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

I move:

That, on Wednesday, 3 April 2019:

(1) The routine of business from 9.30 am to 2 pm and from 3.30 pm to 5 pm shall be:

(a) consideration of:

(i) a censure motion concerning Senator Anning,

(ii) a motion to be moved by a minister relating to gun control, and

(iii) the notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Cormann) relating to the qualification of senators under section 44 of the Constitution;

(b) consideration of the following bills and a related order of the day:

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019

Advances provided under the annual Appropriation Acts Report for 2017-18

Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-20

Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-20

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-20

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (Increasing the Instant Asset Write Off for Small Business Entities) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (North Queensland Flood Recovery) Bill 2019

Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2019

Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Amendment Bill 2019

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (Mutual Reforms) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Foreign Investors Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019

Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2018

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Sovereign Entities) Bill 2018

Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018

Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019

Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019

Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 2019

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms No. 1) Bill 2019

Customs Tariff Amendment (Craft Beer) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019

Excise Tariff Amendment (Supporting Craft Brewers) Bill 2019

Australian Business Securitisation Fund Bill 2019; and

consideration of the notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Farrell for the disallowance of item 4 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019 [F2019L00177].

(1A) In respect of the motion listed under subparagraph (1)(a)(i):

(a) senators speaking in the debate may speak for not more than 10 minutes each; and

(b) the motion shall be determined without amendment.

(2) Divisions may take place between 12.45 pm and 2 pm.

(3) If, by 5 pm, the matters listed in paragraph (1) have not been finally considered, any questions required to dispose of the matters shall be put without debate at the conclusion of the items listed in paragraph (5).

(4) Paragraph (3) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142 in respect of each of the bills.

(5) From 5 pm, the routine of business shall be as follows:

(a) first speeches by Senators Askew and Spender, without any question before the chair; and

(b) valedictory statements relating to Senators Scullion, Moore and Cameron.

(6) Immediately after the valedictory statements, or after the determination of any questions in accordance with paragraph (3), whichever is the later, party leaders and independent senators may make responses to the Budget statement and documents for not more than 20 minutes each.

(7) The question for the adjournment shall be proposed after the conclusion of responses to the Budget statement and documents.

There have been a number of discussions around the chamber about amendments to this government business motion. Obviously we only have one day of sittings in this fortnight, and this is likely to be the last day of the Senate sitting before the election. The opposition have a view that there is some legislation which, in this truncated time frame, does need to be passed, so we will be supporting the motion to rearrange the routine of business today. I make the point that we would not be in the position of having to do so if the government had actually put forward a sitting calendar which had the Senate sitting more than five days in four months. I think the sitting calendar confirms what many people know and which the budget has demonstrated—that this government has given up on governing. As a responsible opposition, we won't be holding up the passage of relevant bills for the sake of making political points. The motion enables key legislation, including appropriation and supply bills, to be passed prior to an election and preserves time for first speeches and valedictories, which all of us would like to ensure we give departing and arriving colleagues the courtesy of engaging in. I move an amendment to the motion:

After paragraph (1) (a), insert:

"(aa) the following motions being put sequentially, and determined without amendment or debate:

  (i) general business notice of motion no. 1430 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) relating to racism, extremism and hate speech;

  (ii) general business notice of motion no. 1450 standing in the names of Senators Watt and Cameron relating to Senator Cash answering questions at estimates related to her former role as Minister for Employment; and

  (iii) general business notice of motion no. 1470 standing in the name of Senator O'Neill relating to the appearance of witnesses before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee at budget estimates hearings on Friday, 5 April 2019;

(ab) consideration of a motion, to be moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Di Natale), relating to the conduct of a senator;"

There are three opposition motions that we wish to add to this program and deal with today. One relates to an issue which has been a subject of much discussion in recent days and weeks since the tragedy of Christchurch; that is, how people might show leadership in how they direct their preferences. The Labor Party for 20 years has had a very clear view about putting extremist parties such as One Nation last, a view that even John Howard came to. We think that is a principled, correct position for parties of government. We wish to put to this chamber a motion that calls on parties to do so. I hope that the Greens and the relevant crossbenchers will vote for it—other than One Nation, who I suspect will not vote for it. And the senator who is the subject of a censure motion later possibly won't vote for it. But the rest of us can show some leadership to the Australian community. I encourage support on that.

Senator Williams interjecting—

I'll take that interjection about extremist positions from the Greens. I don't think anybody would suggest I have a Greens view of life—I disagree with them on the US alliance, I disagree with them on inheritance taxes, I disagree with them on how to go about implementing change—but they do not engage in racist hate speech, and that is what is inimical to our democracy. You should show the leadership that Ron Boswell and Tim Fischer did. They understood that you put the country first sometimes. Don't get into this moral equivalence argument, which everybody knows is self-serving. Show some leadership!

Anyway, there are two more motions—that was a nice little diversion, wasn't it?

Well done, Wacka. See what you started!

I'm not sure whose side Senator Sterle's on.

I'm on your side. I was chastising Wacka.

He's always on my side. Thank you, Senator Sterle.

We also have two motions relating to Senator Cash turning up to estimates to answer some questions about the fact that it's quite clear from the previous estimates round that her failure to comply and cooperate with the AFP has had the direct result of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions not engaging in a prosecution in relation to the media leaks of a police raid—something which is contrary to the law, something which is illegal. And we have a further motion, standing in the name of Senator O'Neill, in relation to public statements by the Australian Greens on a motion to suspend Senator Anning. We have indicated a position that, whilst we do not support the substantive, we accept the right of the Australian Greens to put that motion. Notwithstanding that Labor will not be supporting the substantive, I've included in the procedural motion the capacity for that to be moved separately, and I hope that this amendment can gain the support of the chamber. Thank you, Mr President.

I rise to speak to the hours motion. The Senate's been on strike for the past few months and now we're being asked to support 30 bills, ramming them through this parliament with the support of the Labor Party. We haven't even seen some of these bills! We have not even seen the bills that will be rammed through this parliament. We're dealing here with some legislation that will fundamentally change people's lives. Let's look at what we're actually being asked to support.

There's the cashless welfare card legislation. We've got this dodgy deal between the two major parties, who want to implement a piece of legislation that's got no evidence behind it and that makes life harder for people, mainly Aboriginal people. Let's name it here—it's racist, because it targets Aboriginal people above everybody else. Every single evaluation has shown that it doesn't provide any benefit when it comes to improving the lives of people. We've got a budget that delivers no money for Newstart, yet we have this paternalistic, top-down, we-know-best attitude from the Liberal Party when it comes to people managing their affairs. This is a party of 'personal responsibility'—not if you're Aboriginal, though; if you're Aboriginal it says, 'What we're gonna do is tell you how you can manage your money, even though it's gonna make your life harder.' The cashless welfare card is a massive waste of public money that could be spent on targeted initiatives to help people. Compulsory income management should be abandoned, yet it's going to be expanded and rammed through this parliament with no debate.

We've got the Efic bill. This is again a capitulation to the coalition by the Labor Party. This is a bill that expands fossil fuel infrastructure—coal, oil and gas infrastructure—across the Pacific. We're now going to use taxpayer money, while we're in the middle of a climate emergency, to bankroll more fossil fuel infrastructure in the Pacific. Here's a news flash: some of those Pacific countries are now drowning; they are now under water because of the unmitigated disaster that is climate change. The only response from the coalition and Labor is: let's bankroll more coal, oil and gas projects. This is an existential threat for our neighbours in the Pacific, yet here we are ramming this bill through at a moment's notice. That's not to mention what this does in the aid and development sector. We're hearing from people who work in the aid and development sector, 'We need more scrutiny.' The Labor Party could hold off on this. This has got nothing to do with appropriations. It's got everything to do with allowing the Liberal Party to implement their agenda so that they can hide behind it when they're in government, and they'll almost certainly be in government. Will they repeal this? No, they won't, because they facilitated the passage of this legislation.

Then we've got some of the most significant changes to social media online regulation that we have ever seen. This bill hasn't even been introduced. It hasn't even been introduced and it's going to be rammed through. We haven't had an opportunity to see it. Of course, in the wake of Christchurch, we need to look at how we regulate social media and online content. Of course we need to do that. People shouldn't be subjected to the abhorrent material that's posted online. But you don't go about this by introducing legislation that the parliament can't even debate and scrutinise. And it's all done with the support of a compliant Labor Party.

We've got no beef with ensuring that appropriation bills pass this Senate, but don't sneakily ram through legislation that hasn't had the opportunity to be scrutinised by this parliament. If we're going to regulate social media, let's do it properly. Let's have an inquiry. Let's talk to the people who know something about this stuff—not the Liberals whose only intent here is a knee-jerk reaction in the lead-up to an election, to show they're doing something, which may, in fact, even prove to be counterproductive. So we need an inquiry into this legislation to make sure that whatever change is made, when it comes to the regulation of social media, is done in a way that achieves what we want it to achieve.

When it comes to this hours motion, what we've got is an amendment that prevents the Greens from amending that censure motion. The Greens believe that hate speech has no place in Australia, and it's certainly got no place in this parliament. We wanted to amend the censure motion so that it makes it very clear that, if somebody in this parliament can be booted out for calling out sexism, they sure as hell should be booted out for invoking the 'final solution'—and for disrespecting the lives of those people who were killed as a result of a terrorist incident—egged on by some of the voices in this chamber. We can't amend that censure motion because of this hours motion. The Liberal Party and the Labor Party are getting together, preventing us from amending a censure motion that would suspend Fraser Anning from this parliament.

There is something wrong with the rules of this chamber if somebody can be suspended for calling out sexism and yet if somebody in this chamber invokes the final solution not only do they not get suspended but also they get handshakes from members of the government. It says everything about this government. No, what we're seeing here is what we've seen for the last three years—indeed, for my time in this place—and that's another stitch-up between the Liberals and the Labor Party to avoid any scrutiny on pieces of legislation that deserve a full and thorough airing in the house of review, in the Senate.

I rise to speak to Senator Wong's amendment. As Senator Wong has indicated, the government does have before the chamber a primary motion that seeks to deal with, in an orderly fashion, the business that's expected, that we as colleagues will transact. Senator Wong has moved an amendment to seek to bring on three particular motions. I want to speak briefly as to why the government doesn't support these.

First is Senator Wong's motion No. 1430. Let me be absolutely clear, the coalition senators have absolutely no truck with racism, extremism and hate speech. And that could not have been more thoughtfully or eloquently displayed than by Senator Birmingham yesterday in question time. Senator Birmingham spoke on behalf of all coalition colleagues when it comes to matters of racism, extremism and hate speech. It is not for this chamber to speak to and to seek to determine matters that are for the electoral determination of party organisations, which is the other part of that particular motion that Senator Wong is seeking to bring on. Electoral determinations are for party organisations; they are not matters that should be sought to be determined by the Senate chamber.

On (ii) of the amendment that Senator Wong seeks to bring forward, in relation to Senators Watt and Cameron and Senator Cash, Senator Cash has addressed time and again every one of the matters that have been put to her in this forum and in Senate estimates committees previously. What this amendment seeks to do is establish a new precedent whereby estimates committees could seek to call ministers who don't actually hold portfolio responsibility for the matters that the Senate estimates committees address. Senate estimates committees, budget estimates, seek to address expenditure by government, and to do so by portfolio agency. Senator Cash does not hold portfolio responsibility in these areas; she is therefore not the appropriate minister to appear before that committee. This amendment would seek to establish a precedent which we haven't previously observed.

And in (iii), Senator Wong seeks to bring forward, on behalf of the opposition, a motion in relation to the foreign affairs legislation committee sitting as a budget estimates committee. Now, this is extremely concerning, because it seeks to establish a precedent where a private business can be called before an estimates committee, where the CEO of a private business can be called before a budget estimates committee, and where a former employee of a private business, who would appear to have some issues with his former employer, can be called before a Senate budget estimates committee in order to talk about the issues that he has with his former employer.

The purpose of budget estimates committees is to call forth Commonwealth government agencies and the officials of those Commonwealth government agencies, and to inquire into Commonwealth government expenditure. It is not a forum to call forward private businesses. It is not a forum to call forward former employees of private businesses and to canvass the issues that they may have with their former employers. There are appropriate forums for individuals who have issues with their former employers to pursue. There is Fair Work Australia. There are the legal recourses through the courts. They are the appropriate forums for an individual who has a matter in relation to a former employer. To have Senate budget estimates committees used as forums for former employers to raise matters, and to do so under parliamentary privilege, would establish a very unusual precedent. This is not the appropriate forum for those matters, and I think Senate colleagues should think very, very, very carefully when looking to establish what would be a new and unusual precedent—one which I think would undermine the purpose and intent of Senate budget estimates committees and would be an abuse of the Senate budget estimates committees processes.

With those observations, I indicate that the government won't be supporting Senator Wong's amendment, and I would encourage Senate colleagues to take account of what I've outlined on each of those propositions.

This is not my first speech. I am new to this place but I can tell when the fix is in. This is a fix between the coalition and Labor to do lots of terrible things to our democracy. In particular, we're talking about an hours motion that prevents us from debating a dozen or so bills. Now, I selfishly would like to speak on these bills, because I might not have a lot of time in this chamber. So I would love it if, instead of just saying at five o'clock tonight we're going to ram all these things through without any debate—I've not had an all-nighter in this place. I know some of you have. I'd like one. I know you've got the stamina, so, please, let's have an all-nighter. I'll debate all of these things. You'll get to hear my fantastic views about the idea of expanding a government bank. Surprise, surprise: I don't support expanding a government bank. Government banks are complete failures. But this government wants to do it with this.

Last night we heard a lot from our fantastic Treasurer about doing lots of things without increasing tax—doing something else without increasing tax. Well, what are we doing this afternoon at five o'clock without debate? We're increasing tax. And then a bit later on, if I can remember what that bill does, we're increasing tax. It's a complete lie that the government is not increasing tax, and it wants to ram through some bills that increase tax the day after it said it's not increasing tax. It is a complete lie. We've also got some increased government spending, but that's par for the course.

We've got this bill that I have no idea about, no-one has any idea about and we have not seen. It's called the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 2019. Is that bill going to say we shouldn't do live streaming? I've heard a lot of debate in recent weeks that we shouldn't have live streaming. Where did I hear that debate? During live streaming. I was listening to ABC Radio. I was watching ABC TV. I was watching commercial TV and listening to commercial radio. You know what that is? Live streaming. This debate needs debate so we don't make completely stupid decisions—but anyway.

I'd love to be able to debate these things at five o'clock. There are also other matters. I have a motion which we're not going to get to under this proposal: general business notice of motion No. 1455, which would be to say that Senate estimates can continue even if we call an election. By the government and Labor proposing this motion and blocking the ability to have the motion that I will have about Senate estimates, they are basically just voting to have a week off. Next week you're supposed to be in Senate estimates. The Senate is a continuing chamber. You do not need to call off estimates simply because you call an election, but you guys don't want to do any work. Well, I've only just got here. I'd like to do some work, thank you very much. So next week let's have estimates. Let's have motion 1455 included in this.

Mr President, I would ask that, when you put Senator Wong's proposed amendments, you separate (aa)(iii), which is relating to general business notice of motion No. 1470. I'd like to vote on that differently.

Okay, I will.

I seek to insert an amendment to Senator Wong's amendment to government business notice of motion No. 1, which I believe has just been circulated in the chamber, relating to the Parliamentary Transparency Charter:

After subparagraph (aa)(iii), insert:

(iv) general business notice of motion no. 1446, relating to a Parliamentary Transparency Charter;

I will commence by putting Senator Storer's amendment to Senator Wong's amendment.

Question agreed to.

The motion is now amended with Senator Storer's. Following the request of Senator Patrick, I will actually put paragraphs (aa)(i) and (ii); the new paragraph (aa)(iv), which is the amendment accepted that was moved by Senator Storer; and paragraph (ab) of Senator Wong's motion, because Senator Patrick has asked that paragraph (aa)(iii) be dealt with separately. Is everyone clear on what we're voting on? We're voting on everything in Senator Wong's amendment, with Senator Storer's amendment, minus (aa)(iii) of Senator Wong's amendment. Senator Cormann?

The government intends to vote separately on the amendment that has been added as a result of Senator Storer's amendment, so we need to take that separately. We will be voting against all of the other parts of Senator Wong's amendments, with the exception of Senator Storer's amendment, which is why it probably would have been easier to do what Senator Griff is doing—to amend it separately.

All right. I'll deal with paragraphs (aa)(i) and (aa)(ii) as a block up front. The question is that parts (aa)(i) and (ii) of Senator Wong's amendment to the motion moved by Senator Fifield be agreed to.

The question is that part (aa)(iii) of Senator Wong's amendment to the motion moved by Senator Fifield be agreed to.

I now put the question that part (aa)(iv) of Senator Wong's motion, which was the amendment moved by Senator Storer, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I now put the question that part (ab) of Senator Wong's amendment to the motion—which is 'consideration of a motion, to be moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens, relating to the conduct of a senator'—be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I now call Senator Griff to move his amendment. Senator Griff, if it's convenient, the Clerk advised I can now treat your amendment as inserting part (ac) after part (aa) and (ab) just inserted by Senator Wong. This would be become part (ac) to Senator Fifield's motion.

