months eventually, through the support of this government, managed to get the Labor government in Western Australia to revoke that appalling decision to close down Morawa residential college.

What else did they try to do? They tried to cut School of the Air. What more iconic Australian educational institution could there be than School of the Air? But the Labor Party tried to cut it. It was an appalling act that left a relatively small number of students, but a very vulnerable and physically and, sometimes, technologically isolated group of students, vulnerable to a great deal of uncertainty as to their future schooling requirements.

So I say that this government is proud to stand on its record of choice and affordability in education. We are providing an extra $37.6 billion to schools in the school funding package. That means that funding for each student will grow, on average, by 62 per cent. Funding for state schools will grow by 101 per cent and funding for non-state schools will grow by 70 per cent over the life of the package. The package is sector-blind, and it will deliver choice and affordability to parents and students. It will allow schools to plan for the future, giving certainty to teachers and principals.

The government is providing a record $309 billion investment in recurrent funding to all Australian schools from 2018 to 2029. The government's spending is growing fastest for state schools, at around 6.3 per cent per student each year from 2019 to 2023. Compare this to per student growth of 5.2 per cent in the non-government sector. By 2027, students with the same needs in the same sector will attract the same level of support from the Commonwealth, regardless of the state or territory where they live, their background or the choice of school their parents made. This funding is needs based and is designed to get the best results for students, parents and teachers.

All we do in this place—all the positive we do, such as the record funding for schools which this government is delivering—is based on one thing, and that is making sure the Australian economy is performing as well as it can. Without the Australian economy performing well, we do not have the tax revenue we need to fund schools, to fund the NDIS or to fund all those things that the Australian people think are worthwhile. That is where this government has excelled.

The Australian economy is growing at 3.4 per cent in the latest figures, passing market expectations. There have been 27 years of consecutive growth—27 years of consecutive economic growth!—and it's the highest growth rate since 2012, and that was during the height of the mining boom. This is what allows the government to deliver in terms of dividends for schools, for health care and for all those areas, such as the NDIS, which I talked about. This creates the society that we all enjoy living in.

On the education side, the real needs based funding that is being provided grows; it grows consistently and it grows over the decade to come. Those opposite try to pretend that the growth isn't there, or want to take their figures from a different base. But the fact that all Australians need to understand is that the funding will grow from $17.5 billion in 2017 to $31.9 billion in 2029. This is real; this is significant. This represents a step-change for the education sector that provides the needs based funding model, where students who need support get the support, and will see investment in all parts of the school sector growing over the decade to come.

I'm very proud to be the Greens spokesperson on education because the Greens are the only party who will stand up for public education at every single opportunity. We are unashamedly the party of public education. We are unapologetic in our advocacy for well-resourced, world-class public education from early childhood to schools and all the way to TAFE and university. I do want to thank up-front the Australian Education Union, the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the teachers federations in other states and territories for their advocacy and activism on public education. Their Fair Funding Now campaign is one we should all engage with and push for.

One hundred and thirty-eight years ago, Henry Parkes created Australia's first comprehensive public education system in New South Wales with the underpinning philosophy that every child, regardless of their family's wealth or poverty, irrespective of the religion practised by their parents and without prejudice of their level of ability, would have access to world's-best schooling—egalitarian, secular, democratic. These principles and ideals still hold as true as they did more than a century ago. But for too long, both Labor and Liberal governments have done special deals with private schools that continue to see public schools severely underfunded and unable to meet even their basic needs. What a disgrace. This is not needs based funding. This is not sector-blind funding. This is handing over hush money to those with the loudest voices to shut them up.

The Liberal-Nationals federal government has slashed billions of dollars from schools funding. If we don't make a big investment in public education right now, just 13 per cent of public schools will have the funding they need to meet their minimum needs by 2023, while 65 per cent of private schools will be overfunded. How is this fair? This is a national shame. On top of this already unfair system, non-government schools will get an extra $4.6 billion from their special deal with the coalition, while public schools will get no extra funding. It is incredibly disappointing Labor has refused to rip up this deal.

The Greens will keep pushing to reverse these deals that see a public system underfunded year on year, government after government. We can make sure that every public school receives 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard or SRS by 2023. Our students and teachers deserve nothing less. The Liberal government has restricted federal funding to 20 per cent of the SRS for public schools. Under Labor's recent announcement, the Commonwealth will provide 22.2 per cent. The Greens are pushing for 25 per cent of SRS funding, with the Commonwealth working with states and territories to make sure that they contribute at least 75 per cent. It is the only plan that will make sure that every public school gets 100 per cent of their SRS by 2023. And the very real on-ground practical implications of this mean smaller class sizes, extra staff, more one-on-one support—this is good for students, teachers and staff. Ninety-three per cent of public school teachers dip into their own pockets to buy stationery and classroom equipment. We can do much better. We have to do much better.

The Greens want to invest $24.5 billion in our public schools over the next decade to finally ensure that they have the funding they need to offer world-class education. And we can fund this by reversing the coalition's income tax cuts that disproportionately benefit high-income earners. This will raise $13.4 billion over the next four years alone. The Greens plan will fix the federal government's capital grants program so that every public school has the funds to build the learning and teaching facilities that they need. We must expand access to this program to public schools, which it doesn't currently, and we must more than double the funding to $400 million per year.

Public schools teach the majority of disadvantaged students so they must get public money to be able to do that. Our education system must be able to meet the individual needs of all children and no-one should fall through the cracks. We will work very hard to reverse cuts to funding for students with a disability and ensure that the disability funding tiers match the actual cost of delivering high-quality education.

Just before I finish, I want to thank the AEU and the New South Wales Teachers Federation for their support for the Greens fully funded schools policy. Public schools shouldn't have to wait at the end of the queue. No student should be left behind. The Greens are proudly the party of public education.

One thing that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have been consistent on is their cuts to education in this country. Those opposite think looking after their mates at the top end of town is more important than funding our schools. Let's be very clear: Australians didn't vote for Scott Morrison and they certainly didn't vote for his $14 billion cut to public schools. Australians are sick of the chaotic Liberal muppet show and they're sick of hearing the Liberals say they can't afford to help public schools, while big business and multimillionaires get more and more.

There is a stark contrast between Labor and the Liberals when it comes to our education system. The Australian Labor Party has drawn a line in the sand with its $14 billion plan for public schools. This is the biggest investment in public schools in Australian history. Labor understands that we must do everything we can to prepare our kids for the jobs of the future. That's why we're investing in 15 years of world-class education for the next generation, from preschool right through to year 12. It's going to take a lot more work to fix the damage of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments, but we are willing and we're ready.

That's why Bill Shorten launched our five-step Fair Go Action Plan in October. A major component of our Fair Go Action Plan is to fix our schools that have been neglected and gutted by this out-of-touch government. We will give all children the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter where they live or how much their parents earn. We will restore every dollar Mr Morrison's cuts have taken from schools, including Catholic and independent schools. This money means more one-on-one attention; more help with the basics; making sure kids have reading, writing and maths well and truly under their belts; and more subject choice. This is also about ensuring that each child is treated as an individual and that they have access to the physical and educational resources and the support they need to thrive. If we don't invest in education, we're not investing in our future and in our children's having every single opportunity—a concept those opposite can't seem to grasp.

Parents around the country know that we have committed an extra $14 billion to school funding over the next decade, but it's pretty hard to understand what that really means for your own school—$14 billion is such a large sum of money. We have launched a website, www.fairgoforschools.com.au, which allows parents and teachers to find out how much extra funding their local public school will receive over the first three years from 2020 under a Shorten Labor government.

In my home state of Tasmania, Labor's investment will change children's lives. I'm excited, parents are excited and so is everybody else who believes in the power of education. Labor's plan to transform public schools with the biggest investment in Australian history is a big win for my home state of Tasmania. Tasmanian schools will get a massive $52 million extra funding over the first three years of Labor's plan. The extra investment will transform public schools in Tasmania so that every child gets the education they need for the best start in life. In Tasmania Labor's extra investment is the equivalent of hiring an additional 130 teachers or 220 assistants. Labor's record school funding will ensure that Tasmanian public schools get the money they need to give all students the best individual care and support that they need. Children who are struggling will get the help they need to catch up, and gifted and talented children will have a chance to extend themselves. It will allow public schools to offer coding, the arts and vocational education. All of this will help not only our students but our teachers.

In conclusion, it's time for a government that will put children first. If we don't invest in education, as I said, we're not investing in our future, and our children should have every single opportunity available to them. Governments have a responsibility to make sure that our public schools are funded and resourced and that they serve the community's needs. Mr Morrison and the Liberals are not up to this task; they've proved that with the cuts they've made. Whether it has been under Abbott, Turnbull or Morrison, the only thing that they've been consistent with is cutting education and health. I call on the Prime Minister: you're obviously not up to the job, your government is dysfunctional and there's so much infighting; you should be calling an election and you should be calling it now. That's what the Australian people want. (Time expired)

There's clearly been a breakdown in communication between Labor Party senators and Labor Party people in other parts of the country. There's clearly been a breakdown. Earlier today, just in the last little while, the federal Minister for Education, Dan Tehan, issued a press release saying he has now signed the National Education Reform Agreement with the Labor state education minister in Western Australia. Let me read from it:

The Morrison Government has ensured better outcomes for Western Australian school students by delivering a record $32.3 billion of school funding and reforms to the education system, paid for by our plan for a stronger economy.

There was so much agreement between the Labor state education minister in Western Australia today and the federal coalition government led by Scott Morrison that Mr Dan Tehan, the federal Minister for Education, even applauded the cooperative way in which Sue Ellery, the state Labor education minister, conducted the negotiations with him. In the media release, what did Dan Tehan, the federal Minster for Education, say about the Labor state education minister? I quote:

I thank the Western Australian Education Minister The Hon Sue Ellery for the co-operative way she has worked with the Federal Government to ensure that record funding flows to WA schools.

There we go. Who would have thought? Something's clearly happening. Labor senators on the other side of the chamber are either telling porkies—apologies to pork and pigs and those sorts of things—or they've clearly got a different view of the world from those people who are already in government, in Western Australia, and are responsible for funding schools. There we have it.

I have a few more minutes to fill. I could end it there. I think that's powerful demonstration already that Labor senators in this place are interested in playing politics. If they were interested in a serious debate about education, they might have started with a very honest assessment about their performance when they were in government. They might have reminded us of the $16.2 billion Building the Education Revolution program. Some of us know it as the 'school halls program.' What's interesting about that is that program delivered $6 billion to $8 billion in rip-offs and rorts. That's what Labor did. That was Labor's education policy. That was Labor's education outcome. You might even remember Labor's program called the Rewards for Great Teachers National Partnership. I wish I was the education minister. I would have a program like that. Rewards for Great Teachers National Partnership was the name of the Labor program. What they thought they would do is give $10,000 to outstanding teachers in the community. I think that's noble. I went a state school. I went to Mirrabooka Senior High School. I had fantastic teachers. I'd like a program like that. How many teachers across the country were recipients of $10,000—much-needed money—through the Rewards for Great Teachers National Partnership? How many? Senator O'Neill, would you like to take a guess? Senator Hanson, would you like to take a guess?

Address your comments to the chair, Senator.

The answer is none: not one teacher. Finally—because I do want to talk about the great things the coalition government has been doing with regards to education funding—you might remember that Labor promised a billion dollars worth of computers in schools. It sounds like a very, very noble idea. But what we saw consistently under the previous Labor government was an incapacity to design, fund and implement programs, so what we saw with regards to that program was a $1.4 billion blowout—a cost to taxpayers. So Senator O'Neill is quite right to run off random names of candidates in seats across the country, arguing that they're out there trying to draw people's attention to education issues and education-funding issues. She's right, and they'd be running around pretty hard because New South Wales electors, particularly—Senator O'Neill is a New South Wales senator—will quickly come to realise that what Labor says it will do is not what Labor does.

I was interested to hear Senator Polley share with the Australian Senate Labor's commitment to a historically large investment program for education. Well, let me tell you how that large, historical, significant education program is going to be funded: Labor's seven deadly taxes—a $20 billion tax on mum-and-dad investors; a $13 billion extra tax on capital gains tax for all assets; a $22 billion tax on wages, courtesy of Labor's plan to reimpose the deficit levy; a $22 billion tax on family businesses; a $25 billion tax on the saving we're already putting into our superannuation and $65 billion in higher taxes on Australian businesses. If that's not bad enough—I know what you're thinking: 'Senator Smith, that's six; that's not seven deadly taxes from Labor'—the seventh one is perhaps the cruellest of them all, Labor's retiree tax.

There's no doubt this coalition government has provided, at historically high levels, better education funding, giving families greater choice and flexibility. We're not just funding state schools; we're increasing the funding to independent, Catholic and state schools. What does that look like? The coalition government is providing an extra $37.6 billion in stronger, better education funding. That represents a 62.6 per cent increase for every student in the country, on average, and it's funded by a government that is about to deliver a surplus, not a government that is going to impose taxes on ordinary families and small businesses.

I've only got two minutes to speak on this. Yes, every parent wants the best education for their child. Last year this chamber passed approximately $23 billion in funding for education, and they're still calling for more funding to go into it. How much is enough? I'll tell you now that it's not about more money being thrown at it; it's all about the quality of the teachers and the curriculum that's being taught to these kids. Go back to phonics. Start teaching kids how to pronounce words rather than look at words in the book. Another thing is calculators. No kid can do their tables. They wouldn't even know how to add up or do their times tables without being in front of a computer or a calculator, and they don't know how to respond to reading. We have the lowest of educational standards in the world.

I went to high school; I was in the class of '54. There was no problem with education. I actually topped the class. After I saw that I wasn't near the top—I was coming about fifth or sixth—I realised I needed to work harder to get top of the class. So we need to bring back placing in the classrooms.

We now have four-year-old preschoolers debating about getting the refugees off Nauru. These are teachers with their own socialist agendas, and they're pushing them onto four-year-olds who have no idea what this is all about, and they're saying it's all right to do it. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I'll tell you another thing. Years ago, when I was in parliament, I had two lecturers from a university come to tell me that they were being told how to teach—that, if they didn't follow the curriculum of the university and teach the kids as they were told to, they would lose their jobs. This has been happening in our educational system. I've been speaking to teachers who are trying to get their degree, and they're saying that, if they don't head down the path of the socialist agenda, they will not get their passes.

It's an absolute disgrace that some of these teachers we now have in our classrooms are able to teach kids. They don't even know English at their level. This is where we need to get back to actually ensuring that we have good teachers in our classrooms. It's not about throwing more money at it. We never had that years ago when we were growing up. There's been so much money wasted in the educational sphere. We need to get back to having capable teachers doing it. The older teachers are the ones that have got the educational levels. I'm not knocking all these young ones coming through—I think they have great intentions—but I'm in fear of those ones who have the socialist agenda and the way they teach our kids.