I move:

After paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(ac) the following motions being put sequentially, and determined without amendment or debate:

  (i) business of the Senate motion no. 3, relating to a disallowance of the Civil Aviation (Community Service Lights – Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019

  (ii) general business notice of motion no. 1428 standing in the name of Senator Griff relating to an order for production of documents;

  (iii) general business notice of motion no. 1429 standing in the name of Senator Griff relating to the introduction of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment (Assisted Reproductive Treatment Statistics) bill 2019;

  (iv) general business notice of motion no. 1443 standing in the name of Senator Patrick relating to AFL Women's competition

  (v) general business notice of motion no. 1444 standing in the name of Senator Patrick relating to the Murray Darling Royal Commission

The question is that that amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I will now move to Senator Fifield's hours motion amended by Senator Wong's, Senator Storer's and Senator Griff's amendments. The question is that Senator Fifield's motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Before we move to the proposal of a censure, I thought it appropriate to make a statement. In the debate about the matter of conduct of senators, there has been some discussion regarding a proposal for a motion to suspend a senator from the service of the Senate as well as a censure. Before we move to this item of business, it is important I draw to senators' attention the limitations on the use of that power.

The basis for the Senate's powers, privileges and immunities lies in section 49 of the Constitution, which incorporates into the constitutional law of Australia a branch of the common and statutory law of the United Kingdom as it existed at the time of Federation and empowers the parliament to change that law by statute. The reference is Odgers' page 41. This means that the powers of the two houses are those inherited from the United Kingdom's House of Commons in 1901 as now modified by relevant statute law, principally through the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. This background provides the basis for examining the powers available to the Senate to suspend a senator and constraints on the use of that power.

The only precedents for suspending a senator relate to disorder occurring in the course of Senate proceedings, in the terms contained in standing order 203. Offences against the standing order may be dealt with by the occupant of the chair naming a senator for infringing that standing order, seeking an explanation or apology from the senator and leaving to the Senate the question of whether the disorder warrants suspension. The offences in the standing order reflect centuries of practice in the UK's House of Commons and have never been updated. There is therefore no question as to the power of the Senate to suspend a senator in those circumstances. The question that arises is whether the Senate has the power to suspend a senator for actions remote from its proceedings. The only known power of the Senate to impose a penalty upon any person for conduct occurring outside of its proceedings lies in its contempt power—that is, its power to declare an act to be a contempt and to impose a penalty for it.

The Senate undoubtedly has the power to suspend a senator for conduct determined to be a contempt. There are precedents for the House of Representatives suspending members for contempt, and the houses have the same powers; however, there are limits on these powers. When the federal parliament's powers, privileges and immunities were reviewed in the 1980s, a joint committee on parliamentary privilege recommended that a statutory threshold for contempt be introduced. That change was enacted in section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, which provides that:

Conduct (including the use of words) does not constitute an offence against a House unless it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or committee of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member's duties as a member.

This constraint was intended to reinforce the purpose of contempt, and, as noted at page 83 of Odgers':

This power to deal with contempts of either House is the exact equivalent of the power of the courts to punish contempts of court.

The rationale of the power to punish contempts … is that the courts and the two Houses should be able to protect themselves from acts which directly or indirectly impede them in the performance of their functions.

The threshold in the privileges act means that it is no longer open to a house as it was under the previous law to treat any act as a contempt. The reference for this, which you can check, is at page 84 and 85 of Odgers'. Unless an act improperly interferes with the functions or authority of a house or its members, it does not reach that threshold and the imposition of a penalty for that act would be open to legal challenge.

The threshold was also adopted by the Senate in 1988 in its privilege resolutions. They codify the principle that the Senate's power to deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for senators against improper acts intending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions. The Senate is required to have regard to this principle in determining any question of contempt.

While there is no doubt that the Senate has the power to suspend senators, its acknowledged power to do so is limited to those circumstances in which it is necessary to protect the Senate's ability to manage the conduct of its proceedings in the face of disorder or where the Senate determines that it is necessary to do so to protect the ability of the Senate and senators to perform their constitutional roles. Any other use of the power may be open to challenge.

I also give notice to senators that if such a motion is moved I will be participating in that debate prior to the matter being put to a vote.

by leave—Mr President, I must say that I would have appreciated the courtesy of you letting me know that you were intending to make such a statement. Had you offered me that courtesy, I would have pointed out to you that the motion that will be circulated in this chamber shortly relating to a suspension of Senator Anning relates very directly to comments he made in this chamber as a senator.

I appreciate that, Senator Di Natale. I was trying to frame the matters coming before the Senate because I appreciate that they have been conflated in public debate by commentators and others outside the chamber as well.

I, and also on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes...freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance',

(ii) religious persecution knows no geographic or sectarian boundaries and it afflicts religious believers of virtually every faith, on every continent,

(iii) the strong statements made across the nation, led by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, that violence such as that witnessed in Christchurch is an affront on our common humanity, and

(iv) in the face of attacks designed to sow division, our responses must bring us together, recognising an attack on any religion is an attack on all religions and that we all share a responsibility to unite, condemn and defeat such an attack on our common values and way of life;

(b) calls on all Australians to stand against hate and to publicly, and always, condemn actions and comments designed to incite fear and distrust;

(c) endorses the statement of the Imam Hasan Centre following the attacks in Christchurch that 'It is times like this that we lose hope and doubt humanity. When people of faith come under attack in such a way it shows us how low humanity can fall. However it never ceases to amaze how far humanity can rise after such despicable events'; and

(d) censures Senator Anning for his inflammatory and divisive comments seeking to attribute blame to victims of a horrific crime and to vilify people on the basis of religion, which do not reflect the opinions of the Australian Senate or the Australian people.

Mr President, today the government and government senators join with the opposition and members of other parties to condemn in the strongest possible terms the comments made by Senator Anning in relation to last month's horrific terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand—an absolutely horrific terrorist attack. That is why I move the motion which asks the Senate to note, firstly:

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes … freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance',

Also:

(ii) religious persecution knows no geographic or sectarian boundaries and it afflicts religious believers of virtually every faith, on every continent,

That the Senate notes:

(iii) the strong statements made across the nation, led by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, that violence such as that witnessed in Christchurch is an affront on our common humanity, and

(iv) in the face of attacks designed to sow division, our responses must bring us together, recognising an attack on any religion is an attack on all religions and that we all share a responsibility to unite, condemn and defeat such an attack on our common values and way of life;

That the Senate:

(b) calls on all Australians to stand against hate and to publicly, and always, condemn actions and comments designed to incite fear and distrust;

That the Senate:

(c) endorses the statement of the Imam Hasan Centre following the attacks in Christchurch that 'It is times like this that we lose hope and doubt humanity. When people of faith come under attack in such a way it shows us how low humanity can fall. However it never ceases to amaze how far humanity can rise after such despicable events';

Finally, that the Senate:

(d) censures Senator Anning for his inflammatory and divisive comments seeking to attribute blame to victims of a horrific crime and to vilify people on the basis of religion, which do not reflect the opinions of the Australian Senate or the Australian people.

I thank the opposition and other parties for their support for this motion. It is very important that the parliament is unified in its condemnation of these appalling comments that have been made. These comments were appalling, and, sadly, made even worse given Senator Anning's position in this parliament and the platform that he enjoys as a senator. Senator Anning's comments were ugly and divisive. They were dangerous and unacceptable from anyone, let alone a member of this place. The Senate is completely right to condemn them and censure the senator that made them. The victims of the Christchurch attack were attacked while peacefully going about the observance of their religion in and around their place of worship. Senator Anning's comments were, as it says in the motion, 'inflammatory and divisive'.

In Australia we do not accept and do not tolerate that sort of divisive, inflammatory commentary which seeks to incite hatred and which seeks to vilify people. It is why we are the most successful migrant nation in the world. The Australian people rightly expect that this parliament stands in solidarity with our New Zealand cousins following the monstrous attack in Christchurch. It is absolutely right to censure Senator Anning, and, ultimately, to condemn anyone else within our community who seeks to use a horrific tragedy like this one as an opportunity to vilify and divide people based on their religious beliefs. I commend this motion to the Senate.

I rise to speak on the censure motion moved jointly by Senator Cormann and myself. I thank him for promptly engaging with and agreeing with me, and agreeing to move a bipartisan censure motion in the aftermath of the comments made by Senator Anning.

We passed a condolence motion yesterday in which we stated our shared condemnation of the terrorist attack on the Al Noor and Linwood mosques by an Australian citizen in Christchurch. We expressed our solidarity with the people of New Zealand—our family. We expressed our shared grief and our sympathy to those who lost loved ones and who are injured and recovering, and we expressed our solidarity with the Islamic community of Christchurch, New Zealand, our own nation and throughout the world. We made clear the view of this Senate: that we abhor racism and religious intolerance, and that we acknowledge and celebrate diversity and the harmony of the Australian people. We stated our respect for people from all faiths, cultures, ethnicities and nationalities—a respect that has made our country one of the world's most successful migrant nations and multicultural societies—and we reaffirmed our commitment as Australians to peace over violence, innocence over evil, understanding over extremism, liberty over fear and love over hate.

It was an important statement—a collective commitment to stand against hatred. That's because what we saw, tragically, in the loss of life in Christchurch is where hatred leads us. The tragic murders of 50 worshippers in Christchurch were horrific acts of violence. They were acts of terrorism, and, at their core, they were acts of hatred. So if we are to end the cycle of extremism, to end the cycle of hatred that underpins it, all leaders—political, community and religious—must stand united against hatred in all its forms.

Today we as a Senate make another important statement and take a clear stand against hatred and extremist ideology. In the aftermath of the Christchurch terrorist attacks, in the aftermath of horrific acts of hatred, whilst people were grieving—whilst a nation was grieving—a senator in this place made an extraordinarily offensive and divisive statement. He blamed the horrific act of terror, of murder, not on the extremist right-wing terrorist but on the victims of his evil acts. While the families, friends and communities of those lost were still reeling from the shock, this senator blamed the victims. While those injured were being treated, this senator sought to further fan the flames of division. How pathetic. How shameful. It was a shameful and pathetic attempt by a bloke, who has never been elected, to get attention by exploiting diversity as a fault line for political advantage.

This motion makes it clear he does not speak for us. He does not speak for this Senate, he does not speak for this nation and he does not represent Australian values. This motion makes clear that the Senate repudiates in the strongest terms this senator's divisive statement and the extremist ideology that either motivated it or that he simply wished to fan. This motion delivers on our collective responsibility as senators, as leaders in our communities, to stand against hatred, to call out hate speech and to advocate for the values that make Australia the nation we hope it to be. We must repudiate those who seek to spread intolerance and hate and, in doing so, undermine our democratic values.

I want to briefly speak about this point. There is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. The former is a feature of our democracy. The latter is an attack on democracy. Let me explain why. Foundational principles of liberal democracy include equality, justice and nondiscrimination—all citizens are equal; all are equal members of the community. An attack which purports to posit a justification that some citizens should be treated differently is an attack on the principles of liberal democracy. There is a difference between the robust contest of ideas and attacking people of a particular group because of the colour of their skin or the nature of their faith and dehumanising them.

A central element in the way prejudice works is by dehumanising, by singling out people as outsiders, as second-class, as not deserving the protections and dignity afforded to the rest of us. It is why we say legislative protections against hate speech are so important. It is why we on this side and others in this chamber fought so hard to defend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act from attempts to repeal it. I recall Senator Brandis advocating for its removal and stating, 'People do have a right to be bigots.' I say hate speech cannot be defended on grounds of freedom of speech, because it is an attack on our democracy, because it inflicts real and direct harm.

Senator Stoker at one point, when she was advocating for Mr Yiannopoulos to be given a visa, said, 'The solution is better ideas.' I say this is not about the contest of ideas; it's about democratic principles; it's about foundational principles. Hate speech is inimical to democracy. We can't normalise it through a concept of better ideas. We have to be uncompromising in our rejection of racism, prejudice, discrimination and hate speech, and we must call it out wherever we see it.

I do acknowledge the leadership that Senator Cormann has shown. I acknowledge and honour the words of Senator Birmingham yesterday, just as I honour the position that so many good Liberals have taken over the course of decades in this country—Malcolm Fraser and many others since, even John Howard putting One Nation last. I honour Mr Fischer. There are times in our history when our bipartisanship has enabled us to confront racism and hatred: the White Australia policy being abolished, the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act, the confrontation of One Nation in its previous incarnation, the acceptance of so many Indochinese refugees, despite community concerns in dealing with them. This was bipartisanship. It is a great sadness to me—and I say this not to make a partisan point but as an Asian Australian—to see the way in which some on that side do not honour that history. It is a great sadness to me to see the way in which some on that side have failed to repudiate the ideology and the hate speech that we have seen in recent times.

I would make the point that the senator who is being censured, in his first speech, argued for a return to the White Australia policy. My parents married when the White Australia policy was still in place, and it was abolished by Liberal and Labor governments. He also used a term associated with the Holocaust. It was a speech that didn't reflect the Australia we know—an Australia built by people from every country, from every part of the world—a strong, independent multicultural nation. It is a sadness, I think, to all of us that many coalition senators lined up and shook your hand, and I suspect many of them regret that now.

It was disappointing to see the motion 'It's okay to be white' be voted in support and it has been disappointing to see some government ministers being prepared to fan prejudice for political purposes. I have in mind Minister Dutton's targeting of Victoria's African community and the focus on African gang violence and even the way in which the medevac bill was discussed in the context of paedophiles, rapists and murderers. And anyone who watched The Project interview of Mr Morrison would have understood, I hope, that what Mr Waleed Aly was saying was that this is also about how you frame the debate.

Those who use or fan intolerance and hatred for their own political gain are not only doing the wrong thing; they're actually harming our democracy in the process. So, today, I hope this Senate does censure this senator for his statement. And, in doing so, we do take a stand against hatred and we are calling out hate speech. We are sending a clear message to the Australian people that people across the political landscape stand for values and principles that are central to our identity—Australian identity and Australian democracy—inclusion, acceptance, respect and equality. And I hope that this moment that is Christchurch and its aftermath can in this country generate recognition of the importance of that occurring across the political spectrum. We're about to go into an election campaign and the contest will be fierce, but there are some things which are above the political contest. And this is amongst them. And, if we do this, this makes our nation stronger at home and in the world.

I rise to speak in support of this censure motion and join with Senator Cormann and Senator Wong in those heartfelt words. It doesn't go unnoticed that the leader of the Liberals in the Senate is a man of Belgian origin. Senator Wong, as she described herself, is an Asian Australian. And, of course, I'm very proud of my Italian heritage. We're a really wonderful reflection of multicultural Australia and we are united together in standing against the hateful words that were used in the response to the horrific terrorist act—an act where men, women and children were gunned down at a moment of deep contemplation. While their blood was still warm, we had a senator in this place effectively saying that they were responsible for their own murder.

I'm not going spend too much time dwelling on that individual—indeed, he has shown himself to be a pathetic man, lacking any empathy. What's much more important here is how we respond to hate speech in our society. What is it that we do collectively to respond to the rise in hate speech in our society? Hate speech has real consequences, not just the consequences that we saw play out in the most horrific way in Christchurch but consequences for people here, going about their daily business in Australia. It has consequences for the young woman wearing a headscarf walking down the street, when someone drives past, winds their window down and yells the most horrific abuse. It has real consequences when Jews go to the synagogue, and they are forced to undergo increased security screening because they don't feel safe in their own places of worship. Hate speech has very real consequences, and it's not just about the pathetic comments made by an individual who really we shouldn't spend much more time addressing.

I think it's fair to say in conversations with senior people in this place that we're all wrestling with how we deal with hate speech. I think there's a view among some people that to engage in a conversation around this and to make a very clear statement risks giving these people a platform. It risks giving them the attention that they so desperately crave. I accept that there is a risk there. But we must also appreciate that they have a platform, that they have a voice that very few other people in our society have the privilege of having. Indeed, when I look at some of the commentary around the contribution made by that individual, it was quoted right around the world. It was quoted in The Washington Post and The New York Times, and it was quoted by the BBC. It was quoted right through Europe. These people have a platform. What we need to do is to come together and do everything we can to deny them that platform, to deny them the opportunity for their voices to be amplified. What we need to do is recognise that ensuring a harmonious multicultural society takes work.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept that it's enough simply to censure one person and accept that we have fulfilled our responsibilities in standing against hate speech. This is an important step—yes, it is—but it's not enough. We had the opportunity to censure that individual when he invoked the final solution in his first speech. I put it to both the major parties that he deserved to be censured for those comments. That view was rejected at the time. That was a mistake. Indeed, worse than that, we saw some members of the government offering hugs and handshakes on the back of that speech. It shows how desensitised we have become to the words that have been used not just in this chamber but in both houses of parliament—indeed, right through the media—over a number of years.

We have become desensitised, so that when a politician talks about settling Lebanese Muslims being a mistake, we don't respond in the way that we should. When another contribution is made that says that people can't go out at night for fear of being beaten up by African migrants, we don't respond in the way that we should. When we have politicians floating strategies to target Muslim people in an effort to shore up a few short-term votes, we don't respond in the way that we should. Multiculturalism, protecting the very fabric of this nation, takes work. I agree absolutely with Senator Wong's comments about hate speech. When you say that someone has a right to be a bigot, the next step is that they have a right to act on that bigotry, and we know where that leads. We give permission; indeed, we nurture the voices of hate right across our community. So yes, of course we support this censure, but we have to do more.

We need to again embrace that notion of multiculturalism. We should have a multicultural act that says that we come together as a society and embrace the principles of multiculturalism because it's what makes this country a great country; and that we come together and say, 'Hate speech will have no place in a civilised society, and we will now have hate speech laws that protect people against the sort of conversation that we have heard for far too long in our parliament and in our media.' We should have a code of conduct in our Senate that ensures we all adhere to a set of standards and norms that are the norms that people right across society expect of us as leaders in our community. We need to call out that hate speech at every opportunity. And Senator Wong is absolutely right: there are voices on all sides of politics that have shown the leadership that's so desperately required.

So we welcome this censure. We hope the parliament will support it. But we must recommit our efforts to do more to stamp out the rise of fascism, this Neo-Nazi movement that's growing right across the world—to no longer turn our heads but to tackle it head on; to use every single ounce of power that we have to deny these people a platform; and to make sure that those views are once again marginalised and not brought to the centre of Australian public life. That's the pledge that we make in this chamber: to work together to do everything that we can to ensure that, whenever we have the privilege of the platform that we are given, we use it in a way that brings this community together and calls out the horrific language that has taken primacy in our national debate for far too long.

Words matter—not only the specific words that are used, but the timing and the tone in which they are delivered. Let me start at the outset by saying I believe that Senator Anning's comments in relation to the Christchurch massacre were imprudent, impolitic and flat out wrong in blaming the victims. But I lament, I have to say, the political opportunism that was associated with them and also with the opponents of Senator Anning. Rarely have I been as disappointed with that political opportunism as in the last fortnight, and it's on display here today, I regret. If this censure motion were confined to part (d), which is to disagree with and censure Senator Anning for the inflammatory comments, I would agree with it. But what I can't agree with is the adoption of this hypocritical language, this determination of hate speech that has been so widely bandied around. I'm disappointed in the government for adopting the language of the left. According to those in this chamber, hate speech is whatever they want it to mean. It wasn't that long ago that The Australian newspaper was deemed to be the hate media and had no business in putting forward their own views of opposition—or Labor government, as it was at the time—policy.

We see the Greens direct hate speech and accusations of hate speech towards basically anyone they disagree with. We know that the Greens have targeted the Israeli Defense Forces, for example, and the Jews. At least one Green senator, if not others, have accused Israel of ethnic cleansing. Is that hate speech? They've referred to the Israeli nation as an apartheid nation. They support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions regime. Is that hate speech? Senator Faruqi and a New South Wales Labor MP attended a rally protesting the recognition of Israel, where the senator said Israel was a settler colonial apartheid state. The rally itself chanted, 'Intifada.' Was that hate speech? An intifada is an uprising against a sovereign nation. One placard at the rally depicted Jews as pigs and monkeys, stalked by a Palestinian lion targeting them. Was that hate speech? A young child was photographed at another rally, holding up a 'behead those who insult Islam' placard. Was that hate speech by the mother, who allowed the child to hold it? Where were the pious and sanctimonious, the outraged, about that?

They only cheer on the tribe. They will not examine their own conscience. I note that Senator Hanson-Young, a regular tweeter about hate speech, would have Peter Dutton locked up in the Greens gulag because he, in her word, 'attacked' Alan Joyce because he was gay, apparently, which she labelled as vile homophobia. Under this new regime of hate speech, where it's determined by whom you're cheering on, Peter Dutton would be in the Greens gulag. You'd find people like Miranda Devine, journalists who call out the inhumane refugee policy pursued by Labor and the Greens. She would be locked up as a hater as well, because Senator Hanson-Young has accused her of hate speech as well—a rabid, right-wing cheerleader, in the words of the Greens senator.

I've regularly been accused of hate speech—once again, back in 2015, a tweet saying, 'Will Tony Abbott let hate speech from Cory Bernardi dictate Australia's refugee policy or will he listen to the calls to show more heart?' I'm in the Greens dystopian universe of haters simply for disagreeing with some policies that resulted in thousands of people dying at sea. Do you understand the can of worms you're opening here? When you talk about people's language and you want to redefine something you disagree with as hate speech—whether it be reprehensible, vile, intemperate or just flat-out wrong, which I think Senator Anning's words were—it doesn't mean you should adopt this rhetoric and this mantra which is coming through here, because you will open up a process which is going to see us sink into an abyss, and not a decent abyss, because it is misused for opportunistic political chances. It is misused simply to score political points and some bark off your opponents.

We can keep going. We know that Sky media, according to the Greens, are just the hate media. This is Senator Hanson-Young again: 'This is the brutal reality check on the role of the right-wing media in promoting racism and broadcasting hate speech.' Suddenly, Sky News is hate speech, so will we be censoring that? We will be having laws against that? Will you be trying to impose regulations on the broadcasting of ideas and facts that you disagree with, simply because you disagree with them? Senator Di Natale says, 'If it is hate speech, yes.' Well, the problem for the Greens and Senator Di Natale is they make this stuff up as they go. They hold others to a higher standard than they expect to hold themselves.

Sanctimonious hypocrisy is not unknown. It is not unknown in this place, and its major inhabitants are in that wedge of the Senate. They are seeking to wedge the Australian people. They are seeking to undermine some of the fundamental values and principles that we cherish and hold dear. Yes, you have the freedom of speech in this country, but you also have the freedom to condemn and criticise those you disagree with. Unfortunately, they only hold to one side of that equation—that they're allowed to beat up on whomever they disagree with. They will not be held to account for their own hatred and vile, misogynistic and racist outbursts. How else can you justify it? All around the world, the green movement is saying any reference to skin colour is racist and vile. We hear them say it here, except it's okay for them to chime in about grumpy old white men and terrible old white men. They're ageist, they are misogynist and they are misandrist. They pick up whatever they want to suit their agenda and they're given a free pass on it all.

What I lament about this censure motion is not that it's inappropriate; it's just that the government and those who are meant to be sensible on the other side have adopted the language of the left. And what they are agreeing to today is to say that anything they disagree with, anything that is imprudent, impolitic or inappropriate, can be deemed as hate speech. The evidence is there; it is the defence of the weak to mask criticism and to label it as racist hate speech—whatever it is—to suit the agenda. It is about shutting down an agenda. And so, when you've got a senator referring to another senator as a 'creepy old white man', is that hate speech? When you've got senators referring to those who are worried about influences in our culture and our values labelling people as racist or hate speakers, where do we end up with this? Where do we end up with it?

Why do we broaden what should be a very simple motion to say that what Senator Anning said, we believe, is inappropriate? And I believe it's inappropriate. I think to blame the victims in the manner in which he did was absolutely wrong. It can never be justified. I believe the timing of it undermined basic civility and basic humanity. It was political exploitation and opportunism at its very worst. But I also know there are many people who actually support what Senator Anning said, and that's the beauty of this country—we're allowed to disagree. We're allowed to disagree with people and to call it out. That is freedom of speech. And the great hypocrisy is that those who champion these freedoms champion this idea that somehow we can live in a paradise just by stifling and shutting down everyone else who we disagree with and that that is going to lead to some utopia. It's not. We have an obligation to speak truth to power, and the power, unfortunately, rests with the hypocrisy of the green movement and the Left in this country. They are adopting language to make it mean things that it should never mean and they're doing it as a means of stifling our discussion. (Time expired)

I'm going around the chamber in the order in which I'm getting indications from senators. I'll take everyone's names down. Senator Hinch is next.

I rise to speak in support of the censure motion against Senator Anning. Early in Senator Anning's unexpected—and I hope short—Senate sojourn, I said here in this chamber: 'I'm starting to think that Senator Anning lies awake at night, trying to think up new ways and words to offend decent, rational, compassionate Australians.' There was his attack on vulnerable women who were terminating a pregnancy. Then Senator Anning attacked other people's rights to die with dignity.

His attempt to politicise the Christchurch mosque massacre, in my opinion, sank to a new level and is worthy of censure in this chamber. To me, it was straight out of the NRA handbook on how gun extremists can benefit from little kids being murdered. I'm actually surprised he wasn't on the sauce and on the plane with Pauline Hanson's treasonous apparatchiks, as they requested millions of dollars from the despicable gun lobby to undermine our gun laws and undermine this parliament and put Aussie families at risk.

Speaking of risk, yesterday in question time, Senator Anning tried to dismiss all of his grotesque comments as freedom of speech, as a part of free speech. Well, Senator Anning, I was a journalist for five decades, and I believe passionately in free speech. But, if you had done some research, you may have checked and found out there is an adage, a rule that journalists follow, and that I hope other people would follow, and that is the rule that you cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. That is not freedom of speech; that is irresponsible, reckless and totally dangerous behaviour—not free speech at all. And Senator Bernardi was leaning on you and saying the same sort of thing. You cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre, because people may die.

For Senator Anning to get up after Christchurch, after all those people, 50 people, were murdered, and turn it into a political thing—that's what the NRA was telling One Nation, telling Pauline Hanson's people: 'This is what you do. If there's a massacre, you turn it to your advantage. Offence, offence, offence. You turn a murder of kids into a political thing on your behalf. You accuse your opponents, people who are against proliferation of guns, of dancing on the graves of children.' That's what the NRA was saying; that's what One Nation was trying to bring into Australia. So, all I can say, Senator Anning—and I say it quite deliberately—is: You besmirch this place. You should be ashamed of yourself, and I hope you're soon gone.

Senator Anning, I'll do you the courtesy of offering you the opportunity to speak now or at the conclusion of the debate, before the motion is put, given you're the subject of the censure. Would you prefer to speak now or later?

At the end of the debate will be fine.

I'll grant you that courtesy. Senator Dodson was on his feet earlier. I'll come to other senators next.

I rise to speak in support of the motion put by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Our First Nations peoples have carried the consequences of murderous prejudice throughout our entwined history. First Nations peoples in Australia know what it's like to be powerless in the face of hateful prejudice, fanned by the illusion of superiority and the false courage created by a weapon in the hand of the oppressors—to be victims against superior weaponry. We know the impact of murder wilfully carried out and morally justified by hatred of minorities, misplaced power and bullying superiority, justified by a determined and arrogant rejection of the shared equality of human beings, where people of another culture, another religion, another social expression of our common humanity are viewed by cowards with power and guns as less worthy of humanity.

In the Gurindji country, in the Northern Territory, people still talk of the killing times. Mounted Constable Willshire was stationed at Victoria River Downs in the 1890s. He was a mass murderer in uniform, who took it upon himself to protect the interests of cattlemen and to disperse the traditional owners of the lands at gunpoint. He took to print, justifying his actions with boastful pride, emboldened by the rightness of whiteness, and condemned the First Nations people to death. He wrote about one day of killings on Wave Hill, saying:

It's no use mincing matters, the Martini-Henry carbines at the critical moment were talking English in the silent majesty of these eternal rocks.

The carbines were talking English.

I have walked through some of these sites of massacres, of mass murders, in Australia with the descendants of the victims and sometimes too with the descendants of murderers. In South Australia, Senator Gallacher and I visited a monument erected by both sides of the small community of Elliston to commemorate the mass murder of men, women and children pushed over the steep sea wall by charging horsemen and barking dogs. I have visited the sites of massacres, of mass murders, in Balgo, in Forrest River and at Coniston. At Coniston, near Alice Springs, those mass murders took place in living memory. I have sat down with old Warlpiri men and women who luckily survived those murderous attacks as young babies, hidden from the attacks. And 1928 was not so long ago. My mother was just seven years old. But we are in 2019 now, and a mass murderer—rejecting the richness of difference, driven by religious hatred and xenophobia, empowered by military-style weapons—has waged his atrocities in Christchurch on innocent, defenceless people.

In this Senate we stand for common humanity, respect of religion and tolerance of life in all its diversity. We reject the scourges of racism, of bigotry and of the kind of hateful, violent, murderous prejudice we saw at Christchurch. The murder of 50 innocent people does not just happen. It arises from the fuelling of hatred, irresponsible language and the demonising of people of colour and difference. It is neither fair nor honourable for that senator from Queensland to shift the responsibility of that crime to the community who were the targets. The senator said in his tweet:

The real cause of the bloodshed on New Zealand streets is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.

We know the victims were not Muslim fanatics. They were innocent men, women and children at Friday prayers, finding peace and communion with God and their fellow believers. We know that Senator Anning knows the real cause of the bloodshed in Christchurch. The real cause was prejudice, hate and a passion for violent action, aided and abetted by the availability of a military-style weapon. It's also entirely amoral for other senators from Queensland, seeking political leverage, to solicit donations from the purveyors and promoters of these designer weapons in the United States and to collude with them to overturn Australian laws that protect all our lives.

The senator from Queensland Senator Anning warrants our censure. Through his words and his actions he has aligned himself with the most vicious form of ethnic and racial hatred. He is exonerating the murderous actions of a deranged and hate-filled killer. We cannot let his words and actions define this chamber. We cannot allow his hateful values to go unchallenged. We cannot let the stench of racism and hate linger in this chamber. We call on all parties, including the One Nation party, to stand with us today to censure Senator Anning. We shall stand with Senator Cormann and Senator Wong in their joint effort to ensure that this Senate is clear and steadfast on our shared values and on what we affirm and what we reject.

We must be of one voice and one heart on this issue. We turn our back against xenophobia, against hate crimes and against any gunmen who hold innocent people in their sights. We call out those who exploit fear and ignorance for political gain, who mock the traditional dress of women of another culture, who seek donations from the manufacturer of weapons of war to override our own laws and who argue that it's all right to be white. Their actions and exhortations would plunge this country back into the killing times.

You've got to remember that this history is well known to First Nations peoples. Your language does matter. If this remains unchecked then we will go back to that awful period. We should instead turn our faces to the light of a new future—a peaceful, non-violent, tolerant country of hope, respect and unity, a country where no innocent man, woman or child is ever again the victim of mass murder.

I say to those faithful mourning for their families in Christchurch: Allah yer'ham hom. Rest in peace. I say to the people of New Zealand: pouri mo to mate ka kaha. We are sorry for your loss. Stay strong.

I support the motion.

This is not my first speech. I'd like to thank Senator Dodson for those words. I welcome this censure motion and I'll be supporting it. I want to note that I disagree with some of the additional words put by Senator Wong where she said that free speech does not include hate speech and that Senator Anning's comments were not part of the contest of ideas. Unfortunately, that's not true. We need to look at the polls. We are all failing to convince our fellow Australians about the importance and the rightness of non-discriminatory immigration.

All of us here, other than Senator Anning, perhaps, can talk about how vile those comments were—and they were vile—and we can all talk about how non-discriminatory immigration is so important. But that is not a view held by so many, probably millions of Australians. We need to convince them, not by deplatforming people like Senator Anning but by convincing people that he's wrong and that they're wrong and that they should think a different way. I find it amazing that we think we can solve our problem just by saying that Senator Anning shouldn't have been allowed to have said what he said. The problem will remain.

Senator Anning has free speech. I think he should have been free to say what he said. As it happens, we all have free speech and we can all strongly disagree in the strongest possible terms with what he said. That is why I will be joining you all in voting for this censure motion.

I rise to speak in support of the censure motion. Yesterday I tabled a petition signed by 1.4 million people, the biggest online petition in Australia's history, calling on this Senate to remove Senator Anning from parliament because of his despicable comments seeking to further demonise Muslims in the wake of the Christchurch massacre and blaming the targets of this horrific terrorist attack for their own deaths. I received this petition on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and it was, indeed, a fitting day to receive it. If there is one politician that trades in hate, fear and division, it is Senator Anning—and, believe me, there is some competition in here.

Some have stood up and used deflection tactics, or they are being apologists for hate speech. We've just seen that from Senator Bernardi. Senator Bernardi does not seem to have any understanding of the difference between hate speech and disagreement. He doesn't have any understanding of the difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. It seems he definitely does not have any understanding of the impact of hate speech on people in the community. Others have stood by and remained silent in the face of hatred. They have failed to call it out. I hope that they can all reflect and change.

People feel so strongly about what has been said in parliament and outside of parliament that, in their petition, they say:

Senator Fraser Anning's views have no place in the government of our democratic and multicultural country. Within the bounds of Australian law, we request that he be pushed to resign from his position as Senator, and if appropriate, be investigated by law enforcement agencies for supporting right wing terrorism.

This is the strength of community views. I know that there is no mechanism to force a senator to resign, but the sheer number of people who signed this petition shows how strongly the community feels about those who seek to divide us and create an atmosphere of hate and division to further their xenophobic agendas. We have seen that this has real consequences. Hate speech leads to political violence. The community stands against hatred. So the parliament must listen to those we represent and take action to make sure that people are held accountable for what they say and do. Senator Anning has well and truly crossed the line in here and out there. There is no question about that. He does not deserve to be in parliament. I have no doubt that the community will make sure that he's not re-elected in May, and I will be doing everything in my power to consign such awful, ugly views to the history books, where they are so clearly from and where they truly belong. There is no room for racism in Australia.

Sadly, what Senator Anning said after the Christchurch massacre, however shocking it is, isn't out of character. Just a week before I joined this place, he gave a speech calling for a ban on people like me coming to this country and for a white Australia policy. He even invoked the despicable 'final solution' in his speech. He has flown business class on taxpayer dollars, I might add, to St Kilda, to rally alongside Neo-Nazi sympathisers. So, yes, he should be condemned. Yes, he should be censured. And yes, he should be suspended from parliament. It is terrifying that right-wing extremist groups have found a mouthpiece in federal parliament. I have often referred to these groups and the politicians who support them as 'merchants of hate'. They prey on the anxieties of Australians with a rhetoric that is empty, hateful and divisive. They whip up hysteria against minorities, against women, against Aboriginal people and against Muslims. They thrive on problems, conflict and suffering, and this is creating a very dangerous environment for all of us in Australia and across the world.