In our classrooms they're told how to head down a line of political correctness, what political party they should be voting for and who they should be supporting. I think it's disgraceful. Keep the politics out of the classrooms. Teachers should have no place in telling the kids what to do. Get back to phonics and the times tables. Get back to the basics. That's what One Nation is doing in New South Wales under the leadership of Mark Latham. He's saying that we should remove the political bias from the English curriculum. (Time expired)

The time allotted for the discussion has expired.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This document relates to the performance audit of the disability support pension. It seems appropriate that we are discussing this on International Day of Persons with Disabilities, given that this is an audit around access and the way the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services are handling the disability support pension. It's a follow-on audit from previous audits. It is a pretty damning report about the way that the Department of Human Services and the way the Department of Social Services have been handling aspects of the disability support pension.

To put this in context, I, as the spokesperson on family and community services, am responsible in the Greens for all the programs around income support, so I'm responsible for the DSP, in terms of looking at it and the way it's implemented. I get a lot of complaints to my office, particularly lately, about the slowness of the application process and of people waiting for a very long time. When I ask for estimates about that, I'm told, 'Oh, no, Senator. That's not the case. There's not a long waiting time. They must just be an outlier.' Of course, this report throws light on this issue. It talks about the fact that, if an application takes more than 84 days to process, it's taken out of the calculations of their performance. Fancy that! That explains why the department can seemingly get away with the fact that they don't have a problem with waiting times in terms of assessment processes and what is actually happening on the ground.

Furthermore, people say, 'We've been told "no" in our application,' but get no detail about it. What did the audit find? There are 'insufficient reasons' given to people. The report says, in conclusion:

Social Services and Human Services use data and information from multiple sources to drive performance improvements to the DSP program. The exception is that internal and external performance measures are not fully effective.

It also finds:

Human Services does not comprehensively monitor if officers are communicating the reasons for access decisions to DSP applicants in a timely and accurate manner.

I can tell you they're not, because those are the complaints that we are getting into our office. People don't know why they are being rejected. The report also says:

Social Services and Human Services monitor, evaluate and report on delivery of the DSP program, but improvements should be made to the effectiveness of approaches across all three domains. The assessment of performance against outcomes is not complete as the departments do not have a comprehensive set of key performance measures for interdepartmental and external reporting.

In other words, they are not communicating adequately with people with disability who are applying for income support—the very people they should be supporting and working to. The report goes on:

The interdepartmental timeliness key performance measure is biased, as it excludes DSP claims with processing times over 84 days. Evaluations focussed primarily on effectiveness and should be broadened to also address efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

It then talks about the need to develop a more complete set of internal and external performance measures and says Human Services and the department are not adequately addressing these issues. The report then looks at the internal review of the impairment tables. Remember, when the impairment tables were changed—which is a whole other issue—they excluded a lot of people. The report says:

Social Services also commissioned an evaluation of the 2015 changes to the DSP claims process which altered medical evidence requirements and introduced an assessment by Government-contracted doctors. The latter evaluation drew upon data from only the first nine months of implementation.

That was quite some time ago. The report continues:

Given the availability of an additional two years of data, it would be timely for Social Services to further review—

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Document 8 is the response of the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Steve Irons, to a Senate resolution made on 16 October. The Senate motion was asking the government to immediately introduce legislation which would abolish current exemptions that permit discrimination against LGBTI students and staff in religious schools and to immediately release the review into religious freedoms in compliance with the orders of the Senate on 19 and 20 September. That motion being brought to our attention again today draws attention to how long we have been asking for the immediate release of the review of religious freedoms. A full two months have now gone by since we attempted to get those documents through the order of production of documents process.

But I thought it was very appropriate to take note of this response which has landed today because of the hypocrisy it points to, given the government's appalling moves before question time today to throw off into the long grass this bill which seeks to remove discrimination against LGBTI students. On 13 November, a full three weeks ago, in his response to this Senate resolution, the Hon. Steve Irons, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, wrote:

It is important that anti-discrimination laws reflect community expectations.

Given concerns raised by recent misreporting, it is important that the protection of children is dealt with urgently to give much needed certainty. To this end, the Government proposes to introduce amendments to remove current exemptions for non-state schools to discriminate against students.

That was a full three weeks ago. Not only has the government not acted on that in the last three weeks but, today, when the Labor Party, supported by us and other crossbenchers, actually moved to legislate to make this real, the government completely stymied the whole process. This urgency is completely forgotten. It's going off to a committee which will report back sometime in the new year. It is appalling, and the hypocrisy is absolutely breathtaking.

The other hypocrisy which I think is breathtaking is also from the Labor Party. It was notable and quite timely to have the wording of this motion, which was a Labor motion that came from Senator Penny Wong. They were asking for the immediate introduction of legislation which would abolish exemptions that permit discrimination against LGBTI students and staff. As you know, the Greens—again, because government and Labor weren't acting on this—introduced our own legislation, within weeks of this motion's being put forward, that would remove exemptions that allow discrimination against both students and staff.

The Labor legislation that we were debating today, of course, only covered students, because it is not that convenient for them—they've got internal difficulties as to whether they support the removal of discrimination against teachers and, in fact, how urgent it is. We, as Greens, know that it is desperately urgent, because every day that goes by while schools are able to discriminate against students staff is a day when students are not feeling supported at school, students are being discriminated at schools, trans students aren't being supported and same-sex-attracted students aren't being supported and are fearful of coming out. Every day that goes by is also a day when teachers in religious schools aren't being supported, are being pressured into resigning or aren't able to be open about their same-sex relationships, because of this discrimination hanging over their heads.

I think it is very notable today, when we have had this complete uproar and debacle that has ended up with this urgent motion suddenly not being urgent at all, to be reminded of how, just six weeks ago, it was urgent for both the government and the Labor Party to be acting to remove discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students and staff in schools. The Greens still think it's urgent, and we will be acting to keep that urgency. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning Tourism Australia.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

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

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA BILL 2018

It is with great pleasure that today I introduce a package of legislation that will substantially improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal courts in dealing with family law disputes. This legislative package will enable a real and positive impact to be made for families navigating the court system during what can be an incredibly stressful and difficult time in their lives.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill (the Bill) brings together the Family Court of Australia (the Family Court) and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the FCC) under an overarching, unified administrative structure to be known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential amendments and transitional provisions) Bill creates, among other things, a new Family Law Appeal Division in the Federal Court. The reforms enabled by these bills will ensure that family law disputes are resolved as quickly, inexpensively, and efficiently as possible in the best interests of Australian families, especially children.

This legislation has been carefully developed, reflecting extensive consultation with the courts and taking into consideration a large number of inquiries over the last decade which each related to the efficiency of the federal courts and the family law system, including:

These reviews involved significant consultation with the courts through the heads of relevant jurisdiction and other family law stakeholders, and have in many instances recommended structural reform of the courts to improve outcomes for Australian families.

For example, the Semple Review recommended the merger of the family courts within a single administration, and the 2017 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Report noted the complexity of the current family law system and recommended that consideration be given to how the family courts can improve case management of family law matters involving family violence issues (including through the adoption of a single point of entry).

In the interests of transparency and detailed consideration of the legislation I introduce today, I table those reports that have not yet been provided to the Parliament. Where appropriate, these reports have been redacted to remove information that would not be in the public interest to disclose. Such information includes material pertaining to matters ordinarily within the purview of the courts, material pertaining to the internal operations of the courts that are not publicly available and comments attributable to particular people.

Following extensive analysis and considering all of the evidence, the Government has decided it needs to act quickly and decisively to improve the situation for Australian families. As the PwC Report highlights, the current court structures and overlapping family law jurisdiction is causing confusion, delays, and significant differences in access to justice for Australian families.

While the number of applications for final orders in family law matters over the past five years has remained close to 22,000 each year, the number of family law matters pending in the federal court system has grown from 17,200 to 21,000. Since 2012-13, the age of pending cases has also increased, with approximately 29 per cent of final order cases pending in the FCC and 42 per cent of cases pending in the Family Court now older than 12 months. The national median time to trial has also increased from 10.8 months to 15.2 months in the FCC, and from 11.5 months to 17 months in the Family Court. For matters that go to trial in the Family Court, party/party costs are estimated to be $110,000 per matter; or up to four times more than an estimated $30,000 per matter in the FCC.

These outcomes are driven by significant differences in the efficiency of the Family Court and the FCC. The Family Court finalises 114 final order applications per judge, or one third of the 338 finalisations per judge in the FCC - a variation that PwC found "cannot be accounted for merely by the level of complexity" of cases between the two courts.

This is not a reflection on any individual judge. It simply demonstrates that the current situation we find ourselves in - with overlapping jurisdiction and significant variations in the application and case management approaches of the Family Court and the FCC; driven by different legislative frameworks, different rules, different processes and practices, and different operational and cultural practices that have evolved over time – is completely unsustainable.

Whilst the Government has charged the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) with reviewing the Australian family law system, the structure of the federal courts was not within the scope of the referral. The ALRC is also not due to report until March 2019. If we were to wait to receive the report before acting, many more families would be caught in the family law system as it currently stands and wait times would continue to increase. We would be perpetuating the existence of an inefficient and time-costly, ineffective structure.

The message from Australian families has been received loud and clear: the status quo cannot continue. The time to act on structural reform of the courts is now. Any ALRC recommendations relating to court processes that merit implementation will be more easily implemented in the new, simplified administrative court structure provided for through the legislation I introduce today.

The reforms enabled by the legislation introduced today build on the Government's reforms announced in the 2015-16 and 2017-18 Budgets. In response to the KMPG and EY Reports tabled today, the 2015-16 Budget included a package of measures critical to ensuring the courts financial sustainability, including:

The family courts were facing a deficit in the order of $44m over four years but for the 2015-16 Budget rescue package. Without the Government's critical intervention, the courts would inevitably have had to cut services substantially.

As part of the package of 2017-18 Budget measures aimed at bolstering the family law system, the Government provided the following additional funding over four years to the federal courts:

The reforms implemented in the package of legislation introduced today are consistent with the Parliament's powers to create and invest federal jurisdiction in courts other than the High Court under Chapter III of the Constitution. No existing Court is being abolished as a result of this legislation. Under the Bill, the Family Court will continue in existence as the FCFC (Division 1) and the FCC will continue in existence as the FCFC (Division 2). Current judicial appointments will continue in the new structure, with no changes to the terms or conditions of employment of existing judges. The Bill ensures that the FCFC (Division 1) is considered a superior court of record and a court of law and equity, and the FCFC (Division 2) is considered a court of record and a court of law and equity.

It is the Government's intention, enabled by the legislation, that the FCFC would operate under the common leadership of one Chief Justice, supported by one Deputy Chief Justice, who would each respectively hold dual appointments as Chief Justice/Chief Judge and Deputy Chief Justice/Deputy Chief Judge of Division 1 and Division 2. The Chief Justice would be supported in his or her responsibility for the administrative affairs of the court by a single Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Court.

The Bill confers jurisdiction to hear matters arising under the Family Law Act 1975 on the FCFC (Division 1) and the FCFC (Division 2) so that their jurisdiction is the same. The Bill invests the Chief Justice with the power to make court rules for Division 1, and the Chief Judge with the power to make court rules for Division 2. The Bill provides that the Chief Justice and Chief Judge must promote the objects of the Bill, which include cooperation between Division 1 and Division 2 with the aim of ensuring common rules of court and forms, practice and procedure, and approaches to case management. As the Government intends to appoint the one person with a dual commission as Chief Justice and Chief Judge, this will positively ensure users have a simpler, common experience.

The Bill therefore creates a framework to ensure, in effect, a single point of entry into the family law jurisdiction of the federal court system and facilitate the ability of the two Divisions to operate under a common case management approach, resulting in the more efficient and consistent handling of family law matters.

From commencement, all new family law matters will be filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Applications will follow a common case management pathway. It will not matter which Division litigants file in as each matter will be directed to the most appropriate Division by case management teams led by judges. There will be no wrong door for family law matters.

It is estimated that consolidating first instance family law jurisdiction into a single court entity with a single point of entry could result in finalising up to an additional 3,500 family law matters each and every year, and that through a common structured initial case management process and managed case listing, up to 3,000 additional family law matters will be finalised each year. Any transfer of cases between Divisions will be part of the case management process with the result that families will no longer have to waste time through that process.

Critically, the legislative package provides that the courts and the parties in dispute are focussed on resolving disputes as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. This includes:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976

Both Divisions 1 and 2 of the FCFC will largely hear matters in the first instance. Whilst the FCFC will retain jurisdiction to hear family law appeals from State and Territory courts of summary jurisdiction, with this appellate jurisdiction being extended to both divisions of the FCFC, the vast majority of appeals will be heard in the new Family Law Appeal Division of the Federal Court.

The removal of most of the appellate jurisdiction of the Family Court will be a fundamental change. It will allow those judges who typically hear appeals to focus on hearing first instance family law matters, so that the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia will have greater capacity to deal with trial work. This will reduce the backlog in first instance family law matters and contribute to reducing median case waiting times. It has been estimated that better management of appeals could result in up to 1,500 additional family law matters being finalised each and every year.

Importantly, the legislative package ensures that appropriate expertise and specialisation is retained and better utilised within the new structure. The family law expertise and experience of existing Family Court and FCC judges will continue to be utilised and developed over time.

The Bill retains the requirement that a Division 1 judge cannot be appointed unless "by reason of training, experience and personality, the person is a suitable person to deal with matters of family law" and introduces a new requirement that appointments to the Federal Court (including the Family Law Appeal Division) and the FCFC Division 2 have the "appropriate knowledge, skills and experience to deal with the kinds of matters" that may come before them.

The reforms are aimed at addressing and reducing risks to families. A more rigorous early assessment of complexity on a range of salient criteria that is conducted in a completely consistent way for all matters filed is a central objective of the proposed reforms. This would allow the best allocation of matters as between the FCFC Division 1 (the continuation of the Family Court) and the FCFC Division 2 (the continuation of the FCC), as well as allocation of specific matters which exhibit specific legal and factual issues with individual judges (whatever Division they sit on), who have the specific skills and experience in those particular matters that allow for the most swift and efficient resolution of the matters. The Bill allows the Chief Justice/Chief Judge to authorise judges in the FCFC to manage proceedings or classes of proceedings which would enable the specialist management of case lists, such as Magellan, family violence, parenting or property lists.

The Government has provided $4 million in funding to the federal courts to review court rules and assist with implementing the reforms. The federal courts will undertake a year-long review of court rules to critically evaluate the operation of differing rules and harmonise them in the family law sphere. This project will be fully informed by the outcomes of the ALRC Review into the family law system which is due to report to Government in March 2019. While harmonisation will benefit court users, these reforms will also further ensure the financial sustainability of the courts. Importantly, all savings that arise will be invested back into the courts to further improve access to justice for Australian families.