How devoid of compassion and humanity is this senator to, in effect, blame the targets of this terrorist attack for their own deaths? How low can you go? What did three-year-old Mucad Ibrahim do to deserve this? What about Hamza Mustafa, who had just celebrated his 16th birthday? Senator Anning, you are an absolute disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself and you should resign.

What a way to end the last week of the 45th Parliament. Senator Anning has barely been here for 18 months and, in that time, he has made headlines for all the wrong reasons. In doing so, he has brought the office of senator into disrepute. Perhaps the 19 people who gave him their first preference vote had an inkling of what he would be saying and how he would respond in this chamber, but certainly the rest of us could not have known that this once unremarkable man would very quickly become one of Australia's most divisive, hateful and indeed hated politicians.

My greatest regret in this parliament was following convention and shaking Senator Anning's hand after his maiden speech, and I'm sure there are many in this place who would feel the same way. As people will be well aware, it was not in support of his comments but instead a regrettable adherence to polite protocol. Well, manners be damned! It is something that I will never, ever do again. It seems that every time Senator Anning opens his mouth, Australia recoils. I'm very much glad that we're taking such a strong stance today to cut out his extreme, unapologetic and very ignorant views.

For too long now, Australia's leaders have done too little to stand up against racism and divisive comments. In fact, this government has often been happy to pile on; refugees in particular have been its favourite easy target. By not objecting loudly to extremist commentary and by not countering the lies with facts and a reminder of the good that migrants and refugees bring to our proudly multicultural nation, a negative mindset has been allowed to fester and grow. The tolerance of hate speech in our parliaments and sections of our media under the guise of so-called free speech has implied support for the venom that spews out of the alt-Right. John Howard at least saw One Nation and its dangerous appeal to the right wing for the poison it was. This government is still somehow trying to have it both ways.

The Liberal Party has finally and perhaps reluctantly drawn a line in the sand and decided to preference One Nation after Labor. It's still not clear whether this will actually happen in seats where One Nation preferences really matter to them, and, so far, the Nationals aren't prepared to do the same. It seems the government's conservative members still think that pulling to the Right and being some sort of 'One Nation lite' party will work in their favour. Ultimately, they're very wrong. Voters don't want empty pandering. They want leaders to create a strong, prosperous and safe nation. They want solutions. And, where voters are barking up the wrong tree, the answer is to give them the facts, not to indulge their ignorance.

I could not believe it when I saw a recent news item in which Barnaby Joyce urged his party to move to the Right to counter what he saw as an electoral threat from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. He reportedly said his constituents believed there was too much regulation on tree clearing, firearm ownership and pretty much everything they could do on their land. Incredibly, when asked whether those beliefs were correct, Mr Joyce said:

I don't have to believe whether it's right or not. I can just tell you that we lost a seat over it …

His solution was to pander to these sentiments rather than fight them with facts. That's not what leadership is about. Leadership is about bravery in the face of public ignorance, doing and saying what is right and bringing voters with you on matters of national importance.

If you want a cohesive society which welcomes migrants and refugees and which sees the good in others, no matter their differences, you have to talk the talk. Mr Shorten has been late to the party, but he was at least spot-on when he reportedly said:

The dog-whistling by political leaders about immigration and asylum seekers must stop.

The Prime Minister might like to deny that he has used religion to incite fear in the community, but he has certainly used race to do so. Who can forget that, after the medical evacuation bill was passed, the government's first instinct was to shamelessly demonise as murderers and rapists the refugee men and women who might be transferred for medical care.

It is time that we as politicians remembered that what we say actually does matter, not because it might help us at the ballot box but because our words guide the nation. With our words we can either reject hate or give it refuge. We can embrace and welcome cultures or sow fear and suspicion. All of us in this place have an obligation to lead by example and to remember that what we say echoes and helps shape our nation. With every word we utter about religion and race, we create a legacy—a long-term legacy. We must always be mindful of what that legacy will be. With this in mind, Centre Alliance most certainly supports the censure of Senator Anning.

I rise to speak and put on the record that, as Senator Hanson is unwell, I am making the following contribution to the debate on her behalf.

I'd like to welcome the Australian people to the equivalent of a public flogging of an elected member in the Senate. Regardless of how many personal votes Fraser Anning may have received at the 2016 election, let me put on record that he still drew a stronger vote than a number of you sitting in this chamber here today. Just ask Liberal senator for Tasmania Wendy Askew. Senator, you sit here today after receiving zero votes from your Tasmanian constituents. In fact, Senator Askew joins us today as a result of the nepotism that runs deep through the Liberal Party. I've got no doubt your brother will be enjoying his plum job as Australia's consul-general in Chicago. Come to think of it, Fraser Anning polled a stronger number of votes than the Greens senator for New South Wales, Mehreen Faruqi, who received zero votes in the 2016 election from her New South Wales constituents. You, Senator Faruqi, are regarded as a token replacement for Senator Rhiannon. Neither of you received a single vote from the Australian public, but you line up in this chamber hungry for this public flogging of Senator Anning.

Australians were horrified at the murder of 50 people in Christchurch on 15 March this year, and we were horrified to think that these murders were at the hands of an Australian. Many of us thought Australia had witnessed its last mass shooting after the Port Arthur massacre, which resulted in John Howard, rightfully, introducing a ban on semiautomatic weapons throughout this country in 1996. But here we are, 23 years later, having to witness 50 innocent lives being taken at the hands of a crazed lone gunman. Hate, extremism and violence have no place in our democratic, civilised nations. I use this opportunity to reinstate One Nation's commitment to a peaceful rule of law for all, in accordance with our democratic Constitution and acts of parliament.

But, while Senator Anning's comments following the mass killings in New Zealand were untimely and, therefore, deemed highly insensitive, he still maintains a right to his opinion. If One Nation endorses your actions to censure Senator Anning today, our freedom of speech, as elected members of this chamber, will be removed. Who will be the next member of parliament stopped from speaking their thoughts or the thoughts of the people they represent? We refuse to be led like sheep in this chamber and, therefore, we will abstain from voting on this censure motion. Our vote will not contribute to the demise of freedom of speech and nor will it endorse the timing or tone of the comments made by Senator Anning. The exploitation of these murders in New Zealand is offensive and each one of you should be ashamed of the manipulation of the events that day to suit your own agenda. The people of Queensland, not us, will judge Senator Anning, at the ballot box.

Since the tragic event in New Zealand on 15 March, 65 additional terrorist attacks have been recorded across the globe. That's 418 people who have died as a result of terrorism over the last 18 days. Is this the future that politicians in this chamber want for the people of Australia? With more than 600,000 people coming into this country every year for work, permanent residency and education purposes, we have left ourselves vulnerable to the same carnage that is on display in other parts of the world. Only days ago, Prime Minister Scott Morrison made the announcement that this government would give an extra $570 million in funding to Australia's counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations. This is an admission that Scott Morrison's government has failed to keep terrorists out of Australia. Let's not forget—who opened the floodgates to the influx of these people coming to the country in the first place? The Labor Party. How many radical Islamic hate preachers have been allowed into Australia over the past decade, while we hear complete silence from Labor and the Greens on the vile language that spews out of their mouths while they indoctrinate and radicalise vulnerable Australians? You create a political witch-hunt when anyone dares question the immigration policy of this nation. The slightest whiff of protectionism in this country by the elites in this chamber sends you into a psychological frenzy.

Governments and elected members have three primary objectives: adhere to the Constitution, manage the economic stability and rule of law in our country and, lastly, stop telling people how to run their lives and businesses. Instead of getting on with the crafting of a robust economic narrative for Australia by drought-proofing our nation with visionary projects like the hybrid version of the Bradfield scheme or establishing ways to bring back manufacturing or cutting power prices with the construction of new coal-fired power plants, they're all here beating their chests. We've treated the people of this country with the same disdain and unworthiness that is thrust upon me and others who dare speak up—the forgotten voices of the nation.

The Australian people have been treated like mushrooms—fed complete BS and been kept in the dark. That is where One Nation steps in. We see the anguish, hurt and pain on the faces of ordinary Australians. We take the time to listen to their troubles and what they have to say. The people of Australia watch you sell your souls and this country out so you can hold your seats in this chamber. What do you say to the generational farmers who have been forced off the land due to the pittance they are being paid for their produce and lack of water which governments have failed to provide? Your actions speak louder than words because you continue flogging our prime agricultural land off to the highest bidder overseas. It's not foreign investment; it's called foreign takeover. What do you say to the homeless who once had no visible presence in our streets? Today more than 100,000 Australians are homeless, yet you bellow from the rafters when we dare to call to redivert the $4.2 billion in foreign aid into helping our own people. You've left the support of our returned defence personnel to the will of God, instead of assisting them to address the mental and physical scars that our wars have caused them. What do you say to the aged pensioners who are stumbling around in the dark, too afraid to use electricity because they're struggling to make ends meet, not even turning on their air conditioners and heaters because they're too scared? Today's censure motion is nothing but a public flogging, and One Nation won't be part of it.

I rise to speak in support of this censure motion. I was shocked and appalled by Senator Anning's disgraceful comments in the wake of the Christchurch tragedy. He is an embarrassment to our country and to this parliament. We must take this opportunity to rise as one and show that he does not speak for Australia, that he does not speak for this Senate. More broadly, it's time to draw a line in the sand. The Islamophobic race baiting and dog whistling engaged in by some politicians, commentators and media outlets must stop. If there's one thing the Christchurch tragedy should teach us, it is that there are real-world consequences to this behaviour.

It's time for those of us with megaphones, those of us in positions of power and influence, to reflect deeply on the impact of our words. We must rise above the politics of religious and racial division and disunity; it has no place in a modern, tolerant, multicultural society. I stand here as a passionate supporter of multicultural Australia. Our diversity and differences are what makes us strong and vibrant, and should be celebrated and embraced. Let us send a message to all those who wish to divide us, to tear us apart, that we are united and proud of our diversity and we will fight like hell to defend it.

This censure motion against me is a blatant attack on free speech. It is also an exercise in left-wing virtue signalling of the worst kind. Of course, this is exactly the kind of self-righteous left-wing intolerance of alternative views you would expect from an extremist party like the Greens. What is shocking is that it is a supposedly Liberal Prime Minister who is leading the charge, joining hands with Labor and the Greens. The specific reasons for moving a motion to censure me are barely coherent. The motion calls on the Senate to censure me for supposedly inflammatory and divisive comments seeking to attribute blame to the victims of a horrific crime. What inflammatory and divisive comments? What blame did I attribute to the victims? I said nothing of the sort.

Following this shocking attack on two mosques in Christchurch on 15 March, I issued a media statement condemning the shooting and the shooter in the strongest possible terms. However, after putting the immediate blame where it belonged, I looked for contributing causes. I identified that an immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand was a key enabler of community violence. The claim that this somehow blames the victims is absurd. My real crime, of course, is that I simply told the truth at a time when the left-wing political and media elites least wanted to hear it.

In the three weeks before the shooting in Christchurch, 120 Christians in Nigeria were shot or hacked to death by Muslims. The tragedy was not reported in a single Australian news outlet that I am aware of. Much closer to home, in the Philippines, in January a cathedral was bombed by Muslims, and 20 innocents attending mass were killed with over 100 injured. Where was the statement from Morrison's government denouncing the killers? Where was the outrage from the others condemning me? Just three days after the Christchurch killings, a Muslim fanatic killed three and wounded five others in a tram in Holland. Again, there was silence from those seeking to censure me now. Since the attack in Christchurch on 15 May there have been 66 new terrorist attacks committed worldwide by Muslims, killing 342 people and injuring many hundreds of others. Since the Islamic attack on the Twin Towers in New York on 11 September 2001, there have been more than 34,000 terrorist attacks conducted in the name of Islam. This is a staggering number.

Once again, we hear the deafening silence on these figures from those moving this censure motion—because, of course, Muslims as perpetrators does not fit their current narrative. Where was the parliament's condolence motion for these victims of Muslim terrorism? Yesterday, the government expressed solidarity with Muslim victims of one New Zealand attack, but the growing list of thousands of civilian victims of Muslim terrorism is ignored. Has everyone forgotten the scores of heinous terrorist attacks committed by Muslim fanatics, here in Australia and in France, Germany, Britain, Spain and the United States and elsewhere? Australians and New Zealanders should be able to both condemn the attacks in Christchurch but also see them in perspective and discuss related factors without being shouted down or subject to parliamentary censure.

Following my comments on the Christchurch shooting, I was a victim of a physical attack in Melbourne. Even though this only involved a young adult with an egg, it was nevertheless an example of politically motivated violence. While those who don't like me may have been delighted to see me attacked, we might have expected a statesmanlike response from the Prime Minister deploring such action—not at all. Prime Minister Morrison said that I should be charged. He was reported as saying that—although I had been a victim of politically motivated violence—I should be subject to 'the full force of the law'.

Yesterday, I asked Minister Birmingham if the government backed the Prime Minister's shocking statement that I have no place in parliament, and his apparent lack of concern for politically motivated violence against me. The answer was a resounding yes. It may have only been an idiot with an egg this time, but there is a continuum which begins with this and ends with a fanatic with a gun or a bomb. But, apparently, according to Prime Minister Morrison, that's okay as long as the victims are conservatives.

The Prime Minister loves to recycle his predecessor's mantra that Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world. What a ridiculous statement. By what criteria is this conclusion arrived at? It is an established fact that diversity undermines cohesion, increases alienation and is a key driver of increasing crime. It is also an established fact that if you import those who despise our values and beliefs and whose religion enjoins them to violence, then this sort of diversity leads to increasing violence and terrorism.

This censure motion against me is an attempt to deflect attention from the government's and the opposition's bipartisan commitment to reckless, indiscriminate immigration. They have a failed policy which is importing Muslims and Sudanese wholesale, despite the proven track records of both groups in causing crime and terrorism. In response to the Christchurch attack, the extreme Left, exemplified by the Greens, has seized on an opportunity to try to smear everyone right of centre as potentially violent racists. However, what is truly shocking is that the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, seems to have bought into that as well.

Advocating politically or religiously motivated violence is an indicator of extremism, not the quiet, reasonable and peaceful advocacy for a change in our immigration program before European Australians become a minority in our own country. Now innocent conservatives and even the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation are being accused of guilt for mass murder on the flimsy basis that the killer's manifesto opposed Islamic immigration to Europe. To blame conservatives for Christchurch, as is now happening, is as irrational as blaming socialist democrats for communist mass murder.

Apparent government sanctions to this left-wing exploitation of the Christchurch killings has abruptly tilted the Australian political landscape to the far Left. It has created an atmosphere of fear and suspicion of anyone who dissents from politically correct, left-wing orthodoxy. The idea that anyone with right-wing views might somehow be likely to undertake an attack similar to the attack by the deranged psychopath in New Zealand is just absurd. It's sinister and Orwellian. That a supposedly Liberal Prime Minister would buy into this extreme, left-inspired witch-hunt is frankly shocking and just shows how far to the left the Liberal Party has gone.

However, what fair-minded Australians will find most offensive about Prime Minister Morrison's response to my comments and about his government's support of this censure motion is not simply the left-wing self-righteousness but the gross hypocrisy. This year, the Morrison government is giving $43 million in aid to the Palestinian territories and another $50 million in aid to Pakistan, despite the fact that the Muslim governments of both countries sponsor terrorist attacks on their neighbours. His government is giving nearly $100 million in Australian taxpayers' dollars to Muslim countries whose governments are killing innocent Israelis and Indians, and he has the nerve to condemn me.

This censure motion against me is actually a reflection of the creeping neosocialism that is gradually eliminating freedom of conscience in Australia. This government refused to replace section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and refused to rein in the commissars of the Human Rights Commission. Now, along with Labor and the Greens, they seek to condemn someone for simply speaking the truth to power.

Saying that free speech is conditional on staying within the bounds that those in power stipulate, as Minister Birmingham said yesterday, is actually to say that there is no free speech at all. What is being censured here is not really me; it is the right of anyone to say something that those in power disagree with. If, as a senator, I am not allowed to express my views, what chance do everyday Australians have to say what they think? This left-wing, virtue-signalling censure motion is also a metaphor for everything that is wrong with this government. Sir Robert Menzies would be rolling in his grave.

If anyone ever wondered why this man should not be in this place and why this censure motion should go ahead, they've just heard it. You are a disgrace. Don't smile at me. Don't smile at the rest of us. People lost their lives, and you think it's a joke. You think it's a joke. What an absolute disgrace. He has no right to have the privilege to stand in this place and spout that hatred and that racism, and to be an apologist for terrorism and for murder. He is not fit to represent Australians in this place. He's not fit to be able to stand here, with the privileges that the role of senator comes with, and feed hate, division and horror.

We know where this leads because we've seen it. We saw it on 15 March in New Zealand. We know where it leads, because we've heard the names of the 50 people who died. This man—I'm not even going to call him 'Senator Anning', because he doesn't deserve it—has come in here and doubled down. He must be suspended. He does not deserve another moment of privilege in this place. He is not fit to represent the Australian people. He is not fit to call himself Australian. He is not us.

I want to get a few of my thoughts on the record today. We've talked a lot, and rightly so, about the role the polity—this chamber, the other place—has played in the rise of the politics of division, hate speech and race-baiting. I want to comment a little bit on the role that the media in this country has also played in this.

It's quite clear, from Senator Anning's statements in his first speech when he talked in here about 'the final solution', that a policy adviser had said to him—and these are Senator Anning's own words—that he needed something that disgusting and that shocking to get his speech covered in the media. Since I have been here, I've noticed this trend towards outrage, towards shock. I noticed it with my previous Tasmanian colleague Senator Lambie. She was one of the first people in this place to race-bait, to talk about banning burqas and Muslim immigration. I've seen it degenerate over the years. It's about getting a headline. It's about their personal gain. It's about politics.