Establishing the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and ensuring both Divisions have concurrent family law jurisdiction and common fees, and supported by the implementation of common case management and harmonised rules and procedures over time, will greatly improve Australian families' experience of the family law system. Whilst estimates of potential improvements seem large, they clearly demonstrate the potential for significant efficiencies to be achieved within the existing system. Even if only a quarter of the estimated efficiency gains were to be realised, this would be enough to allow the courts to finalise more cases than they receive each year and contribute significantly in reducing the backlog of 21,000 pending cases that were before the courts on 30 June 2017.

We have the opportunity to act now and it is imperative that we do. These structural changes are another demonstration of this Government's commitment to improving the family law system and provide a secure platform to underpin future reforms to the family law system following receipt of the ALRC report next year.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2018

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 forms part of the Government's package of legislative reforms to the structure of the federal courts to enhance the experience of Australian families in the family law system.

This Bill is a companion bill to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018. Importantly, this Bill establishes the new Family Law Appeal Division in the Federal Court. It also facilitates the transition for court users from the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court to the new Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFC).

When the FCFC commences, a substantial part of the appellate function of the Family Court will be removed and placed in a new Family Law Appeal Division of the Federal Court. This new Appeal Division will hear appeals from judgments of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, a Family Court of a State or single-judge decisions of a Supreme Court of a State or Territory exercising family law jurisdiction.

The Bill makes the necessary amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to reflect the new appeal process in family law matters. Appeals from Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, as a superior court of record, will be heard by the Full Court of the Family Law Appeal Division.

It is intended that other appeals in family law matters from the FCFC Division 2, will ordinarily be heard by a single Judge of the Family Law Appeal Division. Having appeals heard by a single judge will free up considerable judicial resources to help reduce delays in family law appeal matters. However, consistent with the current approach of the Federal Court, where more than 80 per cent of appeals from the Federal Circuit Court in general federal law matters are heard by a single judge, the Bill does provide for the possibility of the Full Court of the Appeal Division hearing the appeal if a Judge considers it appropriate.

The Family Court of Western Australia will continue to hear family law matters. From the commencement of the FCFC, appeals from both Western Australian Family Law Magistrates and non-family law Magistrates will be heard by the Family Court of Western Australia. Consistent with the new appeal pathway being established for family law matters, appeals from the Family Court of Western Australia will be heard in the new Family Law Appeal Division.

Whilst there will be changes in the appeals pathway, there are no changes to the existing rights of appeal, as currently provided for under the Family Law Act 1975.

The Bill includes saving and transitional provisions to enable the repeal of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 when the new law comes into effect. It also makes consequential amendments to the Commonwealth statute book to reflect the continuation of the Family Court as the FCFC Division 1 and the Federal Circuit Court as the FCFC Division 2, to update legislative references, and to provide for the change in appeal location for family law matters.

The Bill contains contingent amendments to reflect the effect of Bills currently before the Parliament that refer to the Family Court, the Federal Circuit Court or judges or officers of either court, or the appeal processes for family law matters.

The Bill modifies court rules for Divisions 1 and 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, and amends court rules for the Federal Court of Australia and the standard Rules of Court for family law proceedings. It will be a significant task to review and harmonise the court rules, which is why, as previously announced, the Government has provided $4 million in funding, part of which is to the courts to support their undertaking of a comprehensive review of the rules and allow for the re-making of harmonised court rules within one year. The amendments and modifications made by the Bill are to ensure that there are appropriate rules of court in place for the Court's commencement.

Finally, this Billwould alsoensure that appropriate transitional arrangements are in place, including for matters before the federal courts as at the date of commencement of the FCFC Bill. For example, it clarifies the arrangements for situations where time limits to appeal decisions have not expired as at the commencement of the FCFC, where matters have not been substantively heard before the FCFC commences, and where matters have been substantively heard in whole or in part before the FCFC commences.

The Bill will commence at the same time as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018.

The Government wishes to thank the judges and officers of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court for their continued hard work and dedication to assisting Australian families resolve their disputes. The Government has every confidence that improved approaches to case management, the harmonisation of court rules and forms, practices and procedures between Divisions 1 and 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the introduction of the new Family Law Appeal Division in the Federal Court, will help Australian families navigate a better working courts system during some of the most stressful and trying periods of their lives and I commend the Bill to the Senate.

In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 15 April 2019.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I table the revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL SECTOR PENALTIES) BILL 2018

The Government is committed to arming our financial services regulator with the powers it needs to take strong action to protect consumers and to deter and prosecute corporate and financial sector misconduct. This is not only necessary to ensure that individuals and corporations who do the wrong thing are appropriately punished but it is also an essential part of rebuilding community trust in the financial services industry.

It is clear, through the work of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, that some financial institutions have engaged in conduct that falls well short of community expectations. This is not acceptable. This Bill delivers a clear message to those financial institutions and individuals that complying with the law is not negotiable. If the law is breached, the Courts will have a broader range of penalties to impose, which will act as a significant deterrent.

The Bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) to more than double maximum imprisonment penalties for some of the most serious 'white-collar' crimes, bringing Australia's penalties in closer alignment with leading international jurisdictions.

This Bill will increase civil penalties for individuals by more than five-fold and increase civil penalties for corporations by more than ten-fold.

Courts will also be empowered to consider even greater penalties where the profits from misconduct are high or where a company's annual turnover exceeds $105 million.

For example, in circumstances where a financial institution breaches its licence to provide financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly — at the moment there is no penalty apart from taking licensing action, including taking their licence away. Under the new law, individuals could face a maximum civil penalty of three times the benefits gained or $1.05m and companies could face a maximum of $10.5m or three times the benefit gained or 10 per cent of annual turnover (capped at $210 million).

Courts will have the power to strip people of their ill-gotten gains to ensure contraveners can no longer profit from their misconduct.

This Bill includes important reforms that put consumers first. In addition to the stronger penalty framework, the Corporations Act will be amended to ensure courts prioritise compensating victims over collecting penalties from offenders.

The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the Bill and has approved the Bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

The Government is committed to taking action to reform the financial sector. These reforms are part of the Government's comprehensive reform agenda which has already:

1) created a framework to hold banking executives accountable for their actions under the Government's Banking Executive Accountability Regime;

2) boosted banking and financial services competition to benefit consumers; and

3) provided the Australian Securities and Investments Commission with an additional $70 million of funding, significant new powers and also appointed an additional Deputy Chair in Mr Daniel Crennan QC, with a key focus on enforcement action.

A stronger penalty framework is one more step towards restoring the public's confidence in our financial sector, establishing a clear deterrent to financial institutions breaking the law and ensuring consumers are protected from misconduct.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

In accordance with standing order 111, further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 12 February 2019.

I present the final report of the Select Committee on Red Tape on the effect of policy and process to limit and reduce red tape, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The Select Committee on Red Tape was established in October 2016. I chaired the committee.

The committee has tabled interim reports on the effect of red tape on the sale, supply and taxation of alcohol; tobacco retail; environmental assessment and approvals; pharmacy rules; health services; child care; occupational licensing; and private education.

This is the ninth and final report of the committee, and examines the policy and process to limit and reduce red tape.

The problem of excessive red tape is well known. In 2013, the Abbott government introduced its deregulation agenda, aimed at reducing red tape, boosting productivity and strengthening the economy.

A stocktake of Commonwealth regulation revealed a regulatory footprint of about 1,800 pieces of primary legislation, 12,200 subordinate instruments and 71,000 pieces of quasi-regulation. The compliance cost of these 85,000 regulations was estimated at $65 billion annually, or about 4.2 per cent of GDP.

The red-tape reduction taskforce said:

Excessive regulation or 'red tape' stifles job creation, reduces investment, lowers innovation and lessens productivity.

The Productivity Commission estimated that regulatory compliance costs could be as high as four per cent of GDP, and savings from removing inefficient regulation could be up to 1.6 per cent of GDP.

The Institute of Public Affairs estimated red tape reduces economic output by $176 billion, or 10 per cent of GDP. They said: 'Red tape is the single biggest barrier to economic opportunity and prosperity in Australia. It's cost includes all of the businesses which are never started, the jobs never created and the pay rises which never materialise because of red tape.'

The deregulation agenda involved 18 policy measures, including omnibus repeal days. In 2014 and 2015, parliamentary sitting days were set aside for the repeal of unnecessary or redundant legislation and regulations.

But in 2015 the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry published its third red-tape survey, showing that regulatory burden continued to concern businesses. The majority of respondents said the amount of red tape had increased over the past 12 months.

The IPA submitted that, despite the deregulation agenda, the scale and scope of regulation had expanded with more than 107,000 pages of regulation introduced since 2013. The majority of this regulation has been created through subordinate legislation, instigated, as it put it, by 'an unelected administrative state which is gradually eroding the rule of law.'

The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman said that reducing the quantum only addresses part of the problem. It said, 'The churn has its own costs here as well. For small business, changing—even if you're taking two out and putting one in—itself is a problem.'

The Council of Small Business Organisations argued that the focus should not be on volume but on having 'good regulation and good regulators'.

The council noted that there had been at least eight red tape busting task forces formed and reformed since the 1980s plus any number of committees within and between government departments. Plus the same number of committees, task forces and forums at the state and territory levels.

Five common themes of regulatory burden were identified by a task force on reducing the regulatory burden in 2006:

The committee heard, in each of its interim inquiries, multiple instances of each of these types of red tape affecting industry.

Perhaps most consistent was duplication between and among federal/state and other regulations. One example: in the private education inquiry, the National Catholic Education Commission referred to duplication in financial reporting to federal/state education departments and the charities' regulator, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

Intrusion into state responsibilities by the Commonwealth was also a concern. For example, in the alcohol inquiry, the Australian Hotels Association argued that the regulation of licensed premises is appropriately managed at the state/territory level. There is no need for the federal government to get involved.

It's clear that red tape remains a major problem.

But we need to know the dimensions of the problem and its trajectory. The committee recommends that government conduct a whole-of-government stocktake of Commonwealth regulation every three years.

We also need to make reducing the red tape burden the responsibility of each department and agency. The committee considers each department and agency should be required to publish its self-assessment reports under the Deregulation Agenda as part of its annual report. This would increase transparency and accountability under the Deregulation Agenda, consistent with the KPIs, as well as providing opportunities to monitor progress and identify reform priorities.

Further, the KPIs may not be sufficiently clear or robust to avoid bureaucratic 'interpretation' to negate their purpose. The committee would like to see each department regulator obliged to focus on key questions, such as: what ill is the regulation intended to avoid? How well is it doing this? What are the other consequences of the regulation? Is there another way of achieving the intended outcome?

The committee recommends the government revise policy measures implemented under the Deregulation Agenda to focus more on the appropriate reasons and purpose of Commonwealth regulation, and to ensure that any such regulation is made fit for purpose, appropriate and proportionate.

The committee recommends the government initiate a five-year review by the Productivity Commission of the productivity and economic impacts of the Deregulation Agenda.

In addition, it considers that Commonwealth regulators would benefit from having regular stakeholder feedback on the business impacts of the Deregulation Agenda similar to the ACCI's Red Tape Survey. The committee recommends the government, in collaboration with the representative business organisations, develop a red tape survey to be conducted every two years to ascertain stakeholders' views on the practical operation and outcomes of the Deregulation Agenda.

This feedback would enable regulators to monitor these impacts, formulate better regulation, and most importantly, build better relationships with regulated entities.

Red tape is without question one of Australia's biggest hindrances to a more prosperous Australia. As the IPA said, there are many good things that don't happen because of it.

This committee has shone a light on some areas in which it causes harm, and made some well-considered recommendations. Unfortunately, the government doesn't seem to have got the message. Notwithstanding the Deregulation Agenda, the government's responses to the interim report recommendations so far have been negative or neutral at best.

The solution to red tape may require more drastic measures. Programs and departments may need to be abolished and public servants, ministers and their staff lose their jobs.

I would like to sincerely thank my fellow senators for their contribution to the committee's deliberations. Senators Paterson and Brockman from the government, Senator Watt from Labor, and Senators Griff, Burston and Anning from the crossbench.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases, together with the minutes of proceedings of the committee and the transcript of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I would like to firstly thank those families, organisations and individuals for attending our hearings in Katherine, Oakey and Williamtown. And I'd like to say to those families: your patience and perseverance in explaining and sharing your story to committee members—yet again, for many of you—your experiences with the chemical PFAS, the contamination of PFAS and its impact on you and your lives is deeply appreciated. Some of you spoke quite personally about the troubling health concerns you have while others spoke passionately about the financial impact you're experiencing as a result of a drop in property values, and your inability to have the option to move from your contaminated location. Some of you gave evidence that you do not wish to move at all but would appreciate the financial ability to stay.

The committee heard evidence on the anxiety around a lack of coordination, particularly between government agencies both at a state and federal level. It's why the committee has strongly recommended the establishment of a coordinator-general role—in order to do exactly that. The role should include providing ongoing monitoring of PFAS levels in all management areas using a range of sampling methods and publish the results as soon as practical in a publicly accessible format. The coordinator-general role should provide leadership to drive effective, transparent and consistent responses to PFAS contamination at sites across the country. The role should identify gaps and priorities for investigation and remediation based on the extent of contamination and risk to human and environmental health in each area. The role should also work across portfolios and with state, territory and local governments, to overcome barriers to cooperation, to coordinate actions, to clearly communicate outcomes and advice to the public, and to provide a national point of contact and accountability for the government's response to the PFAS issue, including annual reporting to the parliament.

Consistently we heard in each of those three locations—Oakey, Williamtown and Katherine—the concerns around coordination. In the Katherine region in particular, there was major distrust with Defence in relation to coordination across all three areas. The committee took evidence that that lack of trust was largely due to the fact that Defence is seen as the contaminator in terms of the product, PFAS, emanating from Defence-owned land on to properties and water in surrounding areas. So, as a result, we've highly recommended coordination. We recognise that Defence can't be seen to do everything yet it must do a consistent amount. However, there has to be an even higher level of accountability in having this particular role recommended in our report.

I take this moment, as well, to mention the role of my fellow Labor colleagues on the committee—Meryl Swanson MP, Sharon Claydon MP, and Senator Claire Moore. Personally, as deputy chair of this subcommittee, I appreciated their expertise and advice in those respective areas where we went to gather evidence and to listen. I also take the time to acknowledge the chair, Andrew Laming, who I worked with very closely throughout our seven or eight months working on this.

It was incredibly difficult to listen to the stories of families who were deeply traumatised, in some cases, and deeply affected by the impact of this chemical on them. I note very strongly, here in the Senate—to all senators—that it does not matter how much you hear about the contaminant PFAS, know this: it is a very real and impacting problem in terms of the lives of those families across all those regions—not to mention, really, all of those who we were unable to get to. I certainly appreciated that we received around 80 submissions to the committee. Of course, it is still an unknown concern that still needs to be explored more broadly across the country.

In recommendation 5, we recommended:

… that the Australian Government assist property owners and businesses in affected areas for demonstrated, quantifiable financial losses associated with PFAS contamination that has emanated from Defence bases. This is a challenge Priority for compensation, including the possibility of buy backs, should in the first instance be given to the most seriously affected residents …

This is a challenge put down to the government to act immediately—to make sure that not another Christmas goes by when these families are filled with uncertainty about their future. I think it is critical that we acknowledge there are serious issues here that need to be dealt with.

In terms of the other recommendations in the report, recommendation 6 is:

… that the Australian Government make available free, individualised case management and financial counselling services to those affected by PFAS contamination.

And we also went on to recommend:

… implement legislation and policies to:

We also urged the Australian government to:

… urgently ratify the listing of PFOS under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Further, the Committee recommends that the Government expedite the process for ratification of PFOA and PFHxS in the event that they are listed under the Stockholm Convention in the future.

We made a total of 10 recommendations. I urge senators here to read them, please, and to take heed of the concerns of families who we listened to across the jurisdictions of Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern Territory. We urge that senators push their respective leaders as best they can in regard to these recommendations.

I also just want to take the time to say thank you personally especially to my constituents in the Northern Territory, to the people who gave evidence. It was a very difficult time, certainly, for all concerned—not just for the families but also for Defence. I do commend the work of Steve Grzeskowiak and acknowledge the tremendous amount that he carries in all of this, along with his team. But, at the end of the day, the people out there expect greater leadership from this parliament. They see that coordination is not happening in the way that it could; we could be better at what we do in this regard. That's why there is the urgency in the coordinator-general role.

I would like to finish by thanking the secretariat for their work. It's always wonderful to work with them—people who put so much time into the logistics of that kind of work: the travel across the country and the many witnesses who come forward. It was an incredibly important time for our parliament to listen to those concerns across the country. I say a very special thank you to all the staff in the secretariat: thank you very much for your patience and your diligence in getting us through this report.

We'll come back to Senator Faruqi on this topic, because the sitting of the Senate is suspended until 7.30 pm.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19 : 30

I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on the report of the inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases, which was tabled earlier today. I want to thank the committee for establishing the inquiry into this important issue, and thank my fellow senators and MPs in the other place who were on the subcommittee and did a very detailed inquiry and produced a report that makes some quite strong recommendations. Thank you, also, as always, to the committee secretariat, who do such a wonderful job of organising the hearings and all of the work that happens behind the scenes to make sure that we have all the information to produce a report that is useful and can hopefully be used effectively. Most of all, though, I want to thank and acknowledge community members across the country for their continued advocacy for the protection of our environment, the scarce water resources we have in Australia and the health of our people and communities.

I recognise the significant stress and anxiety that PFAS contamination has caused, particularly for communities around the RAAF base in Williamtown in New South Wales, the Oakey Army Aviation Centre in Queensland and RAAF Base Tindal at Katherine in the Northern Territory. We know other sites in New South Wales, my home state, including HMAS Albatross, near Nowra; RAAF Base Richmond; RAAF Base Wagga Wagga; Holsworthy Barracks; Singleton Military Area; and Blamey Barracks at Kapooka, are similarly affected.

I came to the Senate and joined this committee when this inquiry was well underway, so I particularly want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Senator Lee Rhiannon, who did much of the Greens work in this area and did it very passionately. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to travel for the hearings of the committee to meet the community in other states face to face, but the PFAS contamination in Williamtown is something I am quite familiar with from my previous work as New South Wales spokesperson for the environment. Over the years, I have been contacted by many community members who are worried for their health, for their environment and for their families. I want to pay special tribute to the work of the Port Stephens Greens, people like Robin Williams and Nigel Waters, who work across party lines to get outcomes for their communities. Groups like the Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group have been at the forefront of organising for their communities as well.

This is an extremely serious issue. Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, are persistent in the environment. They are bioaccumulative and toxic in certain species. First and foremost, we must apply the precautionary principle when there are concerns about human health and environmental impacts, especially with chemicals such as PFAS, which are highly persistent and mobile. The precautionary principle demands that preventative action be taken in the face of uncertainty—that if there are threats of serious and irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent damage to human health or the ecosystem. It is based on shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity, exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions and increasing public participation in decision-making.

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, in their submission to the Australian government established expert health panel to advise on the potential health impacts associated with per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, recommended:

The current Australian Environmental Health Standing Committee (enHealth) advice is likely to be confusing for the public. It weakens approaches that apply the precautionary principle when advising the public about food and water consumption at sites potentially contaminated with PFAS. We advocate for a change to the national health advice that incorporates the latest international evidence for adverse human health effects.

The Australian Greens recognise that there is a need to provide accurate advice to communities about the health impacts of PFAS contamination, and that the Commonwealth government needs to do more to ensure the most up-to-date advice and information is provided.

Reading the submissions, it is clear that this issue has had a significant effect on people's mental and physical health. People have had to delay their retirement and actually increase their work hours because of this huge financial impact. Others talk about stress, anxiety and depression, and even cancers, heart attacks, pregnancy loss and developmental issues with children. This is not a simple issue, but community consultation has to be the cornerstone of resolving these matters. By 'community consultation', I don't mean a tick-box exercise in consultation—I mean consultation that is genuine, that is extensive, that is proactive and that is transparent. It must consider and actually incorporate the input from the community in outcomes and responses.

It should not have taken years of community campaigning for Defence to be accountable for the contamination that it had caused. The failure of Defence to take responsibility for this matter may have had significant health and social implications for communities. As noted in the report, the United States Environmental Protection Agency wrote to the Australian government 18 years ago to draw attention to the long-term risks of PFAS to human health and the environment, but existing stocks of the product continued to be used by Defence until at least 2011. Consistent with the polluter-pays principle, Defence has an obligation for all costs associated with testing, containment and remediation, as well as compensation of affected people.

I want to talk about buybacks. The government has decided that there will be no property buyback scheme. This is unacceptable. The reality is that the effects of PFAS contamination are not yet known, and we know that some properties will be significantly affected. There are no options but for compensation to include buyback. The government is responsible for the pollution. The Australian Greens strongly encourage the Commonwealth government to urgently develop a buyback program for properties where contamination is significant. This issue is not restricted to Defence properties either. Other federal government properties, as well as properties formerly owned by the federal government, such as airfields and former Defence sites, should be fully investigated by the Commonwealth government.

I want to highlight one case at Tamworth. The Tamworth Regional Council has spent up to $150,000 on containing PFAS contamination impacting Tamworth Regional Airport and nearby waterways. When asked why the federal government wasn't paying for the cost, the local member, the Hon. Barnaby Joyce, said, 'It will cost billions and billions and billions of dollars to do so across our nation, and that is why the government needs to make sure they've got their information right before they start spending that sort of money.' Well, we do have that information right. While the federal government equivocates having known about the potential harm that PFAS can cause for 18 years, local communities pay the social and financial cost. That's unacceptable.

The committee has made some strong recommendations, including providing leadership to drive effective and transparent responses to PFAS contamination, including monitoring, identifying gaps, priorities for investigation, and upscaling investment in the containment of PFAS blooms. This should be done by appointing a coordinator-general to coordinate a national response and provide a national point of contact. The committee has recommended that the Australian government assist property owners and businesses in affected areas through compensation, including buybacks, as well as free individualised case management and financial counselling services. We've also recommended legislation and policies to nationally ban the use of long-chain PFAS based firefighting foams, and contain and ultimately destroy these safely where they still exist.

The Australian government should urgently ratify the listing of PFAS under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. If the government care about the community, if they care about our environment, they should urgently accept and implement the recommendations of this report. They don't have to wait for months to provide a response. The community has waited long enough; communities have suffered for long enough. It's time to take concrete action to help them, and it's time to take that concrete action now.

I want to make a few comments on this report this evening. I know people will want to talk on this into the future because of the importance of this particular issue, but I want to pick up from where Senator Faruqi has left off. It's absolutely time. Since I have been in this place, there have been a number of inquiries into the issues around PFAS, and we have become very familiar with the people who've come forward to give evidence on the issue. In fact, in the recent series of inquiries we talked to people who had given evidence about the impact of this particular issue on themselves, their businesses and their community three or four times. In terms of action, I think that there is almost a fatigue in the community—they expect responses from their government and have been given indications that responses will be coming, but consistently the action has been incomplete and inconsistent. And sometimes they feel as though their voices have not been heard.

I'm hopeful that this particular series of reports will generate action. It will not solve the problem. One of the horrors of this PFAS contamination is that there does not seem to be the knowledge in our country or internationally on how you solve the problem. For me, one of the most confronting elements of evidence was in Oakey, which is very close to my home town on the Darling Downs. They put maps in front of the people whose properties were being discussed as well as representatives from the Darling Downs and Defence, and the maps clearly showed that the spread of contamination in the water around that area was continuing to happen. There was indication that there has been considerable expenditure of funds and that there have been activities involving three levels of government, because so often in this situation action requires coordination, cooperation and transparency between three levels of government. In the case of Oakey, the local regional council—the Toowoomba Regional Council—the state government and different elements of the federal government have been aware of the issue. There have been various public meetings across the region. There has been discussion, but the process continues. For me, the confronting element is that no-one has come up with concrete proven evidence about what the impact is and how we stop it. Certainly, that was what people were saying to us. They expressed to us their pain. They expressed to us their frustration and their anger.

They also don't have clear life plans. There were people in each of the locations—and I will concentrate on Oakey because we have representatives from New South Wales and the Northern Territory who'll talk about the other sites covered by the inquiry—but what we found was that every single case was different. There is not a one-size-fits-all in this argument, except for the fact that they are all in pain. In terms of the response, there are some people who desperately need to flee because of the fear that has been created around what the possible impacts might be and because, as I said, of the evidence of continued water contamination. People wish to flee, and they wish to flee now. That's why previous senators raised issues around land values and the opportunities to get an effective sale for the properties where people had hoped to spend their retirement years, where they had hoped to build their families in a new area. That security and that hope has been thwarted by the information they received about these chemicals. But other people in exactly the same area with exactly the same information in front of them do not want to leave their homes. You cannot just say that everybody should be given a package that allows them to leave the areas of contamination or possible future contamination. That was not how everybody felt. There were some people who actually expressed to us at the committee hearings that they have been living in the region for four generations. Even knowing that their health could be impacted, even knowing that there is a lack of certainty about what the impact could be on themselves and their family, some people felt that this was their home, and they wanted to stay. So we don't have a single voice speaking from the communities, but what permeates the argument is fear of the unknown and fear of the impact on themselves, their families and their communities. And there has not been a clear answer from their governments—and I say 'governments' because it goes back a number of years.

I know that there are differing views in the scientific community, but I didn't hear one comment at any time in the evidence saying that this was a good thing. Not one person said that they wanted to be surrounded by these chemicals. Not one person said that they felt this was going to be a good thing. This evidence came from the department as well as from people in the various community groups.

I understand the complexity. I understand that there have been efforts made in the past to have community discussion. But what I felt very clearly was that there was limited trust in the communication. For the people in the affected communities that we met with, face to face, around Australia who had identified that these chemicals were in their homes or home region, there was a lack of trust. For us on the committee that was the No. 1 issue. There needs to be some process put in place to rebuild that trust to ensure that there is an understanding that the full truth, as people know it, will be shared, that the various impacts will be identified and that their government will be able to develop some response to the concerns.

As Senator Faruqi mentioned, there are a number of strong recommendations coming out of this committee inquiry. We often do have strong recommendations come out of committee inquiries in this place. But now I think there has to be a genuine cross-party parliamentary commitment that there will be action taken, that this will not just be passed on to another series of committees down the track and that this time people's voices will be heard. That is still possible. I really believe it is still possible, but there has got to be clearer focus and a better communications strategy developed and put in place immediately.

Certainly we as a committee believe that the idea of having a coordinator-general who would be a single point of response, who would coordinate across departments, who would coordinate across different levels of government and who would be a point on which communities could rely is a good one. Not everybody will hear the answers that they want to hear, because, as I said, there are different concerns and different responses required, but there would be a single point that would be able to have authority to listen and to respond. From our observations through the public hearings and also the written evidence, that is not in place now. There have certainly been attempts, and I do acknowledge that people, particularly in the Department of Defence and also within the environment department, have made efforts, but we need more.

Certainly the evidence from a number of sources is that the international responses need to be coordinated as well. Seemingly, Australia is as well placed as anywhere in the world in this area of identifying the issues and seeking some response. I have expectation that there is scientific knowledge that can be gathered together to look at what we do next, but this is not getting better. As I said, those maps continue to haunt me. It is not getting better. We need to find a way that we can identify what we can put in place to allay the concerns and the fears and to ensure that the communities are not feeling abandoned. I'm not sure how many inquiries there have been on this issue, but there is still a sense of abandonment in the community about the response that they believe that they should have from their government.

I want to acknowledge the commitment, courage and resilience of the people who came to us and gave their evidence. We as a committee feel that their voices were listened to, but we need to ensure now that there is genuine response, there is coordination of response and there is that so-valuable element of ensuring that there is a sense of trust between those who have been impacted on and those who, for whatever reason—and no-one claims that there's been criminal intent—have put chemicals in place which are impacting on Australians' lives. Along with Senator Faruqi, I say it's time to actually put an action plan in place. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

As my colleague Senator Griff outlined last week, Centre Alliance is not, and was never going to, support the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill 2018. Non-humanitarian permanent migrants already have a higher work participation rate and lower reliance on social services than the general population. They contribute to Australia's social fabric and economic prosperity, lifting the three Ps: population, participation and productivity. They should not be penalised if an unforeseen incident arises after their arrival. Starting a life in a new country is hard enough and, if things don't run smoothly, you may need a helping hand. If you can't find a job as quickly as you expected, or the company you're working for closes down, you could find yourself facing dire financial circumstances. That, of course, is risky for a new permanent resident—especially one with dependants—if there is no safety net on the horizon.

This bill will introduce a two-year wait for parental leave, carer payment and dad and partner payments. It also doubles the wait for a number of working age benefits to four years—that is, four years before new residents can claim Newstart or youth allowance, sickness or bereavement allowances, Austudy or parenting payments. These wait times have been increased due to a deal that's been done between the Labor opposition and the Liberal government. It's all because of the $1.3 billion forecast in savings. It's low-hanging fruit as far as the two alternative governments are concerned, and it's something they want to bank for election promises. But there's no reason we should make it harder for permanent migrants to make a new life here. This is a waiting game where nobody wins.