When I reflect on the role that the media plays in this, I recall what my previous Leader of the Australian Greens said when he talked about the 'hate media' in this country. I will call it out. There are Rupert Murdoch publications in this country, like The Daily Telegraph, that everybody knows, black and white, have traded on dog-whistling around Muslim immigration, around Muslim terrorism, around immigration, and so on and so forth. We've seen it in recent weeks, with Sky TV. How do they get people to come in day after day, hour after hour, to sing off the same song sheet and say the same words about the Greens? How do these Murdoch mouthpieces operate so effectively in this country?

I'm sorry, but we absolutely should be reflecting on the role the polity has played in race-baiting and the rise of hate speech, and ultimately the grooming and radicalisation of an Australian man who became a white terrorist—and I use those two words very carefully because they're often used in the hate media in discussions about Muslims. This man was groomed and radicalised, here and overseas, and the media played an important role in that.

So, while we should rightfully be reflecting on our role and how we can improve it, and always calling out race-baiting and hate speech within our own ranks, it is absolutely essential that the media, especially elements of the Murdoch media, do exactly the same thing in this country. They need to be called out every time they race-bait. They need to be called out for the role that they've played, and they absolutely need to change that as well.

I'm going to put the motion moved by Senators Cormann and Wong. I did have a request from a senator—Senator Bernardi, who's not in the chamber—to put clause (d) separately. I'll look to the Clerk to see what I should do, given that I've had the request but the senator is not present. In deference, I'll put the request separately. I have let Senator Bernardi know this is going to a vote now. Here is Senator Bernardi: paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are to be put, in accordance with your request for (d) to be put separately. He has acknowledged that. The question is that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in notice of motion No. 2 in the names of Senators Cormann and Wong be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Now I'll put paragraph (d) of that motion. The question is that paragraph (d) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I think it might be a good thing for the record to note that no senator voted against the operative censure provision in that motion.

Yes. I heard no voice against paragraph (d).

May I record, for the record, that I was opposed to (a), (b) and (c)?

So recorded. Senator Burston, are you raising a point of order?

No. For the record, I think it should be noted that One Nation abstained from that vote.

It wasn't a recorded vote, so it only reflects those who were in the chamber.

I, and also on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) following the horrific 1996 Port Arthur mass shooting, the Howard Government, with bipartisan support and with the support of Australia's state and territory Governments, implemented world-leading national gun law reform which has made Australia safer, including through:

     (A) a National Firearms Agreement that banned the sale, resale, transfer, ownership, possession, manufacture and use of those firearms, such as semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms, banned or proposed to be banned from import other than in exceptional circumstances,

     (B) establishment or enhancements to existing registration systems, effectively creating a national registration system between jurisdictions,

     (C) an amnesty and gun buyback period during which prohibited and unregistered weapons could be surrendered, and

     (D) basic licence requirements and licence categories, and

  (ii) in 2017, the Coalition Government conducted a further national firearm amnesty, which resulted in 57,324 firearms being handed in—of those, 33,044 (57.6%) were subsequently registered, 4,106 (7.2%) were sold and 20,174 (35.2%) were destroyed;

(b) acknowledges the deep sense of shock, horror and sadness felt by all Australians following the Port Arthur mass shooting and empathises with the deep hurt and sense of loss which continues to be felt by the many survivors and the families and friends of the victims of the Port Arthur massacre back in 1996; and

(c) reaffirms its unequivocal commitment to the national gun law reforms implemented in 1996, which have stood the test of time and demonstrably made Australia a safer place for all Australians.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

You don't need leave. This can be debated.

And I'm also seeking to have paragraph (2) treated separately from the remainder, if possible.

Paragraph (2)? There's (a), (b) and (c). You do mean (a)(ii)?

No. I mean (b).

Okay.

This is not my first speech. This motion relates to the National Firearms Agreement. I can understand the widespread opinion that the National Firearms Agreement, known as the NFA, should be supported, but this motion goes beyond an expression of opinion. It asserts that the National Firearms Agreement has demonstrably made Australia safer. This is an empirical claim that is at odds with expert analysis.

I quote Dr Andrew Leigh, Labor's shadow Assistant Treasurer, who, before becoming a politician, was one of Australia's finest economists and statisticians. Dr Leigh wrote:

… time series analysis cannot conclusively answer the question of whether the NFA led to lower gun deaths.

Senators are not here to follow groupthink. We should not say things that are 'truthy' or things that we feel should be right. We should show some leadership, which means being willing to state the uncomfortable truth. Whilst I reiterate the widespread opinion that the NFA should be supported, this motion goes beyond that. It says that it has demonstrably made Australia safer, and that is at odds with that quote from Dr Andrew Leigh. Let's have a commitment to truth in this chamber.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this motion. This is an important motion on an important topic. We need to remember that currently no Australian state or territory has fully complied with the National Firearms Agreement—which is completely unacceptable. There have been more than 50 breaches of the NFA since it was first implemented. There are more than three million licensed firearms in Australia. That's a rise of almost a million guns since the gun buybacks in 1997. I'll say that again: a million guns. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates that there are more than 260,000 firearms in the illicit firearms market. We need to rekindle the kind of political courage we saw after the Port Arthur massacre and push back against any move to weaken our gun laws. Complacency is not an option. We have to remain vigilant and actively work to make sure our gun control laws remain strong and are keeping pace with the latest changes in firearms technologies.

I'm sure most people here have seen the Al Jazeera investigation that exposed Pauline Hanson's One Nation party attempting to solicit donations from the American gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, with a promise to try to weaken our gun laws. This should be extraordinarily alarming for each and every one of us. We know the gun lobby is becoming increasingly active in Australia in its push to weaken gun laws. A recent report from the Australia Institute found that Australia's gun lobby spent more per capita on political donations in one year than America's National Rifle Association did, in 2018. Various Australian gun groups have donated $1.7 million to political parties since 2011. All political entities, I think, that have taken donations from the gun lobby should immediately return that money. The Greens will ban all political donations from gun lobbies.

The question is the motion moved by Senators Cormann and Wong be agreed to. I will put paragraph (b) separately in accordance with the request from Senator Spender. So the question is that paragraphs (a) and (c) of notice of motion No. 3 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I will now put paragraph (b) of notice of motion No. 3. The question is that that paragraph be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate require all senators to provide statements in relation to disqualification under sections 44 or 45 of the Constitution in the following terms:

Senators' qualifications

Register of Senators' qualifications relating to sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution

(1) The Registrar of Senators' Interests shall, in accordance with procedures determined by the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests, maintain a Register of senators' qualifications (the Register), comprising material:

(a) provided by senators elected or appointed during the 45th Parliament, and entered into the Register of Senators' Interests as 'Statements in relation to citizenship';

(b) tabled on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission in accordance with s.181B of Part XIV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 in respect of elected senators;

(c) provided by senators appointed to fill casual vacancies, in a disclosure form prescribed by the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests; and

(d) provided by senators in accordance with the obligation to provide an attestation, supplementary information, or a statement under paragraphs (5), (6), (7) or (8).

(2) Other than as provided for in this order, the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests has the same powers and functions in relation to the Register as it does in relation to the Register of Senators' Interests.

(3) The Registrar shall publish the Register and any supplementary information as soon as practicable after a senator has provided documents to the Registrar, or after tabling of documents on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission.

(4) The Registrar shall remove information from the published copy of the Register when a senator ceases to hold office as a senator.

Requirement to provide statements and supplementary information

(5) Within 28 days of making and subscribing an oath or affirmation in accordance with section 42 of the Constitution, each elected senator shall provide to the Registrar a statement attesting to the Senate the accuracy and completeness of the material provided to, and tabled on behalf of, the Australian Electoral Commission in respect of the senator's last nomination for election in accordance with Part XIV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

(6) In making an attestation in accordance with paragraph (5), a senator may provide supplementary material. Supplementary material may augment, explain, or correct earlier information, but must not result in removal from the Register of material that was previously entered on the Register.

(7) Within 28 days of making and subscribing an oath or affirmation in accordance with section 42 of the Constitution, each senator appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall provide to the Registrar a statement disclosing qualifications related to sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution.

(8) If a senator becomes aware that information they have attested to, in accordance with paragraphs (5) or (7), or subsequently provided in accordance with paragraph (6), can no longer be regarded as accurate, the senator shall provide supplementary material to the Registrar as soon as practicable, but no later than 28 days, after the senator becomes aware of the inaccuracy. Such supplementary material does not cause earlier material to be removed from the Register.

(9) The Standing Committee of Senators' Interests shall prescribe a form or forms for the purposes of paragraphs (5), (6), (7) or (8), which shall be consistent with the disclosure requirements in Part XIV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

Consideration of possible disqualification matters

(10) The Senate will deal with any question concerning a senator's qualification under the Constitution only in accordance with the following procedures, and not otherwise.

(11) If a senator becomes aware of circumstances that give rise to a possible disqualification under sections 44 or 45, arising from facts not disclosed either on the Register during the immediate preceding Parliament, or in accordance with Part XIV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the senator may provide a statement of those circumstances to the President. Any material redacted from the material entered onto the Register, including redactions from documents tabled on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission is taken not to have been disclosed.

(12) If, and only if, a matter satisfies the conditions in paragraph (11), the President shall, as soon as practicable, report the matter to the Senate, and the senator who raised the matter may give notice of a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests for inquiry and report.

(13) Before reporting on such a matter, the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests shall provide a reasonable opportunity for a senator affected by the reference to respond to the allegations, to the evidence before the committee, and to any recommendation the committee proposes to make.

(14) If, on the evidence before it, the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests considers that there is sufficient doubt about a senator's qualifications, then the committee may recommend that the matter be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; however, the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests shall not make such a recommendation unless it determines that the question arises from facts not disclosed either on the Register during the immediate preceding Parliament, or in accordance with Part XIV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

(15) When a question respecting a senator's qualification turns solely upon the interpretation or application of foreign citizenship law, the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests shall not recommend that the question be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns unless the committee has taken evidence from experts in the relevant foreign law and the committee considers there is a sufficient possibility that the senator is or was a foreign citizen under the relevant foreign law at the relevant time.

Referral to Court of Disputed Returns

(16) Notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders or any other resolution, no senator may move a motion to refer any question to the Court of Disputed Returns under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 unless the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests has considered whether the matter be so referred and reported to the Senate. After the committee has made such a report, a senator may, without notice, move to refer the matter to the Court of Disputed Returns.

False statements or omissions regarded as contempt

(17) Any senator who:

(a) knowingly fails to provide the material required by this resolution to the Registrar within the required timeframe; or

(b) knowingly fails to correct an inaccuracy in any material within the required timeframe; or

(c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar;

shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the Senate and shall be dealt with by the Senate accordingly.

(18) A question of whether any senator has committed such a serious contempt shall first be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report.

(19) This order is of continuing effect.

The opposition will be supporting this motion. As senators would be well aware, the issue of section 44 eligibility has plagued this parliament and our democracy.

In May last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters issued their report on section 44 and the issue of eligibility. Firstly, the committee recommended that broad constitutional change be considered to reflect the exclusionary consequences of section 44 on our democratic institutions. However, short of constitutional change, the committee recommended that the government investigate measures to mitigate the impact of section 44 on the parliament. Importantly, the committee noted that the supremacy of the parliament and the High Court in these matters be respected.

The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018, which passed through this parliament last year, implemented an eligibility checklist as a compulsory requirement for every person nominating as a federal candidate. This compulsory requirement is vital to provide the Australian public with the faith that, regardless of who they choose to vote for, these issues have been addressed in some capacity. The Australian Electoral Commission, in anticipation of a federal election being called, are already updating their process in response to this legislation.

The motion before us ensures that the Senate can appropriately consider questions of eligibility in the future, complementing those measures introduced in the aforementioned legislation. The parliament has a responsibility to provide the Australian public with certainty, and the opposition will support this motion to achieve this. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that racism, extremism and hate speech have no place in our Australian democracy; and

(b) calls on all Australian political parties to put candidates and political parties that support these views, including One Nation, last on their electoral preferences in the upcoming Federal election.

I seek leave to make a very short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

T his relates to the importance of putting One Nation and other extremists last on how-to-vote cards .

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

We agree that racism, extremism and hate speech has no place in our Australian democracy. However, it is not up to the Senate to dictate how political parties determine how they allocate their preferences. Electoral matters are for the determination by party organisations.

Question agreed to.

At the request of senators Watt and Cameron, I move general business notice of motion No. 1450:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 24 October 2017, an unauthorised leak to the media occurred concerning an upcoming raid by the Australian Federal Police and Registered Organisations Commission on the offices of the Australian Workers Union,

(ii) the then Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, appeared before the Education and Employment Legislation Committee at the 2017-18 supplementary Budget estimates hearing on 25 October 2017, and misled the Senate five times regarding her office's involvement in the leak, and has since refused to correct the record,

(iii) Senator Cash has since relied on this evidence, including by providing it in a letter to the Australian Federal Police,

(iv) since giving evidence:

(A) former personal staff of Senator Cash have made admissions in court, under oath, about their role in leaking confidential information concerning the raid,

(B) the Australian Federal Police gave evidence at the 2018-19 additional estimates that Senator Cash sent them a letter in relation to their investigation into the leak which they would not classify as a witness statement, that she refused to provide a witness statement despite at least two requests to do so, and that there was a prima facie case to support a conviction for a criminal offence in relation to the leak, beyond reasonable doubt, and

(C) the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions gave evidence at the 2018-19 additional estimates that there was a prima facie case to support a conviction for a criminal offence, it was in the public interest to prosecute an offence in relation to the leak, it did not pursue a prosecution because there were not reasonable prospects of a conviction, the failure of certain witnesses to provide witness statements was a factor in it deciding there were not reasonable prospects of a conviction, and Senator Cash did not provide a witness statement to the Australian Federal Police, and

(v) notes that paragraph 1.3 (iv) of the Ministerial Standards states "Ministers must accept the full implications of the principle of ministerial responsibility. They will be required to answer for the consequences of their decisions and actions"; and

(b) requires Senator Cash to attend the 2019-20 Budget estimates hearings of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on Friday, 5 April 2019, in order to answer questions relating to her in relation to her former portfolio responsibilities and provide a full and frank explanation to the Senate regarding the inconsistencies between her original evidence to the committee, and:

(i) new evidence provided by former members of her staff in court, under oath, in relation to her office's involvement, and

(ii) subsequent evidence given by the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions at the 2018-19 additional estimates.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government opposes this motion, because it contains a number of mistruths. Minister Cash has answered numerous hours of questions at several estimates hearings concerning the matter since October 2017 and has provided consistent answers throughout this period. She will again be at Senate estimates this Friday. The person who refuses to answer questions about this matter is Bill Shorten. He still needs to explain to the Australian people whether union donations to his own personal campaign and to GetUp! were properly authorised.

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

The standing orders clearly go to the sorts of comments about a person in another place that the senator was making. I know that she has been given these talking points, but it is inappropriate to use a statement by leave to engage in a personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator Wong, it may be inappropriate, but I didn't detect a breach of the standing orders, other than maybe the lack of use of a formal title for Mr Shorten. Leave was granted to make a one-minute statement, so I'm afraid that the statement was not out of order. I will now put the motion. The question is that the motion No. 1450 be agreed to.

I move:

Parliamentary Transparency Charter

Preamble

Transparency is essential for a well-functioning democracy. The (House of Representatives and the) Senate commit to pursuing the following transparency reforms to improve the integrity of, and public confidence in, our national government.

Reforms

National Integrity Commission

Establish an independent National Integrity Commission to oversee the activities of public officials and empowered to conduct public hearings and make public findings of fact.

Real-time disclosure of political donations above $1,000

Amend political donation laws to require disclosure of donations above $1,000 by recipients in as close to 'real-time' as practical.

Enhanced freedom of information arrangements

Boost funding to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and FOI units within departments and agencies and improve FOI review processing times.

Enhanced whistleblower protections

Further consolidate the whistleblower protection regime and enhance existing whistleblower protections.

Overhaul lobbyist rules

Legislate lobbying code of conduct and require lobbyists to disclose who they meet with and the subject matter of their meeting on a monthly basis. Expand lobbyist register to include in-house lobbyists.

Conduct standards for parliamentarians

Develop a Statement of Parliamentarian Standards, modelled on the Statement of Ministerial Standards, applicable to all parliamentarians.

Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner

Establish an independent Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner, empowered to enforce standards of parliamentary conduct, oversee interest disclosure requirements and deal with allegations of misuse of public funds, blatant falsehoods in political advertising, and breaches of lobbyist rules.

(2) That this resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives for concurrence.

I seek leave to make a short statement and to table a document.

You'll need to get the document to the whips for them to see it in order to get leave. Leave is granted for one minute for the statement.

Public confidence in our federal politics is at an all-time low. With scandal after scandal involving corruption, misuse of public funds, political donations, unregulated lobbyists and attacks on whistleblowers, it's no wonder people are fed up. My parliamentary transparency charter aims to improve the integrity of, and public confidence in, our national government. It represents common sense, achievable and deeply needed reform.