Instead of taking this decision based on any sound policy grounds, the government is treating new migrants as an easy source of revenue and savings, with no consideration of the impacts such a move might have on individuals and their families. As a matter of fact, on the proposed changes to the eligibility for family tax benefit part A, we think this is the first time Australia has discriminated in the way it taxes permanent residents. As pointed out during the inquiry, this could set a dangerous precedence that could be extended or applied to other sections of Australian society. Once we take this step, there's no guarantee other Australians won't be targeted down the track. For example, a future government could decide to deny family tax benefits to people under a certain age. It may also decide to extend newly arrived residents' waiting periods from four years to five, or even to 10, or exclude recent migrants from government provided health or education altogether.

For many migrants, their only safety net within this waiting period is the special benefit payment, which is paid at the Newstart or youth allowance rate. The payment is for people who cannot claim any other benefit, and successful claimants can then also access a limited range of other benefits. Many claims for the special benefit payments are rejected, and many will continue to be rejected under this bill despite its changes, leaving migrants to suffer financial hardship due to circumstances that may well be well beyond their control. They will fall through the cracks, either because they don't qualify for or don't even know about the special benefit payment.

Most, if not all, newly arrived residents aspire to become citizens. We should not be throwing obstacles in their path. We should be doing what we can to make sure they establish a successful life here in Australia and get a helping hand as needed, to ensure they do indeed prosper and contribute to Australian societies. Thank you.

I rise to indicate the support of the Liberal Democrats for the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill 2018. It's a bill that delays the eligibility for welfare of migrants. Of course we support this because it is Liberal Democrats' policy. Inch by inch in recent times the government has been quietly introducing the Liberal Democrats' migration policy. That is because the Liberal Democrats' migration policy is eminently sensible. The Liberal Democrats believe that migrants should have to meet health, criminal and character tests as is the case now, but on top of that they should have to pay an entry fee to reflect the fact that they have not contributed to paying for the infrastructure that they will soon enjoy, which has been paid for by other Australians via their taxes. The government has moved towards this by increasing existing visa charges. By charging migrants for entry, we will increase the productivity of migrants as those who have no hope of recouping the entry fee by getting a well-paid job will be dissuaded from coming.

Another element of the Liberal Democrats' migration policy is to remove the eligibility for welfare of migrants other than refugees. This will further increase the productivity of migrants as it will further dissuade those who have no hope of getting a well-paid job from coming. Those migrants who are confirmed to be refugees don't come here by choice, so they should not be subject to an entry fee or restrictions on access to welfare. I am in favour of Australia's refugee program provided we accept refugees who have nowhere else to go and are keen to integrate. For this reason I oppose Senator Anning's amendment, which attempts to restrict the existing access to welfare for genuine refugees.

Migrants have made a huge contribution to Australia in the past. In the future their contribution could be even greater and their entry welcomed by incumbent Australians, but that is far more likely if we continue down the path of the Liberal Democrats' migration policy to further improve the productivity of migrants.

The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill 2018 is a shocking attack on multicultural Australia and a shocking attack on people who are migrating to Australia expecting that they are here to contribute and expecting that in return they will be treated as equals, expecting that the Australian values of a fair go for everyone will apply for them too. This bill is attacking all of that. This bill, by making migrants wait four years before they are eligible for Newstart, is essentially relegating them to being second-class residents. They have to wait four years for Newstart, four years for a low-income health card, four years before they can access bereavement allowance and four years before they can access a parenting payment.

We have got a culture in Australia of welcoming migrants. We have been built on migrants. Other than the First Australians, everybody in Australia has got a history of migration to this country. And one of the wonderful things about our migrant basis is that everyone is welcome for who they are, regardless of their background. That is the theory. That's what we pride ourselves on: welcoming people from all over the world. They come here. We treat them as equals. Everyone works hard, does their best and reaps the rewards of being Australians. But yet, by making people wait these extraordinarily long periods for welfare payments, it is cutting out one of the critical parts of our social welfare net and it is saying that new migrants to this country are not eligible for the same benefits that Australians are, regardless of the fact that they are here and they have been welcomed here, in theory, to be equal to the rest of us. It is treating migrants as second-class citizens.

I must admit it is actually what I've come to expect from this government—this government, with their agenda of racist dog whistling, of attacks on migrants, of attacks on multiculturalism. It's what we've come to expect. But the absolutely appalling thing is that Labor are supporting this bill—Labor, who call themselves the party of social justice, call themselves a party that support the welfare safety net, call themselves a party that supports multiculturalism. They have done a deal to support this legislation. And, in terms of how bad the legislation is, we've just heard Senator Leyonhjelm say that this legislation is actually implementing stuff that's in the Liberal Democrats policy and we know that, at least on the basis of where the Labor Party say they line up, that should be anathema to the Labor Party. But, no, the Labor Party has cooked up a deal with the government in the back room to attack multicultural Australia and attack migrant communities.

And this deal has got consequences. People who arrive here with the best of intentions—skilled migrants or people arriving here with the expectation of work—can very easily find themselves out of work through no fault of their own. They might work for a while for an employer that they had lined up, and that employer might go bust. Whereas the rest of us are able to rely on Newstart to find access to other work, they can't. They are left with no income at all. People might arrive here, set up a small business and work hard to get their small business underway, but that small business might fail. Again, rather than having that safety net, like the rest of us have, which would enable them to work out where to go from there, they find themselves very quickly spiralling into poverty. When you haven't got an income, when the pay cheques are not coming in and when the benefits aren't there, it means that you can't pay the rent or put food on the table for your kids. When you can't pay the rent or put food on the table for your kids, you are then at huge risk of ending up homeless and that having the impact of children ending up living in poverty.

This bill was roundly slammed in the Senate inquiry, and, although there have been substantial amendments, the worst aspects of this bill still remain. Some of the submissions to the bill's inquiry show the expectations of the welfare sector—the people who are working with migrants who are likely to be put into these circumstances—of what they think the impacts are going to be. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre said:

The bill would impose unnecessary hardship on individuals and families, and may impact the ability of people to be self-sufficient if they are not adequately supported in the early years of their arrival …

And they said:

The changes will impact the demand on the social services sector in Australia. As waiting periods to access to the welfare payment system are extended (and in some cases introduced), people may face destitution and homelessness and will turn to the social services sector, placing greater demand on an already stretched sector.

And the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre know what they're talking about because they've been picking up the pieces for many years now for people who are left without any other support—people who have come to this country and who deserve our support but haven't been getting it. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre are the ones left picking up the pieces, and they are fearful that there will be even more demand on their services and even more demand on charity. That's not how we should be running our welfare system. That's not the way the Australia that I know and love works. The Australia that I know and love actually thrives on knowing that we have got a really good safety net that people can fall back on when times get tough. The Federation of Ethnic Communities' Council Australia submission states:

FECCA believes the proposed Bill would impose considerable hardship, and create an underclass of migrants who find themselves facing dire financial circumstances as they try to settle into Australia.

The submission went on to say:

FECCA strongly believes that providing support for people in the early stages of their journey is critical to ensuring that they are able to fully establish their lives in Australia.

We know, however, that, when Labor had done their deals in the back room and decided that they were supporting the government's bill, FECCA decided to come out and say they were actually happy with it until their constituents told them that no, they weren't. And FECCA, the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Council, had to do a bit of a backflip and an about-face and say, 'I'm looking at this amended bill, and it's actually still really bad.' It is still going to have the impacts that they were worried about, and they are now calling on Labor to not support this bill because of the impacts it's going to have on ethnic communities right across the country. And the Labor Party is saying, 'Well, we had to do a deal.' No, they didn't. They did not need to do a deal that is so appalling that it's going to put people's wellbeing at stake. If it's because of the impact of what maintaining a really good welfare safety net means for newly arrived migrants, if it's because of what it's going to cost the budget, may I suggest to the Labor Party there are many other ways to gain money.

First of all, just look at the big end of town and get a few more of them to pay their fair share of tax. Look at the massive number of companies, the huge businesses in Australia, that don't pay any tax at all. Just look at the rebates to fossil fuel companies and the fuel tax rebates they get—billions and billions of dollars that we could be bringing in if we had a much fairer tax system. But instead, we are picking upon the people who are most in need. We are picking on the people who are least able to fight back for themselves.

These newly arrived migrants haven't got their lobbyists in here sort of doing the rounds, trying to get all of the good deals that suit them. No, they haven't got the big donations that are given to both the Labor and the Liberal parties to do big deals that suit them. The people who this bill will affect are the people at the bottom of the pecking order who are just being shafted. Rather than having a fair system and rather than continuing that investment, we could continue to have a welfare system that works and that would mean that you don't have the problems of people being left homeless, people being left in poverty, and that affects us all. The impact of people who have got no income coming in, who find themselves homeless, who find themselves with nowhere to live, who find themselves on the streets, is not good for us. That is not good for Australia as a society. It's not good for their kids going to school hungry. It's not good for their kids to not even be able to get to school. It's just not good for any of us to have this increasing inequality. There is so much evidence that what we need to be doing to be creating a thriving, prosperous society, is reduce inequality. But measures like this are increasing inequality in Australia.

Labor say that they are all about reducing inequality but that's just what they say. This is a classic example of the Labor Party saying one thing and doing another. And it's just what we will expect that if, as is expected, we have a change of government the next election, if we turf this appalling mob out, if we have a Shorten Labor government then I think we can expect that they are going to be saying one thing and doing another. They'll talk about social justice as they are cutting welfare payments. They will talk about trying to create a more equal society as they are taking actions like this that are actually increasing inequality. It's exactly what you're going to expect from a Shorten Labor government.

The Greens are going to continue to fight. We are going to continue to fight for everybody in our society, regardless of how long they have been here, regardless of their background, regardless of their ethnicity. We are going to continue to fight for fairness. We are going to continue to fight for justice. We are going to continue to fight for equality and, in doing that, we are certainly not going to be supporting this bill tonight.

I thank senators for their contributions and the number of senators, including the opposition and crossbench, who have indicated their support for this bill. Australia's welfare payment system is designed to support Australians who are most in need. This government understands that making responsible decisions to keep welfare spending in check now is the best way to maintain our welfare payment system for future generations. This government also understands the role the welfare payment system plays in encouraging self-reliance and independence for all Australians.

Through this bill, the government is making sensible changes that will promote the sustainability of Australia's welfare payment system, encourage self-reliance for those who can support themselves and better target assistance to those most in need. Australia is a proud and successful multicultural nation. There is no doubt migrants make a valuable contribution to both our society and our economy. It is a longstanding expectation that skilled and family migrants who choose to come to Australia to enjoy all the opportunities our nation has to offer should support themselves when they first arrive. The changes in this bill reflect this expectation.

This bill will encourage new migrants to be self-sufficient while providing appropriate safeguards for those who are more vulnerable. This bill extends existing waiting periods to four years for working age payments, like Newstart allowance and the parenting payment, and certain concession cards, including the low income health care card. This increase will apply to new migrants granted a permanent visa through the skilled and family streams of the migration program on or after 1 January 2019.

There will be no changes to the existing waiting period for the carer payment, which will remain at the current two years. The increase to four years for working age payments other than the carer payment recognises that those on skilled or family visas should not need to rely on payments when they first settle in Australia. By virtue of their visa type, they are well placed to support themselves for longer either through work or through the support of the family members they came here to be with.

Importantly, there will continue to be a safety net through access to special benefit for people who experience a substantial change of circumstances and are no longer able to support themselves as planned. This includes people who come to Australia to take up a job but subsequently lose that job as well as people who experience domestic violence or family breakdown.

This bill also introduces new waiting periods for other payment types. The government has listened to the concerns raised through the Senate committee inquiry process, and these new waiting periods will be shorter than the waiting period for working age payments. The waiting period will be two years for parental leave pay and for dad and partner pay, and one year for carer allowance and family tax benefit part A. These arrangements reflect the nature of these specific payments and provide a more proportionate increase for payments that do not currently have a waiting period. In order to maintain support for those who need it most, there will be no waiting period for family tax benefit part B. This will allow single-parent families or those who have one main income earner to be supported as they balance their work and caring responsibilities.

In recognition of their often vulnerable circumstances, people who come to Australia on orphan, relative or remaining relative visas will not be subject to the new waiting period arrangements and will have no increase in their waiting period. New Zealand citizens on a special category visa will also not be affected by these changes. They will continue to have immediate access to family payments as per the existing rules and will have no increase to their existing waiting period for concession cards. The government is also maintaining the current range of exemptions from the waiting periods. This includes exemptions for humanitarian entrants and their families, in recognition that this cohort are generally not in a position to plan to support themselves financially before coming here.

Carer visa holders who have come to Australia to care for a relative who is unable to access other care options will also continue to be exempt for the waiting period for the carer payment. Migrants who become a single parent after coming to Australia and who no longer have the support, financial and otherwise, of a partner will continue to be exempt from the waiting period for principal carer payments, including Newstart allowance and the parenting payment. As previously mentioned, there will also continue to be an exemption from the waiting period for special benefit for others who experience a substantial change of circumstances and find themselves in hardship. There will be no changes to this exemption, which will continue to provide protections as per existing arrangements.

These exemptions provide a comprehensive safety net for people who are less able to support themselves or who are no longer able to support themselves for reasons beyond their control. These new arrangements strike a balance between promoting a sustainable welfare system that encourages self-sufficiency and providing a safety net for those in need. By reinforcing and strengthening the expectation that migrants should be self-reliant when they first arrive in Australia, the bill will improve the long-term sustainability of the welfare payment system for future generations.

The bill also includes measures that are designed to make the family assistance system fairer, simpler and better targeted. The government is making the income test taper rate for family tax benefit part A consistent by replacing the current taper rate rules, which apply two different taper rates to different families with the same income above the higher income free area, with a consistent 30 per cent taper rate. In addition to making the income test taper rates consistent, from 1 July 2019 the government is also increasing the higher income free area from $94,316 to $98,988. The government's also extending the existing indexation pause to the higher income limits for family and parental leave payments for one additional year, from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021. This pause on indexation will apply to the new increased family tax benefit part A higher income free area as well as the family tax benefit part B primary earner income limit. The pause on indexation for the income limits for parental leave pay and dad and partner pay will also be extended as part of this measure. These changes combine to create a simpler and better targeted family assistance system.

Through this bill, the government is legislating a number of measures that improve the long-term sustainability of Australia's welfare payments system. These measures are targeted to provide support for those who need it most, while promoting self-sufficiency for those who are in a position to be able to support themselves. I commend the bill to the Senate.

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 8602 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (line 16) to page 8 (line 3), omit subsections 322(3) and (4).

(2) Schedule 1, item 30, page 9 (lines 1 to 20), omit subsections 500X(4) and (5).

(3) Schedule 1, item 31, page 10 (line 19) to page 11 (line 3), omit subsections 966(5) and (6).

(4) Schedule 3, item 2, page 15 (line 21) to page 16 (line 10), omit subsections 61AA(8) and (9).

(5) Schedule 4, item 3, page 20 (lines 8 to 31), omit subsections 31A(7A) and (8).

(6) Schedule 4, item 5, page 23 (line 15) to page 24 (line 2), omit subsections 115CBA(7) and (8).

Amongst other provisions, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill seeks to extend the waiting period for welfare proposed for new migrants. I congratulate the government on seeking to adopt my proposal to this. However, unfortunately, I have to advise that the current bill misses the mark. The existing, commendable government bill cracks down on welfare collection by recent arrivals in the general migration category; however, it very obviously neglects to address the problem of the so-called refugees, who are in fact the main offenders.

Unlike the migrants of earlier generations who came here to work and prosper, all too many of those who trek across the world posing as refugees go through one safe country after another simply looking for the most generous welfare handouts. Accordingly, I move the amendments to this bill to assist the government to target the main class of welfare seekers who wash up on our shores. In 2017, a Department of Social Services fact sheet advised that there were nearly 300,000 recent migrants in all categories relying upon work-age income replacement welfare. Since that time, with runaway levels of immigration, we can be reasonably confident that the numbers have increased substantially.

As a percentage of immigrants, that number is staggering and stands in stark contrast to the nation-building post-war Europeans who came here to work in our factories and fields and to help build the Snowy Mountains scheme. A 2017 report on a longitudinal survey of so-called refugees from the Rudd-Gillard boat people era who arrived here in 2013 showed that, five years later, 88 per cent relied on welfare payments as their main source of income. So much for self-reliance there. A 2011 study for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship found that so-called refugees were far more likely to be in receipt of Centrelink payments than other immigrant streams, with 85 per cent of reported humanitarian migrants relying on welfare, in contrast to 28 per cent of skilled migrants.

We have been treated to an unedifying sight of over a million Syrian so-called refugees in Europe, having left the safe haven of Muslim Turkey, trekking from one European country to the next in search of the continent's best handouts in Germany and Scandinavia. We have even had scores of illegal immigrants to Australia in Nauru refuse to be resettled in the United States because it has less generous welfare than Australia and they are expected to work. The sad truth is that freely available welfare is the pull factor in drawing fake refugees to our shores, as it the key draw for them to countries like Germany.

In days gone by, it was the case that recent arrivals were unable to claim welfare and were obliged to rely on themselves and Australian guarantors. Like the many hundreds of thousands of white South Africans eager to come here today, for them the opportunity to work and provide for themselves and their families in a safe and free country was everything they could want. They wouldn't have wanted a handout, even if it had been offered. The fact is that we should make welfare unobtainable for all migrants to Australia for the first few years and widely publicise the fact that we will strongly discourage the transnational parasites who currently travel around the world looking for a free ride through life at everyone else's expense. However, what we will encourage are the hardworking and self-reliant migrants that we want, the same sort of people who built this country in the first place. I commend my amendments to the Senate.

The government won't be supporting these amendments. These amendments would remove important protections for vulnerable refugees and their family members. It is longstanding policy that refugees and their families are exempt from all waiting periods for welfare payments.

(Quorum formed) These exemptions recognise that these individuals and families generally have no other means of support and are usually not in a position to make plans for their own support prior to coming to Australia. Given their unique and particularly vulnerable circumstances, it is appropriate to maintain immediate access to welfare payments for humanitarian entrants and their families and support their successful long-term settlement.

We will also be opposing these amendments that make an already bad bill, the Social Services and other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill 2018, even worse. I want to take this opportunity while I'm on my feet to draw attention to a few facts—particularly those that have come up since we were debating this in the chamber on Thursday last week.

Organisations have come out very strongly calling on the Labor Party to, in fact, not back this bill. 'ACOSS calls on the Senate to reject social security cuts for migrants'. They put out a release last week:

ACOSS, along with the community sector, calls on the Senate to do the right thing and vote against the bill to make migrants wait up to four years to access social security. There is no justification for cutting off support for people, including children, who are in financial need.

The government's original bill to impose a four year wait to access social security was cruel, and void of good policy. Migrants make huge contributions to our society. We should be supporting them when they need it, not making it harder for them to build a life in Australia.

The amended bill before the Senate, however, will still impose a four-year wait to access Newstart, hurting people most in need. It will also, for the first time, impose a one-year wait to access Family Tax Benefit Part A, which is a crucial payment for low-income families, including families without paid work and families on the minimum wage trying to give their children the best start in life.

ACOSS urges Labor to join the Greens, Centre Alliance and Tim Storer in opposing the bill in the Senate, and protect people from falling further into poverty.

FECCA also put out a media release. They're the organisation that were originally saying that this was a step in the right direction. They've now actually looked into the details and also understand that, just as was demonstrated in this place not 10 minutes ago, we could have knocked off this bill. We could have knocked off the other bills, because we had the numbers to vote no. FECCA wrote:

The Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia today—

this was on 29 November—

called on the Labor Opposition, the Australian Greens and cross-bench Senators to reject a bill which extends waiting periods for newly arrived migrants accessing social welfare supports including Family Tax Benefit.

The Chairperson of FECCA, Mary Patetsos said: "This Bill will inflict unnecessary hardship on vulnerable people and is due to be voted on in the Senate shortly.

"Earlier this week FECCA accepted amendments to the Bill on the understanding that there was not enough support in the Senate to defeat it. FECCA now believes that – combined with the votes of Labor Senators and Australian Greens Senators – there are sufficient Cross-bench Senators prepared to vote against this legislation."

FECCA maintains that the Parliament should consider that the inherent risks, while mitigated by the Opposition amendments continue to impose a burden on vulnerable people.

FECCA is the national peak body representing Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. Our role is to advocate and promote issues on behalf of our constituency to government, business and the broader community.

There's also a letter, in fact, to the Labor Party, urging them to oppose the migrant social security cuts. They make many similar points. They say:

Migrants make a huge contribution to our society. Our social security system should provide them and their children with the same support to which other residents are entitled. Now that we know the ALP would have the numbers in the Senate to block the worst parts of this bill, we call on you to vote with the Greens, Centre Alliance and Senator Tim Storer to stop the extension of social security waiting periods for recent migrants. We already have three million people living in poverty in Australia. We know that people from non-Englishspeaking backgrounds experience discrimination in getting paid work, and have higher poverty rates than others in Australia. These cuts risk worsening poverty amongst this cohort.

If legislated, this Bill will divide our communities even further, along migrant and racial grounds. These cuts are nasty and harsh, and should be rejected outright.

That comes from ACOSS, FECCA, the ACT Council of Social Service, Anglicare Australia, Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Carers Australia, Harmony Alliance: Migrant and Refugee Women for Change, Jobs Australia, National Ethnic Disability Alliance, the National Social Security Rights Network, the NT Council of Social Service, the Queensland Council of Social Service, the Settlement Council of Australia, SA Council of Social Service, the St Vincent de Paul Society National Council, Tasmanian Council of Social Service, UnitingCare Australia, the WA Council of Social Service, Women With Disabilities Australia and YWCA Australia. (Quorum formed) As you can see, there are a lot of organisations that care very deeply about the impacts of this atrocious, appalling piece of legislation that could so easily have been knocked off. The only reason this is getting through is because Labor, instead of voting on this side of the chamber with the crossbench, are voting on that side of the chamber to support legislation that condemns migrants to try and survive for four years without income support.

I outlined in my second reading contribution the impact that that will have on people. I also outlined how much harder it is for people, particularly from a non-English-speaking background to navigate our employment services, and we've had that in evidence to the Senate committee. This is bad legislation. It should not be supported. I say to the Labor Party: it's not too late; you've still got the third reading. Vote with us. Vote with the crossbench to send this legislation where it should be, and that's in the bin.

I need to make a couple of observations in the debate on Senator Anning's amendment. The first is to reflect on the second reading contribution of Senator Cameron. He got up and he quoted Gough Whitlam. He said:

Certainly, the impotent are pure.

Of course, if Senator Cameron knew his Labor Party history, he would know this was Gough Whitlam smashing into the left wing of the Labor Party as hard as he could, giving it to the left wing of the Labor Party as hard as he could and demeaning the left wing of the Labor Party by suggesting, in fact, that by their policy purity they were, of course, making themselves impotent.

Let's look at Senator Cameron's comment and, in fact, former Prime Minister Whitlam's comment in light of what's happening here in the Senate right now. Of course, we've got a situation whereby, if Labor had actually stayed true—if they had stayed pure—we could have knocked this legislation off. But, by selling out, copping out and negotiating migration policy with the racists and xenophobes in this chamber, Labor have joined the queue to do over migrants in this country.

We know that FECCA, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, do not support this dirty deal that Labor stitched up. We know that ACOSS do not support this dirty deal that Labor has stitched up. We know that, because a letter signed by Dr Cassandra Goldie on behalf of ACOSS and Mr Mohammad Al-Khafaji on behalf of FECCA—

Senator Anning interjecting—

You really are not worthy of your place in this chamber, mate. You really are a grub of the highest order.

Senator McKim, through the chair, please.

I think it's a good thing you didn't hear what Senator Anning just said, Chair. I think it's actually very good that you didn't hear what Senator Anning just said.

Senator McKim, whilst I didn't hear the conversation, if there was something said that was unparliamentary, I'd ask the senator to withdraw.

It wasn't unparliamentary.

Given that it's come up, I'm going to place on the record what Senator Anning said. When I read out the name of Mr Mohammad Al-Khafaji, who is the Acting Chief Executive Officer of FECCA, Senator Anning said words to the effect of 'I'm sure he's on the dole.' I'll leave it to the Senate to decide whether that's acceptable. I don't believe that that is acceptable. I note Senator Anning's not denying what I have placed on the record that he said. I want to place my views on this very clearly. Despite the utter stupidity of making such a statement, given that Mr Al-Khafaji is actually the Acting Chief Executive Officer of FECCA and, therefore, clearly not on unemployment benefits, the racism inherent in that statement is there for this whole country and this whole chamber to see.

It does illustrate the point that I was making, which is that Labor have stitched up a deal on migration policy with the racists and the xenophobes. I hope that Senator Cameron, with all his 'Certainly, the impotent are pure' rubbish, felt comfortable sitting over there with Senator Anning and Senator Pauline Hanson. Of course, last week Senator Pauline Hanson said the words, 'I am so proud of the Labor Party'. If you're getting hugs and kisses from Senator Hanson, that says an awful lot more about the Labor Party than I could, than any of the other Greens could or, in fact, than any member of the Labor Party would care to admit. You've pulled the wrong rein here, Senator Cameron. Surely that is clear to you now. The point is it is not too late to fix this, because we are going to give you a chance to do the right thing on the third reading of this legislation by calling another division. We're going to give you a chance, finally, at five seconds to midnight, to do the right thing, to stick up for ethnic communities in this country, to stick up for migrants to this country who, through our recent history as a nation, have contributed so much to building this country and who are being done over tonight by the Australian Labor Party.

You have to ask yourself: why has the ALP stitched up this dirty deal to do over migrants? When you look at the motivations for it, there's only one I could possibly think of. Why would they pay the price of negotiating on migration policy with racists and xenophobes in order to deliver a budget saving so that when they come into government the budget is in better shape than it otherwise would have been—$1.3 billion over the four out-years of this year's budget; that is the budget saving. We always knew the Labor Party would sell out, but we know more now. We know their price. Do you know what? It's a dirty deal done dirt cheap. $1.3 billion is peanuts in the context of the four out-years in Commonwealth budgets. It is parking meter change down the back of the couch. That's what Labor have sold out for: a pitiful $1.3 billion over four years. And they're voting over there with Senator Anning. They're voting over there with Senator Pauline Hanson. I won't forget this day. I will not forget it. I won't forget you, Senator Anning, the resident racist of this chamber. And I won't forget Senator Cameron, quoting us, 'Certainly the impotent are pure'.

I will tell you what—to all Labor Party members—if you'd actually kept your purity on this legislation, if you had held fast to the values you purport to hold and voted with the Greens and other crossbenchers, this legislation would be consigned to the dustbin of history. Instead, it's going to get passed, against the wishes of ACOSS, against the wishes of FECCA, and against the wishes of every significant stakeholder that represents migrant Australians. This is going to be passed against their wishes, the wishes of the Australian Greens and the wishes of other crossbenchers in this place who understand the value that migrants bring to this country. They understand the value that migrants have brought in the past, and we understand—unlike the Labor Party, going on their record tonight—the value that migrants will bring into the future for this country.

You don't separate Australians into different classes of people. We all are entitled to the same access to the law, and we oughtn't be voting to require people to work and pay tax and then turn around and tell them that the social security safety net that their taxes have paid for is not available—or part of it is not available—to them. That is the position that the Labor Party have brought into this debate. Well, I'll tell you what, I have seen the light on the hill flickering and guttering in my time in politics. That light on the hill that so many in the ALP still like to look at and pretend is burning brightly, I've rarely seen it so close to going out as I have tonight. I hope you're all ashamed of yourselves.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator Burston, according to standing orders, a senator shall vote in a division in accordance with that senator's vote by voice. As you are not on the side where we needed two voices, the division is cancelled.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the bill stand as printed.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; reported adopted.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The question is that the bill be read a third time.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8587:

(1) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (line 15), omit "annual limit", substitute "time limits".

(2) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (lines 20 to 22), omit all the words from and including "ensure that" to the end of subclause 8B(1) of Schedule 3, substitute:

ensure that:

(c) the total number of days in a calendar year on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 183; and

(d) the number of consecutive days on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 183.

(3) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (line 26), omit "annual limit", substitute "time limits".

(4) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (lines 31 to 33), omit all the words from and including "ensure that" to the end of subclause 8C(1) of Schedule 3, substitute:

ensure that:

(c) the total number of days in a calendar year on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 90; and

(d) the number of consecutive days on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 90.

These amendments seek to ensure that when carriers install a temporary tower the tower will, in fact, be temporary. At the moment, this bill allows carriers to install temporary towers without regard to local government regulations, provided they are designated as low-impact facilities. A temporary communications tower is a low-impact facility in five circumstances, including while the existing facility is undergoing maintenance or repairs; when it is being replaced; or to provide extra capacity during major events or during high-demand holiday periods. They can also be installed to provide services to emergency services organisations during an emergency or a natural disaster. Ordinarily, carriers would be required to seek the approval of local and state government before installing these temporary towers. But schedule 2 of this bill provides immunity from laws relating to land use, planning, design, construction, environmental assessment and protection.

There is, of course, a significant benefit to the community in ensuring that there is uninterrupted service during both emergencies and peak periods. However, we want to ensure that carriers don't exploit loopholes in the current drafting which would potentially allow them to have a temporary tower in place for up to 366 days. At the moment, the wording of the bill would allow carriers to leave a temporary facility installed for a back-to-back period over two calendar years, using the reasoning that it is for multiple events or high-demand holidays. This rides roughshod over important planning, consultation and safe assessment considerations.