Sixteen crossbenchers from both the House and the Senate, representing different ideological backgrounds, have signed the charter and committed to pursuing its reform. The public should know who they are: Cathy McGowan; Andrew Wilkie; Adam Bandt; Senators Griff, Patrick and Burston; and all nine senators from the Australian Greens. If the crossbenchers can put aside our differences and recognise that this reform is needed in our politics, why can't the major parties? To be clear, this motion would pass if just one of the major parties voted for it; we would have the numbers. In the lead-up to the election, the public will know who in this chamber is committed to meaningful reform that will restore belief in our federal politics and who is not. I implore my Senate colleagues to realise— (Time expired)

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The opposition will not be supporting this motion. The opposition understands the intent of the motion by Senator Storer and his passion for parliamentary integrity. That is why Labor is committed to establishing a national integrity commission, lowering the disclosure threshold for political donations to a fixed $1,000 and progressing real-time disclosure of donations. It is why Labor forced the government to ban foreign donations from our system and protect against foreign influence. However, this motion contains a number of provisions that require detailed policy consideration and further consultation prior to introduction. As such, we will not be supporting this motion.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

This is not my first speech. There are some problems with Senator Storer's motion on transparency. Firstly, it seeks to set up an integrity commission with public hearings. Public hearings are not necessarily a good idea; they can involve the chamber becoming a star chamber. There are technical suggestions about reducing thresholds for public donations. The main point to make about public donations is that parties' policies are on the public record, and the voters determine which parties they want in this place. There's a suggestion for more funding for freedom of information. We don't necessarily know that we need more funding; there could be a need for a shift of funding. With regard to enhanced whistleblower protections, what particular enhanced whistleblower protections? Some whistleblower protections go too far. There's a suggestion we need to control lobbyists more. Lobbyists need to be able communicate with the public; otherwise we all end in one big echo chamber. Finally, to the idea that we need a code of conduct for politicians, voters are our bosses—no-one else.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I rise to just note and welcome this motion. It consolidates probably 10 years of Greens work on integrity measures. We're in full support of all of the points in this charter. In fact, the ICAC legislation was first proposed by Senator Bob Brown in 2009. We welcome the fact that other parties have now, after many years of denigrating the suggestion, adopted it as their own and we certainly hope that many of these other parties likewise do a 180-degree and decide that it's their policy also; however, we won't hold our breath on that. I note that, on donations, not only do we support the lowering of the disclosure threshold but we want to see donations capped, by everybody. Big money should not be running our politics anymore; this is not America. It is time for people in this place to represent their constituents, not their donors.

The question is that motion No. 1446 be agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate—

(b) Senator Anning be suspended from the sittings of the Senate and its committees for a period of one day.

Mr President, it's really important to get a few facts on the table here. I note there is some commentary, informed by your statement made today, that such a motion may be unconstitutional. As I said earlier, it's disappointing that that commentary is now running. Your statement didn't refer to any specific motion that we were putting forward, and it would have been helpful had we discussed the very nature of our motion, because this motion makes it very clear that we are seeking a suspension of Senator Anning based on not just his efforts to attribute blame to the victims of the Christchurch massacre outside the chamber but indeed his invocation of the final solution, something he did while he was in the chamber. Further, the motion has been revised to make it very clear that it relates also to Senator Anning's response to the censure motion. His response to the censure motion only a short time ago further sought to blame the victims of that terrorist incident and to vilify people on the basis of religion. I won't go into it, but when you have somebody saying that importing Sudanese migrants wholesale was a failed policy or that Muslim migrants are driven to violence, which leads to increasing violence and terrorism here in Australia, that is the sort of speech that deserves not just condemnation but suspension.

Let us be clear on that first, technical point: this Senate has the power to suspend Senator Anning. Let's be really clear on the second point: we need to decide what standards we are prepared to accept in this chamber. I was suspended from this chamber for calling out sexism. We are now saying that somebody should be suspended for the same period of time for their inflammatory and divisive remarks, comments which amount to hate speech and were made in this chamber. If you ever needed proof of why a suspension is necessary, have a look at the response from Senator Anning to the censure motion. How seriously do you think Senator Anning has taken this censure motion? Indeed, we heard that horrific contribution from Senator Georgiou, reading out a prepared statement effectively backing him in, not supporting a censure motion. We need to go further and make a clear and unequivocal statement; 1½ million people have now signed a petition to say, 'How on earth does this man get the platform that he has in this chamber?' Many millions more Australians are asking the same question.

Senator Bernardi in his pathetic contribution to the debate talked about hate speech and where you draw the line. I'll tell you where a good place to start is. When you talk about the Final Solution in your speech—how about we start from there? When you seek to blame the victims of a massacre, of a terrorist incident—how about we start from there? That's a good place to start. We're open to a debate about where you draw the line. Lines are drawn all the time. Through the course of the debate against the amendments to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, we made a clear-headed decision about where that line should be drawn. Some people wanted to shift it. Some people thought that people had a right to be bigots, but we were concerned that, if you say that someone's got a right to be a bigot, it's only a small step to them acting on that bigotry, and the Australian community came together and said, 'This is where we want that line drawn.' Well, they are coming together right now and saying to us: 'Make a statement. Don't just use empty words but act.' You don't defeat fascism and you don't defeat the parliamentary representative of an emerging Neo-Nazi movement by simply waving your hand and saying what they've said is bad. You do something about it.

We have the power to suspend Senator Anning from this chamber. We could kick him out for the rest of the day. That's all we're asking for. We have amended this motion to say that, in the context of him referring to the 'final solution' in the Senate chamber and in the context of his response to the censure motion, he deserves, at the very least, to be suspended from this chamber for a period of 24 hours. Let's not forget that, only a short time ago, this chamber voted to suspend someone for calling out sexism. How is it that we can have a set of rules that allow this chamber to suspend someone for calling out sexism and yet we haven't got the courage to come together and make a unified statement to say, 'Those views are not welcome on the floor of this parliament'? This is a sacred place. We are elected here to represent the community. We've got our differences—of course we do. We've got differences over the economy; we've got differences over how we address climate change. We have those debates in the chamber all the time, but the one thing that unites us all is that we do not seek to use hate speech to divide our community on the basis of race or religion. We don't do that. That's not what Australia is.

Well, how about this parliament makes a statement now? How about this parliament says to the 1½ million people who signed the petition given to Senator Faruqi to table in this place that we're with them, not with One Nation and not with those other voices of hate? Why don't we tell them that we are with the Australian community and we come together at this moment not just to wave our finger and say 'tut-tut' but to take concrete action to deny this attention seeker the platform that he craves? We can do that right now. All it would take is a simple vote of the chamber and he would be suspended. If the censure motion we debated today had any force, we would have seen some contrition from that senator. We didn't see that. We saw him double down. We saw him use the tactics of the NRA: when you're attacked, go on the offence, offence, offence. It's about time that we as a chamber and as parliamentarians representing the Australian people say enough is enough. It's time to boot this bloke out. It's time for us to make a stand.

The coalition will be supporting part (a), for the reasons so eloquently presented by Senator Birmingham in his contribution this week, but we do not support part (b) of this motion, for the reasons that were outlined by you, Mr President—because we believe that suspension is not the relevant sanction under these circumstances. So we seek for this motion to be divided and ask that parts (a)(i), (ii) and (iii) be separated from part (b).

I rise today to speak with a sense of disappointment and a deep and abiding feeling of anger. I'm disappointed because once again we find ourselves here condemning the actions of one or two senators who've sought to use hate speech in the recent atrocities overseas to promote their divisive and dangerous political agenda. I know that these feelings of disappointment and anger are felt not only across the political spectrum in this place but also in the hearts of millions of Australians who rightly expect better from their community leaders.

I would like to make clear that I and the entire Labor Party stand strongly and defiantly against the statements and actions of Senator Anning following the recent attacks on two mosques in Christchurch. We stand united against people who seek to divide our nation, particularly at a time when Australia is craving leadership, stability and harmony. And I acknowledge the important contribution of Senator Wong in articulating in her speech this morning the point of tension between celebrating the democratic freedom of speech and the right to that freedom of speech with a principled rejection of hate speech, because to do otherwise undermines our democracy.

I would like to state that the opposition will not be supporting this motion today—certainly not part (b) of it—as we've taken a position on this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the actions that this motion essentially seeks to address took place outside the chamber.

Wrong! Read the motion.

It is a well-asserted principle that this chamber should act where breaches are committed inside the parliament. I will take the interjection from Senator Di Natale, who protests. In the shape that it's finally arrived here in the chamber, at 11.45, after having not been shown to us in any form until after 10 am this morning, it has a modesty veil to try to pretend that it's about action here in the Senate. But everybody knows that you are riding a wave of genuine anger across this community, which we accept, but using a device that I think is quite deceptive.

It was only a matter of weeks ago that we saw this very Senate vote to suspend a member of this place for words and actions that took place in this chamber. It was proper and appropriate action but very different to the scenario that we have before us now. I repeat: that action was for behaviour inside this chamber, and that action is absolutely in accord with the rules and established practices that govern the Senate. Senator Di Natale has, at the last minute, informed the chamber that this motion is actually regarding comments made in this place. I have to question the motives of Senator Di Natale. This motion could have been circulated to all senators in this place with an appropriate level of notice that afforded people the time to reflect on its content and make an informed decision, but he chose not to do that.

In reality, the situation that's before us is that Senator Di Natale has only sought to bring this motion to the chamber today on the eve of an election and following comments made by Senator Anning in the wake of the horrific events in Christchurch. Senator Di Natale has said today that his moves to try to suspend Senator Anning are based on comments made in this chamber, but I don't think that is believable or credible to try to convince members of this place. Senator Di Natale had the chance to move to suspend Senator Anning at the time that the comments he refers to were actually made. He did not do that. Senator Di Natale had the chance at the time to take the level of action he believed necessary. He did not do that. Senator Di Natale is within his rights to move this suspension motion today, but let's call it for what it is. This is a motion that he's chosen to raise in the aftermath of the New Zealand terrorist attack and it is something that is seeking to deal with the comments and actions of Senator Anning in response to this horrific incident, which I remind him were made outside this chamber.

Today we as a Senate have banded together to condemn Senator Anning. His comments and actions were deplorable and pathetic. He's seeking to capitalise on some people's darkest hours for his own political gain. We stand against these views and we stand against this man. We have done what the Australian people expect of us. We've defiantly voted to condemn Senator Anning and to support harmony and unity over division and hate. Labor has taken our position on this motion that is before us right now because we believe that progressive voices need to be protected in this place. It would be a dangerous precedent to set where suspensions of this nature become yet another political procedural tool by conservative members in this place to silence those with progressive views. I would warn those on the Greens bench, who sometimes engage in somewhat radical political discourse and a lot of indignant posturing, against setting a benchmark that they may well be unable to meet themselves.

The motion that the Greens political party have put before the Senate today is seductive. It appears, at first glance, to be a way to vent our collective disgust, a quick-fix method to lance the boil that is festering in our nation in the form of Senator Anning. We all just want to be rid of it. Indeed, 1.4 million Australians have let us know that they feel the same. But we should not let the seduction of the undertaking of such a cathartic action blind us to the risks to democracy that lie in following the path that the Greens political party has laid out before us in this motion to suspend Senator Anning today. As parliamentarians, we are certainly servants of the people of Australia: every day, we serve the people of Australia. In this matter, I say to the 1.4 million Australians who signed that petition: we do hear you.

As we take our places on these benches, we must remember that, if we're judicious, we will also hear the wisdom of those who have served here before us, and we will acknowledge established, tried and true traditions for the sustainable practices of the parliament. I acknowledge, Mr President, your contribution this morning, which was to provide some clarity around that. We cannot act today with wisdom if we ignore the wisdom of those who have preceded us in this place. On the suspension of senators, their advice was well articulated by the President in his statement: we should not suspend senators except in the very specific circumstances that are clearly identified for us in standing orders 203 and 204. Our actions today with regard to this motion have portent beyond this day, and could fundamentally change the precedents of the Senate with regard to the suspension of senators. If we overstep the mark, what we do will likely be subject to legal challenge. I cannot see how that achieves the will of those who are, rightly, outraged by Senator Anning and yearn to see him gone from the political landscape. This parliament is one constant in a world of political turmoil that rises and falls like a tide across the history of this nation. The stability of the institution, its processes and procedures have, for the most part, served us well.

This motion and its outcome is not just a matter for today. This is not just a matter of great interest to those 1.4 million Australians who have asked us to suspend Senator Anning because of his appalling behaviour. It's of interest to every voting Australian. What we do today in this matter reveals to Australians the power of their vote to determine who comes into parliament. If we reject the Greens' motion before us, it will reveal the enduring value of the vote of each and every Australian who accepts and enacts their rights and responsibilities as citizens to determine the formulation of our parliament. Our response today matters. It shows people that we get in this place who the Australian people vote for, and we're stuck with one another. Our determination today on this motion will show one of two things: either that your vote as a citizen is very powerful and long-lasting in its impact; or that your vote as a citizen is an indication of who you want in the parliament, but senators can remove the people that you elect.

I remind senators that—despite the churning of senators we have seen through this place as the implications of section 44, the constitutional qualification, washed through here—the elected government has continued to govern and the parliament has continued to function. It has not functioned particularly well, in my view, but it has continued despite that chaos. The stability of our parliament in the changing times is something of value that we should consider here today.

Labor's decision on this motion before us has not been made lightly. This is a weighty and serious issue, and one that has been considered carefully and at the highest levels of the opposition. There has only been one occasion where this kind of action has been taken by the Australian parliament. That occurred in 1920. Mr Hugh Mahon was expelled by then Prime Minister Billy Hughes for his views on British policy and remarks about the monarchy and the British Empire. I should note that, following changes to the Parliamentary Privileges Act, neither of the houses has the power to expel. However, given the outpouring of despair that we have seen reflected via so many Australians asking us to suspend Senator Anning, it is warranted that we view a decision like the one before us today with considerable rigour. As a responsible party of government, the Labor Party does not believe that behaviour or conduct outside of the Senate chamber should be punished in this way by the Senate unless the Senate is acting in compliance with the standing orders. What the Greens are seeking to do today is to blur the boundary. They are seeking to assume a dangerous position of moral righteousness in the limelight of a looming election.

Let's be clear: I understand that the Greens have a political purpose here today. I also acknowledge that the decision the opposition have taken today may well be used by our political opponents in the course of the upcoming election. However, unlike the Greens political party, Labor are seeking the endorsement of the Australian people to form a mature and responsible government—a government that carefully ensures the value of each vote cast at an election is retained for the whole course of a parliament. Today, our decision is in keeping with those attributes.

I would like to clearly reinforce that our decision to oppose this suspension motion in no way means that we endorse the views or actions of Senator Anning. His utterances and actions are disgusting. They are dangerous. They are, quite plainly, divisive and unworthy of a person given the honour and privilege of serving our nation in this parliament. Senator Anning's opinions that have surfaced in recent weeks have no place in our community, let alone here in our parliament, and people will have their chance to speak loudly with their vote in just a few weeks time.

People with divisive views and extreme ideologies like Senator Anning, who entered this place on the coat-tails of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, need to be sent a strong and enduring message: it will not be tolerated. The Australian people need to stand ready to deliver the admonishment that Senator Anning deserves.

I had hoped that I wouldn't have to make a speech of this kind. I had hoped that some lessons may have been learned about the negative and dangerous impacts of hate speech. I strongly urge Senator Anning to reflect deeply on his views. They are completely at odds with any civilised notion of humanity.

We are a strong community. We are a proud multicultural nation. We are a tolerant and open-minded society that warmly embraces different cultures and religions. We can clearly say today that this Senate condemns you, Senator Anning. We condemn your actions. We condemn your words. We condemn your attempts to divide Australia.

I say to Queenslanders: use your vote and reject this man and any others of his kind. The power of the vote of Australians is firmly in the hands of those who have the right to determine the character of this place. I have confidence in the Australian people.

I didn't want to speak on this motion, because Senator Di Natale very eloquently expressed the views of the Greens, including mine, but I can't remain silent after the speech by Senator O'Neill. I do need to respond to some of the comments she made. The first one was that this motion asks for the suspension of Senator Anning based on his comments outside of this chamber and that, procedurally, that can't happen, which is an inaccurate statement. If Senator O'Neill reads the motion, it very clearly says that it is also about invoking 'the final solution' while speaking in the Senate, which does not reflect the opinions of the Australian Senate.

But you didn't do anything at the time.

The Greens moved a motion at that time to censure Senator Anning, which both the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties voted down, so please don't stand here and tell us that we didn't do anything at that time. We did.

This is a pretty straightforward motion. Even if you had seen it five minutes ago, which you didn't, you can see exactly what it says. So, again, don't come and stand here and tell us that we didn't give you enough time to look at this motion.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Order, Senator O'Neill. You were heard in silence.

I want to also talk about Senator O'Neill's accusations that the Greens are doing this because of some political imperative. This is completely and utterly about a moral imperative, Senator O'Neill, and you know that. Standing up here and criticising the Greens every time, whether you actually agree with us or not at this time, is the political imperative that you have. That's what you're trying to do. We have been standing here strongly for years against racism, against xenophobia, no matter which community it is done against or no matter who spouts that language. That's what we are doing today. So, to both the Labor and Liberal parties: if you have any guts, stand with what you were saying yesterday and what you have been saying this morning. Don't just talk the talk—walk the walk. This motion is about suspending the senator who stands in here and spouts fascist speech, hate speech. He stands out there as well doing exactly the same. So, walk the walk. This is a suspension. This is not about a democratic thing of elected politicians. If politicians spout hate speech in here, then we have every right to suspend them for a day. You have done this before. You have done this to Senator Richard Di Natale, who was actually standing up against sexism. Surely, you can do it for someone who has racist, bigoted views and who spouts them in this parliament.