Our amendments introduce a limit so that carriers cannot leave a temporary facility installed for more than 183 consecutive days if installed at or near a venue, or 90 consecutive days if installed during a high-demand holiday period. If the facility is required to remain installed at a venue for longer than either 183 days or 90 days, the carrier should then follow the appropriate approval process to have this facility installed permanently. We also expect that carriers will adhere to the rules under clause 8A, which requires them to remove the temporary facility within 28 days after they have completed maintenance, repairs or replacement of the existing facility, or within 28 days after the end of an event.

I also confirm that Centre Alliance will not be supporting the amendments put forward by the Greens, which remove the ability for low-impact facilities to provide for additional capacity at venues or during high-demand holiday periods. Although we understand the rationale behind these amendments, we feel there is a substantial public benefit in allowing carriers to be able to ensure good coverage during high-demand holiday periods and at venues during major cultural, music and sporting events.

Thanks, Senator Griff, for your contribution. It's the view of the government that there are already strong safeguards in the bill. It's possible that Senator Griff's amendments could have the effect that, if a temporary facility were to be installed for 90 or 183 consecutive days at a particular location, that location would not be available to the carrier at any time in the future. It would effectively restrict the flexibility of the carrier to use that particular location again in the future, and could potentially result in poor connectivity outcomes for consumers in times of high demand. This could be an unintended effect of such amendments. Senators will recall that clause 8A requires that carriers must remove a temporary facility installed for an event or events after 28 days. This will apply regardless of how the annual limit is interpreted. The annual limit exists to prevent carriers from turning a temporary facility into a permanent facility. It is, I believe, enough that an annual limit exists.

Firstly, I wish to acknowledge Senator Griff for identifying a legitimate issue in relation to this bill. We recognise the potential and incentive for mobile carriers to seek ways to extend the time limits over which a temporary facility is deployed. One aspect of the proposed amendments is that they seek to change how the time limits are applied in order to ensure that a temporary facility cannot bridge across calendar years. Labor is sympathetic to this concern, and that's one of the reasons why it sought to have a Senate inquiry. The subsequent revisions to the explanatory memorandum, advice on the operative of safeguards of the bill by way of objection mechanisms, have satisfied most of our concerns for the time being.

The primary backstop to a carrier bridging the time limit from one calendar year to another is the land notice that must be issued, to which the land owner can object. This provides a trigger point at which an opportunistic attempt by mobile carriers to bridge temporary facilities across calendar years can be blocked by the TIO. Whilst this mechanism is imperfect, Labor is prepared to be flexible and to see how it operates in practice. If the TIO observes unintended outcomes, then there is nothing that will prevent a future parliament from strengthening those safeguards. For these reasons, we're prepared to support the bill as it stands.

The proposed amendments also seek to require carriers to restore land to a condition that is equivalent to its original condition. This is a departure from the longstanding restoration language set out in schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act. We do not propose to change this approach, given the uncertainty it would create. For these reasons, Labor will not be supporting the proposed amendments, although we do, as I say, acknowledge the legitimate concerns identified by Senator Griff.

The question is that the amendments now be agreed to.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move amendments (5) to (7) on sheet 8587:

(5) Schedule 2, page 21 (after line 5), after item 6, insert:

6A Subclause 9 ( 1 ) of Schedule 3

Omit "similar", substitute "equivalent".

(6) Schedule 2, item 7, page 21 (line 16), omit "similar", substitute "equivalent".

(7) Schedule 2, item 7, page 21 (line 25), omit "similar", substitute "equivalent".

These amendments, which Senator O'Neill referred to in her contribution just a moment ago, will ensure that sites are properly remediated when the temporary tower is removed. Schedule 2, in part, deals with the obligations of carriers to remedy sites after the temporary structure is gone and what remedies are available to the landowner should they fail to do so. Existing protections under the Telecommunications Act will continue; however, we know, through submissions made to the department's immunities and powers inquiry, the telcos don't always abide by those rules and local government are often required to stretch their budgets to return sites to their previous state.

Our amendment to section 9A strengthens the drafting of the bill to ensure that a carrier takes all responsibility or responsible steps to return the land to a condition equivalent to what it was before, rather than just to, as it currently states, a similar state. 'Equivalent' means equal in value, amount or function. 'Similar' means having a resemblance in appearance. Any landowner would rightly expect, and should get, like for like or structural repair. There were some concerns raised by others in this place that changing the language of this provision would introduce an unacceptably high bar for carriers. One concern was that, if a carrier were to correct an issue with the land or make an improvement, the carrier would need to undo this when removing the temporary facility in order to adhere with the definition of 'equivalent'.

I don't know about anybody else in this place, but I've never heard of a carrier making improvements—that is, making a site better—when they maintain or repair their infrastructure or facilities. In fact, it is usually very much the opposite of that. Both myself and my staff have seen images of poorly-restored land following the removal of telco infrastructure and restorations that have taken months, even years, to be completed. All you have to do is browse the hundreds of complaints on the social media pages of telcos to see pictures of poor restoration work and, certainly, no true improvements. We believe any landowner would expect telcos to leave their property in the same state they found it—essentially: if they break it, they fix it—and that they don't cut any corners on standards or materials in doing so.

The amendment moved by Senator Griff would change the legal test that would apply to carriers that are restoring land so that carriers must ensure that land is restored to an equivalent rather than similar condition. I thank Senator Griff for his contribution. The intention of the amendment is to strengthen the protections that apply to landowners and occupiers. The government has made plain that the powers and immunities framework that carriers can take advantage of is a privilege and not a right. The government expects that carriers exercise these powers responsibly and considers that the safeguards that exist in the framework are critical to the sustainability of the system. However, after giving consideration to Senator Griff's amendments, the government isn't in the position to support them at this time in their current form.

Question negatived.

I move the amendment on sheet 8592 revised:

(1) Page 22 (after line 20), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3—Further amendments

Part 1—Amendment relating to transmitter licence refunds

R adio communications Taxes Collection Act 1983

1 Paragraph 10C(2) (d)

After "transmitter licence", insert "during the financial year ending on 30 June 2017".

Part 2—Amendments relating to broadcasting licensee support payments

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017

2 Item 40 of Schedule 6 (cell at table item 3, column headed "Company")

Repeal the cell, substitute:

3 At the end of Part 3 of Schedule 6

Add:

43 Modified operation of Part

This Part has effect in relation to Network Investments Pty Ltd (see table item 3 of the table in item 40) as if:

(a) the designated day for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2017 were the day that is 28 days after the day on which this item commences; and

(b) paragraph 39(1) (c) did not apply; and

(c) the reference to 1 November 2017 in subitem 39(2) were a reference to the day that is 28 days after the day on which this item commences.

Labor is introducing an amendment to correct a legislative issue that is preventing the payment of assistance payments to a regional broadcaster. This amendment will omit Northern Rivers Television Pty Ltd as a specified company eligible to receive a transitional support payment under part 3 of schedule 6 to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017 and specify Network Investments Pty Ltd in its place. The amendments proposed would also ensure that Network Investments received the transitional support payment for each of the relevant financial years.

The broadcasting reform act establishes a transitional support payment scheme for specified companies. This entitles a company to transitional support if it meets certain criteria, including being the holder of a commercial television or radio broadcasting licence. Northern Rivers is specified as a company which can receive a transitional support payment if it a meets the criteria for the payment. However, on 1 June 2017 Northern Rivers transferred the commercial television broadcasting licence and assets it held to Network Investments. Under the policy, Network Investments, as the current holder of the commercial television broadcasting licence, would have been eligible for the annual payment of financial assistance. However, it is not currently specified in the broadcasting reform act. This amendment will specify Network Investments as being eligible for the payment.

This amendment was first introduced by the government in the House of Representatives in a separate bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2018. However, that bill has since stalled under this minister, as has much else in the Communications portfolio. The minister has been sitting on the government's communications deregulation bill for over two years. The minister has also been sitting on his regional broadband levy for nearly the same period. Frankly speaking, Labor is tired of waiting for this minister to get his act together. We've noticed delay, delay and delay. That is why Labor has introduced this amendment: to get on with the job.

The reason that the bill which addresses this, which has already been introduced, has not been dealt with is because the Australian Labor Party will not treat it as a non-controversial piece of legislation. They are treating something which should be a straightforward matter in a way that is intended not to allow it to be dealt with in good time.

That is why the government is supporting this amendment, because it reflects measures that the government first proposed in the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2018. The government supports these amendments because they will allow payments to be made to Network Investments Pty Ltd as part of the transitional support payments under the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017. The amendment is necessary, as Northern Rivers transferred its commercial television broadcasting licence and assets to Network Investments in June 2017. The government also supports the minor amendments to correct some technical issues on the pro rata tax refund for a transmitter licence under the Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Act 1983.

Of course, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2018 was introduced into the Senate on 19 March 2018. It was supported by those opposite in the other place. However, in this place, for tactical reasons, they do not see their way clear to supporting it as a non-contro piece of legislation. That bill includes a range of other measures that are, as I said, non-controversial and important, including allowing NBN Co to dispose of surplus assets, such as trucks and office stationery, that it's no longer using.

The bill is deregulatory in nature, and so the government is mystified as to why those opposite have sought to stymie its progress and to delay it at every opportunity, despite supporting it in the other place. This is a common Labor tactic, to say, 'Oh gee, the government has been tardy on something,' when, actually, those opposite have declined the opportunity for it to be dealt with in an expeditious way. So, whilst the government welcomes these amendments, we are disappointed that they need to be moved. It would have been simpler to consider the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2018.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I won't spend a lot of time on the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2018, because, frankly, it should have been treated as a non-controversial bill, but it clearly is part of the government's problem here that they don't have much of a legislative agenda.

I'm happy to deal with the rest of it.

Are you? That's very good. We'll be very quick then, won't we, because there's not much that can be said about it. This is a customs bill to streamline product-specific rules of origin for four of the free trade agreements: the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area, the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement and the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The changes made by the bill are minor and technical in nature, and you would have expected it, as I said, to be non-controversial. The product-specific rules of origin are obviously important for free trade agreements, so they must be met by importers seeking preferential tariff treatment for goods that include materials not originating in the countries and territories covered by the agreement. If the goods meet the requirements, they essentially are deemed to have originated in the country that is party to the FTA and are entitled to preferential treatment with customs duty on imports to Australia.

The specific rules of origin are based on the harmonised commodity description, coding systems and international naming system for the classification of trade products, covering thousands of groups and used in over 200 economies. Each trade agreement has particular annexes which are implemented domestically for each of the free trade agreements.

The five-yearly revisions of these harmonised systems usually require the free trade parties to update their specific rules-of-origin amendments, and the bill, of course, applies to these annexes with regard to chemical rules not included in the amendments to the Customs Act and implemented in the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The bill makes minor amendments to existing free trade agreements and the Customs Act. As I said, these are minor amendments ensuring consistency between our legislation and the various texts of the agreements between Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and ASEAN. Labor supports the bill.

The Customs Amendment (Product-specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2018 amends the Customs Act 1901 to streamline the implementation of our free trade agreements and help facilitate smoother trade between Australia and our FTA partners. The bill does this by changing the way the product-specific rules, PSRs, of Australia's FTAs are given effect in domestic legislation.

Australia's in-force FTAs contain rules of origin and product-specific rules. Product-specific rules define the minimum requirements that must be met for goods that comprise materials that do not originate in a party to the FTA to be considered eligible for a preferential rate of customs duty in accordance with that FTA. The product-specific rules are based upon the harmonised commodity description and the coding system. The harmonised system is an international naming system for the classification of traded goods. It currently covers thousands of commodity groups and is used by more than 200 economies as the basis for custom tariffs and the collection of international trade statistics. Over 98 per cent of merchandise in international trade is classified in terms of the harmonised system. Each FTA has a separate PSR annex which is currently—with the exception of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, SAFTA—implemented domestically in rules-of-origin regulations, or ROO regulations, for each FTA.

Five-yearly revisions of the harmonised system of the World Customs Organization usually compel FTA parties to update their agreements' PSRs, which in Australia's case means subsequent amendments to the FTA's ROO regulations. The size of these regulations ranges from 257 to 1,977 pages. Due to their size and the steadily increasing number of FTAs—currently it sits at 10—amendments of the ROO regulations to update the PSRs requires considerable time and resources for what are essentially technical changes that do not alter the operation of the treaty and do not have any direct financial implications for the government, traders or consumers.

The proposed amendments seek to simplify this process by amending the Customs Act to apply FTA PSR annexes agreed by parties by direct reference, and remove the need to replicate PSR annexes in the ROO regulations. The proposed amendments to the act are technical in nature. They will not affect the practical operation of the legislation or the agreements that are the subject of the bill.

Parties to the agreement to establish the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area, otherwise known as AANZFTA, have agreed to take whatever steps are necessary to bring the HS 2017 PSR schedule into force domestically on 1 January 2019. These amendments will ensure that Australia is able to meet its AANZFTA deadline to minimise the administrative burden on Australian businesses and officials in trying to juggle new and old HS codes, and will further streamline trade between Australia and out FTA partners.

In 2017, trade with Australia under AANZFTA totalled A$120 billion. ChAFTA and JAEPA PSR annexes are also included in the amendments, which will simplify the transposition process for these agreements once the FTA parties have agreed to them. Further, similar amendments to the Customs Act will be brought to parliament to facilitate the update of the PSRs of Australia's other existing FTAs in the foreseeable future. The bill before this chamber will allow the revised PSR schedules of these FTAs to enter into force in a far more efficient and timely manner. Once these amendments are made, future changes to the PSR annexes for AANZFTA, ChAFTA and JAEPA will be able to be made simply by the completion of provisions contained in the agreement pertaining to such updates and completion of Australia's domestic treaty-making process.

The bill also refers to and applies the annex contained in the chemical rules of the SAFTA which were not included in the amendments to the Customs Act that implemented the agreement to amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement in 2017. The bill also makes minor amendments to existing FTA divisions in the Customs Act. These minor amendments will ensure consistency between our legislation and the FTA text in Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Chile and ASEAN-New Zealand FTAs.

The government is committed to the passage of these amendments in 2018. They will greatly reduce the administrative burden of the current transposition process, cutting costs for businesses and taxpayers and having flow-on benefits to consumers and households. In passing this bill, the government honours the commitments to the FTA partners to ensure our agreements remain up to date to support our growth and jobs agenda, reduce red tape for Australian businesses and help to keep costs down for Australian households. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Labor supports these bills, which will remove unnecessary restrictions on the migrant advisory industry and set the default charge for the services of agencies to give advice. It is important to stress, in Labor's view, the quality of service to migrants will not be diminished by these changes. People seeking the help of a migration agent are by nature vulnerable consumers and they are often seeking help with application to reunite with family or in the process of seeking a humanitarian visa or they want to take up a job in Australia or visit for an extended period of time. We are supporting these bills because, after a Senate inquiry and amendments were introduced into the House, the protection for vulnerable migrants will be retained. However, I note that this has taken a very long time to reach this point.