This is not about the Greens. This is about racism. This is about a situation where we could have this society deteriorate to the same situation as we have in the worst areas of the United States. For the Greens to stand up here and do as they always do in that they are purer, they are better, they have got all the knowledge and all the wisdom is just another example of why they will never get more than seven, eight, nine or 10 per cent of the voting public in this country—because they just don't get it.

You want to turn this into being about you. It's not about you. It's about making this place a better country. I'm just sick and tired of the Greens at times, getting up here when we could be making clear and unequivocal statements about where we head as a nation. That the Greens suddenly turn it into a political position to try and promote their deteriorating electoral position in this country is just disgusting. It's absolutely disgusting. We had an opportunity today to be a combined Senate—a Senate that was dealing with the issues. But you couldn't let that go. I've watched you now for 11 years. It's always about the Greens. It's always about some political advantage. It's just not good enough today. You should have actually accepted that the Senate was certainly considering this in an appropriate way and made the appropriate points—but it wasn't good enough for the Greens, not pure enough for the Greens.

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Senator Di Natale, if you could get your own house in order then you might have some credibility when you come in here. But the Greens political party has got no credibility. If you could just get your house in order then maybe someone would take you seriously, because no-one does at the moment.

Order! There being no further contributions, I am going to make a contribution, as I indicated earlier.

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Order! Senator Di Natale, you made the observation earlier that you would have appreciated my advice earlier. I was at no point given a draft motion about a suspension while this has been subject to public debate, and I thought it appropriate to frame the debate in the Senate, given the public commentary about that. But at no point was I given advance notice of a specific motion or term of motion. I made—

Nor did you seek one.

Senator Di Natale, I listened to you quietly. You could return some courtesy. At no point was I given a draft motion. I therefore thought it appropriate, given the public commentary, to outline, with the advice I had taken from the clerk, the powers of the Senate. Now, to this matter, my statement earlier today confirmed the ability of the Senate to suspend a senator in relation to disorder in the chamber. I don't believe that the conduct outlined in this motion, reprehensible though it may be, meets the test that has been set for a breach of the standing orders or disorderly conduct. I also think it clearly does not meet the test that I outlined earlier—the statutory test of contempt.

Senator Di Natale, you referred to the period where the Senate suspended you. You were suspended for a refusal to respect the authority of the chair, not for the comments that you made. And it is unfair, and unreasonable and incorrect, to conflate the two incidents. Standing orders can always be amended to create further notions of disorderly conduct. That is within the power of the Senate. But the conduct outlined in this motion, to my mind, does not meet the test of disorderly conduct.

This isn't a debate about accepting or otherwise what Senator Anning said. The Senate has, in my view, rightly expressed its view earlier today that those comments are inappropriate, appalling, reprehensible, divisive and utterly unrepresentative of the Australian people we represent. Respectfully, Senator Di Natale, opposing this motion does not mean that I or any other senator are with those who express such views. And I think it is unfair to characterise opposition to part (b) of your motion in any such way.

Furthermore, I don't agree that to use a phrase that I think you did—if a censure had more force—or you did allude to those terms, then we wouldn't see this senator doubling-down. I've made the observation before that I think it is a sad element of modern politics that some seek attention through outrage. I firmly believe that to suspend a senator on these terms, when it is not a formal breach of the standing orders and disorderly conduct, and does not meet the test of contempt, would be a bad precedent. It would be a further step down a political path I don't think this chamber should represent and I don't think this chamber, when it's at its best and represents the views of the Australian community, and a deliberative approach to politics, should seek to represent.

I will therefore divide the question, according to the request of Senator Ruston. The first question is that part (a)(i), (ii), (iii) moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I also note there were no dissenting voices.

The question is that part (b) of the motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.

Senators, I ask you to remain in the chamber for imminent divisions. Unless there's a realignment of the chamber, I'll ring the bells for one minute.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 12 February 2019, the Senate made an order for the production of documents relating to the Universal Service Obligation (USO),

(ii) the documents requested included:

(A) the high-level cost modelling of the USO reform options, and

(B) the advice provided by NBN Co about the financial costs of servicing additional ADSL customers,

(iii) the documents were sought in the context of critical reports on the USO and the reduction in the number of pay phones nationally, and the annual payments made to Telstra to maintain services under the current USO arrangements, and

(iv) the Federal Government does not intend to change the current USO arrangements, despite the continued decline of payphone usage in Australia;

(b) further notes that:

(i) on 14 February 2019, the Minister for Communications and the Arts (the Minister) advanced a public interest immunity claim on the grounds that releasing the cost modelling could significantly compromise potential negotiations with industry in future,

(ii) the Minister refused to release NBN Co's advice on the basis that it could prejudice it in future commercial dealings, and

(iii) no documents have been tabled;

(c) does not accept that the order for the production of documents made on 12 February 2019 has been adequately dealt with, insofar as the material requested would include information that is not commercially sensitive;

(d) does not accept that public interest immunity has been appropriately advanced, and calls on the Minister to review the nature of the documents ordered on 12 February 2019 and apply a higher test of 'real risk' rather than hypothesised risk; and

(e) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Communications and the Arts, by midday on 5 April 2019, the documents requested on 12 February 2019 which do not impinge on commercial sensitivities.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government has decided that the Universal Service Guarantee will retain the current universal service obligation arrangements until more cost-effective arrangements that are not in any way a detriment to services are identified. This requires careful work to build upon the government commissioned report of the Productivity Commission. The current arrangements for voice services and payphones will be retained because they are important to regional and rural communities. There is scope to carefully examine payphone locations, particularly given the strong uptake of mobile services, and the government will undertake further work in this area. Releasing the high-level cost modelling of the universal service obligation reform options and the cost impacts on NBN Co of servicing additional ADSL costs could significantly compromise any future negotiations with industry over the future delivery of the voice, payphone and broadband services covered by the USG. This is seen as a real, not hypothetical, risk. Undermining the Commonwealth's future negotiating position would have an effect contrary to the motion's intent of advancing USO reforms and achieving a long— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act 1987, and for related purposes. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment (Assisted Reproductive Treatment Statistics) Bill 2019.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

IVF is an industry that needs more scrutiny. It's heavily propped up by taxpayers, but is somehow allowed to operate without full public transparency.

This bill provides consumers with access to objective and consistent information about the performance of assisted reproductive technology (ART) centres, in order to help them make an informed choice about their prospective treatment facility.

One in six Australian couples struggle to fall pregnant, which means most of us know someone who has gone through the exhausting rollercoaster of IVF.

There were 311,104 births in Australia in 2016, of which 13,596 were through assisted reproductive technologies such as IVF.

The technology is miraculous, but the process can also be emotional, heartbreaking and very expensive. Couples desperate for a child will often hand over thousands of dollars for each attempt but, at the moment, they are doing it with very few facts to go on.

Their choice of specialist or clinic might be decided by reputation, GP referral, online reviews or the recommendations of friends. The decision won't be made on objective and transparent information about the clinic's performance because this information is currently hidden from the public. This turns an important life decision into a lottery and needs to change.

We need full disclosure about clinic performance. It is our right not only as consumers, but also as taxpayers who pour an enormous amount of money into Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

This bill amends the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act 1987to require all accredited fertility clinics to provide the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) with data on how many women underwent procedures at the clinic, which assisted reproductive treatments they received, the age of each woman, the number of resulting clinical pregnancies, and—most importantly—the number of resulting live births.

In 2016, the ACCC took IVF clinics to task for publishing misleading claims about their success rates—such as using their higher clinical pregnancy rates rather than live birth rates.

Some have since lifted their game, but it is still up to clinics to determine what data they publish, if at all—and even then the published data may be incomplete or selective.

Fertility clinics already report annually to the Australian and New Zealand Assisted Reproduction Database (ANZARD), resulting in the annual 'assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand' report, so the preparation and reporting of performance data is not expected to be an onerous task for them.

The database is a collaboration between the University of New South Wales' National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit (NPESU)—a unit which has been tasked by AIHW to collect other statistics, such as national perinatal data—and fertility clinics, and is funded by the Fertility Society of Australia.

This annual report is of limited use for consumers as it only provides a national overview of assisted reproduction treatment outcomes.

However, it does show there is significant variability in clinic success rates. According to the most recent results from 2016, live birth rates varied from 11.6 per cent for the worst performer to 32 per cent for the top performing clinic. Half of the fertility clinics surveyed sat in the 17-24 per cent range. There was a similar result in 2015.

While a clinic's patient demographics (such as average maternal age and causes of infertility) will have some bearing on these results, it illustrates that a woman's chance of taking home a baby will vary substantially depending on which clinic doors she walks through.

In 2015, Richard Henshaw, a senior fertility expert at one of the larger groups, told the ABC that clinics in the top 25th percentile cost Medicare around $2 million to produce 100 live births, whereas clinics in the bottom 25th percentile cost Medicare three times that amount to produce the same result.

Medicare subsidises just under half of the approximately $10,000 cost for a first IVF cycle and the associated medication is heavily subsidised on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Given the investment from taxpayers, it is only reasonable to pin some performance reporting obligations to this funding.

The industry in Australia would have us believe it is too difficult to publish standardised clinic success rates because there are too many variables in assisted reproductive technology. That argument doesn't hold water.

We know from overseas examples that comprehensive public reporting is completely achievable. The US has been doing it since 1992. It has a fantastic ART Success Rates database, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which currently outlines the performance of 463 clinics.

The CDC database can be searched by location and clinic name, with each facility reporting the total number of cycles, pregnancies and live births. Success rates are given according to a woman's age, and the information can be filtered according to treatment type and diagnosis, which allows a woman to put the data in context and find a clinic to suit her circumstances.

The US took this route to help avoid the exploitation of infertile couples and to allow for 'unethical practitioners' to be exposed.

Why shouldn't infertile Australians have the exact same thing? There is absolutely no reason I can see—other than to protect a highly profitable industry happy to thrive on client ignorance and trust.

This is not about publishing 'league tables' but about giving consumers the facts they need to make informed choices about their treatment.

As consumers we have the power to research most things before we make a decision to buy or employ a service—even for something as trivial as a new appliance—so why shouldn't we also be able to do it when making some of the most important decisions of our lives?

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Mr President, before moving this motion I would like to add the names of Senators Wong, Farrell, Ruston, Birmingham and Griff to this motion.

So added.

I, and also on behalf of Senators Wong, Farrell, Ruston, Birmingham and Griff, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the continued success of the Australian Football League Women's (AFLW) competition, held between 2 February and 31 March 2019,

(ii) that the enormous public support for the women's competition was reflected in record crowd numbers throughout the season, and

(iii) that the grand final, held on 31 March 2019, was attended by more than 53,000 people, setting the record for the largest crowd at a stand-alone women's sport fixture in Australia;

(b) congratulates:

(i) all 10 teams that participated in the competition,

(ii) the Adelaide Crows for winning its second AFLW grand final in three years,

(iii) Adelaide Crows player and co-captain, Ms Erin Phillips, for winning her second Best on Ground in the grand final and her second AFL Players' Association Most Valuable Player,

(iv) Adelaide Crows player and co-captain, Ms Chelsea Randall, for being awarded Most Courageous Player for the third consecutive season,

(v) Carlton Blues player Ms Brianna Davey for being awarded Best Captain, and

(vi) Carlton Blues player Ms Madison Prespakis for being awarded Best First-year Player; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to continue its support of grassroots initiatives that promote gender equity in sport, and to help ensure that women are able to compete at a professional level in traditionally male-dominated sports.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That—

(1) The Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) the Murray Darling Royal Commission recommended that future water recovery for the environment, including the 450 GL, should be purchased through buyback, which requires repeal of the 1,500 GL cap on buybacks in section 85C of the Water Act 2007, and

(ii) the future environmental health of the Murray-Darling Basin relies on additional water recovery; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to support the urgent repeal of the 1,500 GL limit on Commonwealth water purchases.

(2) This resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives for concurrence.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

We've seen one of the worst summers on record in parts of the basin and horrific fish kills. There's been report after report on the basin and the fish kills—by the Productivity Commission's review of the implementation of the Basin Plan, the South Australia Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission, the Australian Academy of Science's review into the fish kills and the review commissioned by the minister into the fish kills—but the government seems intent on doing nothing.

Labor is committed to helping our rivers and restoring the Basin Plan. We've already introduced a bill to repeal Barnaby Joyce's 1,500-gigalitre cap on buybacks. In addition we've committed to: requiring the Basin Authority to update the science; an urgent review of climate change impacts now and into the future to determine any change to inflows and evaporation rates; urgently renegotiating the Menindee agreement, which determines how the lakes are managed; and restoring the correct socio-economic test for delivery of the 450 gigalitres through on-farm infrastructure projects in the basin. Labor will continue to stand up for the environment and protect the Murray-Darling Basin. (Time expired)

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Adding to Senator O'Neill's comments, there are a number of things that are in the plan, such as supply measures, constraints and efficiency measures. We need to be very aware of the fact that the Productivity Commission, in addition to the South Australian royal commissioner, has indicated that these are highly risky and highly ambitious projects. Labor has introduced a bill to remove the 1,500-gigalitre cap. What's wrong with having tools in the toolkit of government that allow us to manage our river properly? I ask everyone to support this motion.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I, and the Australian Greens, obviously support this motion as put forward by Centre Alliance. I just want to place it on the record that while the National Party continue to control the water portfolio we will never get this river fixed. While Barnaby Joyce continues to funnel the taxpayers' money into the pockets of his big corporate cotton-grower mates, we will never be able to save this river. If we're going to save the environment and if we're going to return the water the river needs, we have to kick out the National Party and get their hands off our Murray-Darling Basin.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

There should not be a further 450 gigalitres sent to South Australia, given their mismanagement of water to date. South Australia have misused water. They have used water to basically turn a saltwater system into a freshwater system. They are saltwater lakes, not freshwater lakes. South Australians have misused water, sending fresh water to the Coorong, when the Coorong should be watered by water that is otherwise sent to the sea by the south-east drainage scheme of South Australia. South Australia have also misused water merely to keep the mouth of the Murray open. The only way you could send 450 gigalitres to South Australia is by ignoring the humans further upstream. Humans are a part of nature; they should not be ignored.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I would not have made a statement on this particular motion. However, the comments that I've just heard from Senator Spender require a response. To suggest that South Australia has been misusing its water, when South Australia has had a track record of responsible and efficient water management over the entire duration that the Murray-Darling Basin has been operating under an irrigation system, I think, just reflects the fact that you have absolutely no idea about the operation and management of our river system over the last hundred years. South Australia has never breached its cap. It has never exceeded its limit. It was an earlier adopter when it came to efficient irrigation practices. We're regarded as world's-best practice. For you to stand there and suggest that, in any way, South Australia has mismanaged, misrepresented or in any way not achieved and met its obligations under responsible river management just shows your complete ignorance and misunderstanding of river management.

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

This package of bills is required to ensure that the ordinary functions of government continue for the remainder of the 2018-19 financial year. The bills appropriate a total of around $3.3 billion in the 2018-19 financial year. This amount is already incorporated into the budget bottom line, as presented in the 2018-19 MYEFO. Labor will not block supply.

Despite all their talk about being better economic and fiscal managers, debt is at record highs and growing under the Liberals. Net debt has more than doubled on their watch and is now a record $360 billion, and gross debt has crashed through half a trillion dollars for the first time ever in the country's history—it has reached a record $543.3 billion—all on the coalition's watch. Both kinds of debt have been growing faster under the Liberals, in rosy global conditions, than they did under Labor, which had a global financial crisis to contend with.

Scott Morrison and his Liberals have no-one else to blame but themselves for their record and growing debt. In the last year alone, the Liberals have blown $200 million on political ads to distract from their cuts and chaos and the division and dysfunction that has consumed this rabble of a government. Every week, the government spends $100 million on cash refunds for excess franking credits for people who don't pay any tax—an unsustainable tax loophole that the vast majority of Australians don't access. The budget is a mess, and debt is at record highs because of the Liberals' twisted priorities, including giving unsustainable tax breaks to those who need them least and spraying around hundreds of millions of dollars on political ads. Scott Morrison and the Liberals aren't managing the economy or the budget in the interests of ordinary Australians. Under the Liberals, the economy is not working for all. Everything's going up except people's wages.

A strong economy needs a stable government. The Liberals are so divided, so dysfunctional, so much of a rabble, that they can't manage themselves. Five years of the Liberals' cuts and chaos have damaged the economy. Under the Liberals, wages growth is the slowest on record, childcare costs are up 24 per cent, power bills are up 15 per cent and private healthcare costs are up 30 per cent. Company profits are growing six times faster than wages. Can you believe it—profits going up six times faster than wages? Around 1.8 million Australians are underemployed, meaning they can't find enough hours at work. Living standards are stagnating and household debt is at record highs. The Liberals' only plan has been cuts to Medicare, cuts to schools and massive tax cuts to the banks.

Labor has a plan to give all Australians a fair go, not just the banks and the top end of town. We will pay for our plan by making multinationals pay their fair share of tax, closing loopholes mostly used by the top end of town and not giving the big banks a tax cut. We have a Fair Go Action Plan to fix our schools and hospitals, ease pressure on household budgets, stand up for workers, invest in cheaper, cleaner energy and build a strong economy that works for all. Our Fair Go Action Plan fixes schools and hospitals, delivers bigger tax cuts for workers and puts money back into the pockets of everyday Australians. That's good for the whole economy. Labor has led the way when it comes to budget repair, and we will continue to display the fiscal and economic leadership the government has been incapable of.