The bill arises from the recommendations of the independent review of the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority by Dr Christopher Kendall. The review, known as the OMARA review, was commissioned by the Abbott government in June 2014. Dr Kendall submitted his report in September 2014 yet the legislation was not introduced to the House of Representatives until July 2017, and here we are debating this matter in December 2018. Because of the government's poor record of drafting migration legislation, Labor referred the migration bill to the Senate inquiry as standard practice, and an inquiry was especially necessary in this case because the legislation did not appear until three years after the review that had given rise to it and it was important to consider whether changed circumstances would affect the OMARA recommendations. Unfortunately, the Turnbull government accepted the inquiry's recommendations to include the bill's transitional arrangement for migration agents who became legal practitioners. But we note—and not for the first time with regard to migration bills—that if the government had consulted stakeholders appropriately, in the first place, it could have got the legislation right the first time.

The bill is to implement the OMARA recommendations that lawyers who hold practising certificates shall be removed from the regulatory regime that governs migration agents. As the Law Council stated in its submission to the Senate inquiry:

The Australian legal profession is comprehensively regulated under robust State and Territory legal profession regulatory laws and arrangements, which include comprehensive complaint handling and disciplinary measures, and consumer protections more extensive than those available under the Migration Act.

And this was supported by submissions by the Refugee Council, which urged that these bills be passed. The council stated:

Lawyers are already required to maintain registration and uphold their ethical duties under their own state based legal professional regulatory framework.

The Refugee Council of Australia believes:

… this system is sufficient to ensure lawyers provide sound advice to adhere to their ethical obligations.

Ending a dual registration requirement for lawyers brings Australia into line with other comparable countries—that is, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand—which all have registration requirements for migration agents but do not require lawyers to be registered in order to provide migration advice. Under this bill, the existing 12-month limit for someone to apply for registration after completing a prescribed course is removed. This complements changes to replace the current graduate certificate with a Graduate Diploma in Australian Migration Law and Practice and the development of a Capstone exam.

The bill also gives the migration agents regulatory authority the power to refuse an application to become a registered migration agent where the applicant has been required to, but has failed to, provide information or answer questions about their application. The bill requires migration agents who have been registered on a non-commercial basis to notify the authority if they have undergone a change in circumstances and seek to provide migration assistance on a commercial basis. These changes complement amendments made by the complementary bill—the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017—and makes the higher commercial charge the default charge. Together, these changes make the migration advice industry less complex and more client friendly. Labor therefore is pleased to support the bill in the form now before the Senate.

Currently, it's illegal to provide immigration advice without being registered as a migration agent. The Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2018, however, seeks to change that. It is driven by an argument that lawyers, regardless of their professional or educational background, do not need to be regulated alongside specialist migration agents because their existing skills—and, therefore, the consumer protections—are comparable. The Greens do not believe this argument has any robust merit.

We've just had a situation in this Senate chamber where Labor has made migration policy by voting with people like Senator Hanson and her One Nation party, Senator Anning and the coalition, which, as we all know, has an agenda that is driven by its far Right. Of course, Labor chose to vote with all of those people to ensure that some migrants—recent arrivals in this country—would be denied access to parts of the social security safety net for four years. It was a piece of legislation that was incredibly punitive on migrants, who are one of the most vulnerable cohorts in our community. Why Labor would want to make migration policy with people like Senator Hanson and Senator Anning is actually for them to explain. It's worth reminding the chamber that, in fact, last week Senator Hanson rose to her feet and said she was very proud of the Labor Party for voting with her and Senator Anning and the coalition to do over migrants and make life more difficult for migrants in this country.

This piece of legislation deals with the regulation and registration of migration agents. Migration agents, of course, are at the front line of assisting many migrants to this country. We've got a situation in which post grad studies to become a migration agent currently include four specific migration law subjects, whereas most undergraduate law degrees in this country do not include any study of migration law. Yet lawyers are able to become registered as migration agents with the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority purely because they hold a legal practising certificate. As a consequence, you would think there is a strong argument that a registered migration agent who has successfully completed a post grad migration agent course is better equipped to advise on migration law than any lawyer, no matter how skilled they are, if those lawyers have not studied any specific migration law subjects. Migration agents are specialists in the field and also pay the $800 per annum to subscribe to LEGENDcom, which is an electronic database, administered by the Department of Home Affairs, of migration and citizenship legislation and policy documents. That database is continually being upgraded as migration law changes.

Migration agents are required to pay that fee per annum to subscribe to LEGENDcom, to support their education and to make sure they are up to date and are adequately trained and informed to prepare applications and submissions with the most up-to-date information. It has been put to me anecdotally that the database isn't well subscribed to by generalist lawyers doing migration work.

Registration of lawyers by the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, OMARA, ensures that lawyers comply with the Migration Agents Registration Authority Code of Conduct, which requires migration practitioners to maintain the relevant specialist and up-to-date knowledge of migration law and processes. So the current system and regulation of agents includes robust complaint mechanisms and codes of conduct, which, when complaints are lodged, set off thorough investigations. These processes are customer focused to ensure the rights and needs of customers are paramount and protected. This is a particularly valuable safety net for vulnerable consumers of these kinds of advice.

The inclusion of lawyers in the migration regulation scheme is similar to an accountant who must undergo further studies if they want to be registered as a tax agent. To practice patents law, a lawyer must undertake further studies in the area before they are allowed to appear in a matter, and so it isn't an oddity that lawyers be required to demonstrate some migration law, or be required to keep up to date with migration law.

Of particular concern to me and to many in the industry is the provision of migration services to vulnerable people. On this matter, and in response to concerns from the legal fraternity regarding dual registration, the Migration Institute of Australia has noted:

Those who oppose dual regulation claim that the legal profession has sufficient complaint and disciplinary mechanisms to deal with professional incompetence or malfeasance. However, some law societies do not appear to have the same regard for migrant consumer protection as the OMARA.

OMARA, of course, is the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority. The Migration Institute of Australia continues:

Lawyers have been allowed to continue practicing by their law societies, even after being banned by the OMARA for providing fraudulent migration advice or breaches of fiduciary duties.

Let's be really clear about this: we have situations where lawyers have been allowed to continue practising by their law societies—the bodies that govern the behaviour of lawyers—even after those lawyers have been banned by the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority for providing fraudulent migration advice.

Fraudulent migration advice is not simply incompetent migration advice, it is a significant step past incompetent migration advice. It is actually fraudulent. The Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, on this advice from the Migration Institute of Australia, have at times banned lawyers. And yet, in those very same circumstances, lawyers have been allowed to continue practising by their law societies.

In addition to that there are legitimate concerns that this bill will lead to a loss of legal expertise or legal-aid-funded services in large non-legal migration agencies, including refugee services, because lawyers would seek employment elsewhere. The Migration Institute of Australia has warned, and I quote again from the Migrant Institute of Australia:

The removal of lawyers from the regulatory system will result in disastrous, unintended consequences for the [humanitarian migration] sector.

On 3 December each year, we come together as a community to mark International Day of People with Disability. It is a day that has been celebrated and commemorated throughout Australia ever since the day was first established by the United Nations in 1992. The theme for this year's celebration is: empowering persons with disabilities and ensuring inclusiveness and equality. Events commemorating today have been held throughout Australia. In fact, over 143 different community events were scheduled for today alone. Events are literally being held everywhere, from Tiwi in the Top End down to my home state of Tasmania, where events were planned in Hobart, Devonport and Burnie, to name but a few. Every corner of every state had an occasion planned to commemorate and celebrate Australians with disability, not just today but in the preceding few days as well. However, as a community, we need to put additional effort and resources into inclusion each and every day, because IDPWD was intended to be about:

… the rights and well-being of persons with disabilities in all spheres of society and development, and to increase awareness of the situation of persons with disabilities in every aspect of political, social, economic and cultural life.

The contributions people with disability can and do make to Australia is worthy of so much more than a series of annual awards. An inclusive community is one that actively seeks respect for all of its citizens, values diversity, ensures equitable access to resources and opportunity and engages its citizens in decision-making processes that impact on their lives.

An inclusive community also encourages people with disability to find their voice. Michael Sullivan, from the Down Syndrome Advisory Network, says the best way to start to find your voice is with your peers:

Be part of a group of people who are also finding their voice. This is where you can learn what you are passionate about and how to use your voice.

Michael suggests that we use the term 'use your voice' because 'no-one can give people with intellectual disability a voice.' Michael goes on to say:

You have a voice. Deep down we all have something to say. It is about our voices and making sure people listen when we use our voice.

Claire, who also has Down syndrome, says in her view what is important in life is pretty simple: 'Life is about a loving family and friends, keeping healthy, having a social life and having a job.'

As colleagues are probably aware, the national awards process was changed this year. This year the National Awards for Disability Leadership were held for the first time. The new awards were broadcast worldwide through a dedicated YouTube channel earlier today, although the broadcast was not without some technical challenges.

I was fortunate enough to attend the host event in Melbourne. The new format and awards were jointly organised by the Disability Leadership Institute, Disabled People's Organisations Australia and the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations. People with disability from throughout Australia were recognised today by their peers for their leadership and achievements. They also came together to celebrate the expertise and talent possessed by people with disability throughout our nation.

This year's awards covered seven categories: the arts, change making, rights activism, innovation, social impact, inclusion and, perhaps most importantly, the Lesley Hall Award for Lifetime Achievement. The continuation of the recognition of Lesley Hall through the lifetime achievement award is important. Lesley was a tireless advocate for disability rights and inclusion. Lesley's work was limited to advocacy for people with disability but also extended to issues affecting low income and Indigenous Australians. Of course, she also worked tirelessly for the establishment of the NDIS.

Heartfelt congratulations go to Jessica Walton, Sexual Lives and Respectful Relationships LGBTIQ project, Anthony Mulholland, Client Voice Project, Sarah Houbolt and Rosemary Kayess, the inaugural winners of the National Awards for Disability Leadership, and to Janice Slattery, this year's recipient of the Lesley Hall award. I also want to place on record my congratulations to those hardworking advocates and activists who sponsored, supported and organised today's awards presentation.

Later on this week, on 6 December, it will be four years since the remarkable Stella Young passed way. In addition to all the wonderful courageous, witty and powerful works Stella shared with all of us, she was also a regular emcee at the ACT inclusion awards, which I believe really do stand out as one of the best ways IDPWD is celebrated in Australia. ABC Life, with the blessing and permission of Stella's family, will be republishing a selection of her works. I encourage you all to go online and have a look. If you haven't read it already, Stella's letter to her younger self will be an eye-opening experience. Her piece on what she termed 'inspirational porn' has a powerful impact on everyone who reads it.

Eliza Hull in her tribute to Stella on ABC Life says, thanks to Stella, she is now proud to call herself a disabled woman. Stella continues to have a huge influence on the way Eliza and many other people with disabilities see themselves. To quote Stella, 'Disability isn't a bad thing, and it doesn't make you exceptional.' Eliza deserves recognition in her own right. Her own series, We've Got This: Parenting with a Disability, is refreshing, confronting and tells a series of stories that need to be told.

The University of Sydney Disabilities Collective has put together a reading list for this IDPWD. All recommended works are written by people with disability, with a focus on encouraging involvement in the fight for equality and justice for people with disability and the history of disability and disability policy.

In conclusion, today we mark the International Day of People with Disability. Although the IDPWD will always be important, what is even more important is the diversity within our community. Diversity makes our nation stronger and better, and disability is a vital part of that diversity.

We are rapidly hurtling towards a future in New South Wales where our next generations will not see a koala in the bush or in a national park and perhaps not even in a zoo. They will have to go to a museum because governments continue to make reckless, irresponsible and greedy decisions that push our iconic species to the brink. Koalas are on track to be extinct in New South Wales by 2050 if we continue our current path. This is an absolute tragedy.

Human greed and corruption are leading to disaster. Koalas across the state are being driven to extinction by land clearing, inappropriate urban development and disease. The Campbelltown local government area in south-west Sydney is unique in that it supports the only disease-free koala population in the whole of the Sydney Basin, being unaffected by chlamydia. They're most likely the only population listed in New South Wales that is actually growing, but it is slowly being choked by open-slather, inappropriate development which will cut off vital koala corridors.

The Greater Sydney Commission has set a target of an additional 143,000 dwellings in the next 20 years. The New South Wales government's proposed Greater Macarthur Priority Growth Area will deliver 33,000 of these on land that includes vital koala corridors, and all of this without a koala plan of management for the Campbelltown local government area.

Take the Gilead development, for instance. Lendlease's 216-hectare development will leave just about 30 hectares of woodland. The Total Environment Centre has highlighted in their submission to the biodiversity certification application that the Mount Gilead property is situated between the Georges and Nepean rivers and is the current transit point of koalas between the two river corridors. With the development, it would become near impossible for them to travel between them. And apparently they're able to do this through the magic of biodiversity offsetting. We are not really fooled by the government's spin doctors, because no amount of the scam that is biodiversity offsetting can replace an ecosystem which has already been destroyed. Once gone, it's gone forever.

The biodiversity certification assessment for the Gilead development found that 284 species credits are required to offset impacts to koalas. So where do they get these credits from? There are 34 credits from Fernhill, near Mulgoa—although I'm not sure how the Campbelltown koalas are meant to travel the 40 kilometres to get there. There are 133 koala credits from areas that are zoned for public recreation—again, I'm not sure how public recreation and koala habitat are meant to co-exist when we know how at risk koalas are from car strike and dog attacks. And there are 151 credits from the Noorumba bush reserve, an area that the Campbelltown council is already protecting.

Where is the additionality in all of this? The offset process will not result in one extra tree being planted or one extra tree being preserved despite many trees and koala connectivity corridors being completely destroyed. The entire biodiversity offset program is designed for the convenience of property developers, for the convenience of mining companies and for the convenience of big agribusinesses, not for environmental needs.

We are running out of time. Log on to the Help Save the Wildlife and Bushlands in Campbelltown Facebook page; it is absolutely heartbreaking. Time and time again there are koalas found dead on Appin Road or Picton Road. Tireless volunteers spend their time and money cleaning up the mess that bad planning has created. This koala colony has only survived because its habitat has been protected by the community, by environmental groups and by animal welfare groups. But the New South Wales government seems intent on squeezing them out even further.

I must congratulate the Georges River Koala Network for their push for a Georges River national park. It is very important that this park does not stop at Appin and continues into Wollondilly to protect the koalas. We need to protect biodiversity corridors connecting the Georges River, the Nepean River, the Cataract River and the Bargo River. I for one won't stand by while greed and corruption drive our most iconic species to extinction.

Senate adjourned at 22:02