The budget that the coalition brought down last night fails to reverse cuts to schools and hospitals, and fails to reverse cuts to TAFE and apprenticeships. In the past six years, the Liberals have cut $3 billion from TAFE and skills, and cut 150,000 apprenticeship places. They promise a surplus that is subsidised by short-changing people with disability through a massive underspend in the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The budget also confirms that the economy is not working for everyday Australians—everything is going up except wages. Wages growth has again been cut. Economic growth is slowing, downgraded from MYEFO. Household consumption is down, downgraded from MYEFO. The budget confirms that net debt has more than doubled under the Liberals' watch. That's nearly $15,000 for every person in Australia. After doubling the debt, their promise to pay it down is laughable. Look, the Liberals will say anything over the next six weeks to cover up for six years of cuts and chaos.

Labor will support the tax cuts that begin on 1 July for working and middle-class people. This is essentially a copy of what we proposed last year, and they are simply catching us up. A Shorten Labor government—through our Fair Go Action Plan—will fix our schools and hospitals, ease pressure on family budgets, stand up for workers, invest in cheaper, cleaner energy and build a strong economy that works for all of us. We will pay for it by making multinationals pay their fair share of tax and closing tax loopholes used by the top end of town.

Bill Shorten and Labor will deliver a fair go for all Australians, not just the top end of town. And the sooner Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, calls an election, the better, because the sooner we will get this rabble of a government off the government benches and into opposition.

I'm glad I got to hear Senator Cameron say the word 'rabble' one last time—I'm not sure if he'll be able to squeeze it into his valedictory speech this afternoon, but I suspect he might be able to.

This is the seventh budget that I've been involved with for the Greens. While budgets have a lot of information—there can be a lot of detail out there—they're actually quite simple at the end of the day. Budgets are a plan. They're a plan for a government seeking a mandate from the Australian people and they're a document that outlines the priorities of a government. That plan then supports the government's priorities. I would say: this government's budget has no plan, and they've got all their priorities wrong.

My predecessor in this place, Senator Bob Brown, used to say, 'A good policy is a policy that's good for your grandchildren.' I look at the budget and see the lack of vision, the lack of planning, the lack of strategic foresight and I really am concerned. While there might have been a fistful of dollars, a surplus on a one-off windfall gain from mining revenues for our exports, there was no surplus of good ideas in this budget. There was no surplus of big ideas. There was no surplus of reform in this budget. What mandate, exactly, are the government achieving?

Let's be completely honest. This was one of the most unique budgets, if not the most unique budget, in Australian political history, because it was announced just days before the calling of a federal election; that's never happened before. So make no bones about it; last night's budget by the Treasurer was the beginning of the government's election campaign. And what mandate, exactly, are they seeking from the Australian people? What is their plan? What is their vision? Is it more cash splashes? Is it spending money from an unsustainable one-off budget surplus, the first surplus in many, many years? Where's the reform?

Well, there's one reform that the media's talking about this morning and that's the government's reform of the Australian tax system. But what exactly is that? It's making a flat tax system less progressive in this country. It is making the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Whichever way you look at it, wealthy Australians will benefit the most from these changes. How is that tackling one of the great challenges of our time—inequality? How is that dealing with long-term planning? How is that helping a social safety net, investing in the country's down-and-out and most unfortunate? How is that planning for a future for our kids? This budget robs from the future of our children to give to potential voters for the Australian Liberal Party and the Nationals. That's what this is. These are election bribes designed purely to get the Liberal Party re-elected, to hang onto power at all costs. There's no vision in this budget. There's no plan for the Australian people. The only plan is to get the Liberals re-elected.

I've tallied the so-called surpluses, which, by the way, have been questioned by a lot of good economists as to whether there actually will be a surplus over forward estimates. And when I say 'forward estimates', I mean the next three years. I've tallied those surpluses based on last night's figures and they're about $45 billion. I look at the tax cuts and the potential savings for opposing those, and I say: If we had $65 billion, because that's what they add up to, what we would spend that money on that is reform, that is a plan for the Australian people and that shows some vision? We would give free higher education to all Australians, we would increase Newstart for the country's battlers who are doing it tough, we would put DentiCare under Medicare, we would build 500,000 new homes for Australians because we desperately need public housing in this country and lastly—and possibly most importantly—we would transition this country to 100 per cent renewable energy. And we would have money left over. We would be tackling inequality head-on through increasing public housing and making education more affordable for young Australians. We would be tackling inequality head-on by raising Newstart and we would be tackling arguably the greatest existential crisis we face as a country and a nation—our climate emergency.

We've got no time left to fiddle around the edges. I spoke in here yesterday about my experience being down at Cape Grim in the north-west of Tasmania. By coincidence, within 24 hours of Mr Turnbull calling the double dissolution in 2016, the weather station there, one of two on the planet, had measured carbon dioxide in our atmosphere at 400 parts per million. That was a very ominous beginning for that election campaign. I stood on the beach with a placard that said '400 parts per million' and I did a short video urging as many Tasmanians as possible, 'We have to make this a climate change election.' This was a line in the sand we didn't want to cross. But, even though I'm a Greens senator, I feel deeply about these issues and I've been fighting for decades for the environment and for climate—even though that is the case—I can tell you that, looking back now, standing on that beach I could never have imagined how bad things would get in our climate. I could never have imagined that, that very year, we would see the worst mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. I could never have imagined—and nor could any of our climate scientists, some of the best in the world, whose models predicted that it wasn't possible until 2050 to have back-to-back bleachings on the coral reef—that the following year that would actually happen and we would lose nearly half the Great Barrier Reef. I could not have predicted that Tasmania's giant kelp forests, the last of the 10,000-year-old ecosystem that spanned the entire east coast of Tasmania, would disappear in 2016. I couldn't have predicted that we would break every weather record possible in this country in the next three years, that we would see fires burning in the middle of winter in New South Wales at unprecedented levels or that we would see our World Heritage areas, areas that haven't seen fire for thousands of years, burning in three out of five summers. This has all happened in the last three years.

And what did we get in this budget? What's in the appropriation bill that is before us for climate change? Senator Di Natale said today that this government is spending more money on setting up Christmas Island as a detention centre than it is for the entire 15 years of its plan for the environment and for climate. The Greens have announced a climate fund. We've announced an environmental fund to fund new laws and properly fund threatened species recovery plans in the agencies that are necessary. Our commitment is at least 10 times what the government has outlined, just in the forward estimates. That's the quantum of funding we need if we are going to have policies that are good for our grandchildren. A good policy is a policy that is good for your grandchildren, not a one-off cash splash on the back of an unsustainable budget surplus. That is not a good plan. This government has got its priorities totally wrong. There's no forward thinking here. This is a budget to get the Liberal Party re-elected. We desperately need to change government. We desperately need to get serious action on reducing emissions, investing in biodiversity and investing in the future of our grandchildren.

The Greens will be going to this election and we will do everything we can to make this election about climate. I look back on 2016 and, while I felt that I did everything I could, I failed in my state to make it a climate election. I'm not going to make the same mistake twice. Based on the current carbon dioxide parts per million measurement out of Cape Grim, we've got less than 10 years to go before we hit 450 parts per million, which every scientist recognises is runaway climate change—where it's too late. That's going to happen in the next decade based on our current emissions trajectory. It's not going to happen on my watch if I have any say in the matter, and I know I speak on behalf of my party, who first raised this issue in parliament in the 1990s. We will continue to fight to get climate action and we will continue to fight, whichever government is in power, to get a proper plan funded through a budget and funded through appropriations such as we have before us today, to actually take meaningful action—the strongest possible action. There's no point in talking about jobs and growth and whatever it is that is spouted by the ideology of this Liberal-National party if we don't get the climate settings right. It's all going to be undermined in the future. Inequality and threats to national security—it's all there if we don't act on climate. It is what this budget should have delivered and has failed miserably to deliver on climate change.

I thank senators for their contributions. I particularly enjoyed Senator Whish-Wilson's 'if I were Prime Minister one day' contribution. It would have been helpful if he'd shared some of the other Greens policies, such as their plans to introduce death taxes, dismantle the US alliance, deindustrialise the economy, allow illicit drugs to be made freely available and open the borders. We didn't get all of the Senator Whish-Wilson vision for 'if the Greens were in charge' but it is a scary thought nonetheless.

But I digress. For the edification of Senator Whish-Wilson, the appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 before us pertain to the midyear update, not the budget. Appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 work the same way they do every year and nothing has changed about them this year.

I thank senators for their contribution to this debate. These additional estimates appropriation bills seek authority from the parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Passage of the bills will ensure the continuity of government programs, the commencement of new activities agreed to by the government since the 2018-19 budget, and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for 2018-19 as they fall due. Details of the bills were considered in the additional estimates process.

In summing up, I would like to highlight some of the particularly important areas relating to delivery of the government's commitments that are supported by these three bills, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019. First, the bills include support for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Second, they provide assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought. Third, they include additional funding for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Finally, they deliver critical enhancements to the security infrastructure of Australia's overseas diplomatic network. Once again I thank all senators for their contributions and I commend these three bills to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

I move:

That the Senate approves the advances provided under the annual Appropriation Acts as a final charge for the year ended 30 June 2018.

This report discloses details of one advance released under the annual appropriation acts to enable an urgently required funding allocation to be issued during the year. The report was tabled in February and considered in the estimates process. Following the reports of the estimates committees, the Senate now approves the report, consistent with longstanding Senate practices.

In the 2017-18 financial year, the one advance issued was an amount of $122 million provided on 9 August 2017 to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. The report shows that the final expenditure required for the marriage survey was $80.5 million, and on 15 January 2018 access to the underspend of $41.5 million was withdrawn. This report shows that efficiencies were achieved by the ABS working in partnership with other Commonwealth agencies and leveraging off existing statistical infrastructure. Costs relating to the marriage survey were one-offs, so there is no risk of similar recurring spending pressures. The one advance in the 2017-18 year was unique and was subject to two legal challenges. The High Court upheld the validity of the funding for the marriage law survey, ruling against every aspect of the legal challenges.

The limited number of advances in 2017-18 and previous years under this government reflects well on our responsible financial management, which has allowed other urgent and unforeseen pressures arising outside the budget cycle to be managed within existing appropriations. I commend this report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Labor supports these supply bills. We will not block supply.

In supporting these supply bills, I want to say a few words about the budget last night and about budgets over the time that I've been in this chamber. In my 28 years in this place, this is one of the better budgets I've seen, if not the best—and I've had the privilege to hear many of them, from those in the Hawke and Keating days, the wonderful Howard years, and the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, through to those, in the last six years, under the leadership of Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and now Scott Morrison. We've had some very, very good treasurers, and I do want to congratulate Mr Frydenberg on the budget he presented last night. As he was willing to acknowledge, what he was able to do last night, to a great degree, depended on the work of previous treasurers—in particular Mr Morrison, who was Treasurer for several years in the most recent coalition government.

This budget is full of benefits for Australia and Australians. It has wonderful news for infrastructure, building the infrastructure of the future, and it shows that the government does understand the significance of the agricultural and mining industries. They're well recognised in the budget. There is in this budget, as well, an attempt to bridge the gap between what I often call these days 'the two Australians'—those who live in capital cities and their surrounds and the rest of us who live in regional Australia. There's no doubt about it, and there never has been in my mind, that those of us who live in regional Australia don't have access to all of the quality of life, all of the things that make life so pleasant for people who live in and around the capital cities. And good luck to those who live in and around the capital cities. I might also say that I, for one, wouldn't want to live in capital cities. I'm very happy living in regional Australia. But there are things, benefits, that those living in regional Australia don't have, simply because of their isolation and the sparseness of our country. It's always been my goal to try and bridge that gap, and I'm pleased to see that the budget last night has taken some steps towards that.

For the 28 years I've been in this place, I've been trying to return the zone tax rebate scheme to what it was originally designed to do back in 1946, when it was first introduced. I'm pleased to say that, just this year, the government and the Treasurer have instructed the Productivity Commission to start work on the zone tax rebate scheme, because it, to a degree, was designed to—and did, sort of—equalise the disadvantages that people living in remote parts of our country have.

It's been my lifetime goal, and certainly the goal during my time in this parliament, to ensure that the part of Australia which, with only five per cent of the population, produces something like 55 per cent of its export earnings, is recognised and rewarded. I'm pleased to say that the northern Australia development white paper— which was introduced in 2015 but is something that I've been working on since my days as the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, all those years ago—came to fruition in 2015, and, since then, the measures in the white paper have been implemented and it has seen a flow of money, activity and action into northern Australia. I hope that activity and action will continue in future parliaments of this nation.

I'm pleased to see in the budget the continuing flow of money to our external territories, which I became very fond of in my years as minister for those territories. Curiously, a lot of the money in the budget that is going to the territories is for things that we spoke about all those years ago, at the beginning of this century, when I was minister. Regrettably, they haven't advanced much since that time.

As someone who was elected four times as a local government councillor, I've always had a soft spot for local government—not only as a councillor myself for 11 years but also as the federal minister for local government for three years. So I was pleased to see in the budget last night the extension of the Roads to Recovery Program, which is greatly loved by local government. It sends money directly from the Commonwealth to local governments, avoiding state governments—the middlemen who always used to slice a bit off the top, meaning less for local governments. I was very proud and honoured to introduce that program in this chamber back in 2004, I think it was. It's been a program that local government has benefited from—and, indeed, that the Australians we all serve have benefited from—over those years. Unfortunately, local government didn't get what they were hoping for—some movement upwards in the Financial Assistance Grant scheme. They are determined in their goal, and I know that that campaign will continue on into the future. I wish them luck with it, because I, for one, recognise that local government, as the sphere of government closest to the people, is the one that is often overlooked in our system of government. I think they do a wonderful job and perhaps need funding increases through the Financial Assistance Grant program and otherwise.

I also note that in the budget money continued to be provided for our fishing and our forestry industries, and for conservation—that part of our operations that looks after our land, our landscape. I'm pleased to see funding continuing there. I well remember how important the forestry industry was to Australia, and perhaps I remember even more that forestry played a very large part in the 2004 election, when the Labor Party, the Greens, and, dare I say, most of the Liberal cabinet ministers wanted to cease forestry operations. But we worked together with the CFMEU, dare I say, and Michael O'Connor, the current head of the CFMMEU, who was then the head of the forestry division, for months—months—to get the right program. Those of you who were around in those times will remember that when Mr Howard went to a hall in Launceston he was absolutely mobbed by people with hard hats and hi-vis shirts. Not only did that mean we won most of the seats in Tasmania in that election; it also showed workers around Australia which party it was that looked after workers' jobs. So it was a very, very significant part of the forest industry debates at the time.

Also, we see in this budget that we are continuing to look after our South-West Pacific neighbours and our neighbours in Papua New Guinea. It reminds me, as a former fisheries minister, that we did a lot of work not only with the Australian fisheries and fishermen in trying to make them sustainable and competitive but also with the South-West Pacific. I was delighted to be involved as fisheries minister in the establishment of the Central and Western Pacific Fisheries Commission, which got the island states to recognise the value of the fisheries they had and to then start organising them and regulating them. I led a delegation to Kiribati not long ago—a little island state; it's a coral atoll, almost. They used to have difficulties paying their way, but, with Australia's help, they regulated their huge sea boundaries and were able to sell licences. They now run their budgets in surplus and have been doing so for some time. Again, we as Australians can be very proud of the way that we have helped those island states to look after themselves. I also see in the budget some money for our natural resource managers. In my time as minister, we were able to establish for the first time natural resource management groups all around Australia, which did wonderful work. They're not quite as prominent or active these days as they were in those days, but it is good to see them still operating and still doing the right thing by our land and seascapes.

In congratulating Mr Frydenberg on last night's budget, I also recognise that while we as ministers, as parliamentarians, get a lot of the credit, a lot of the work is done by people who work for us—be they in the departments, in the case of ministers, or be they our own personal staff. So, in congratulating the Treasurer for his budget, I also acknowledge that a lot of the work that Mr Frydenberg relied upon was done by his own personal staff and also by people in the Treasury and other government departments. So I acknowledge them. I want to congratulate them and thank them all for the work they have done. In mentioning this, I also mention my own staff, who have always helped me so much in everything that I've attempted. From my very first staff—Xenia, Guy and Leanne—through to my current staff, led by my long-term employees, Marie and James, and other staff whom I've had. On the way through, I've met some wonderful people, some very, very good staff, who have gone on to bigger and better things. I mention Phil Connole, Liza and Sharon. I think it's appropriate at times that we do recognise the people who support us and look after us. And that, of course, goes to people who support us in this chamber—the attendants, the clerks and all of their staff, and the committee staff, who do a wonderful job in furthering the work of the parliament and of parliamentarians.

I should mention that last night's budget was a good one for the north. Whilst I take some pride in what has been achieved, I also recognise that I don't do this alone. I do it, as I've mentioned, with my staff but also with my colleagues. I particularly want to mention the help that my friend and colleague Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt, has been over most of the years I've been in parliament, and also my colleagues who have operated out of Townsville in the past. Since I've been in parliament, working from Townsville, I've had Peter Lindsay and Ewen Jones. And I will, in the future, have Phil Thompson, I'm quite sure. Together with those people, along with George Christensen, the member for Dawson, whose electorate now comes right in, almost to the heart of Townsville, we have formed a group that has made its presence felt in northern Australia and, as a result, there have been benefits. One of the things that we're determined to achieve into the future is more security of jobs for coalminers and others in the mining industry and for the small businesses that support them. I desperately hope that we can see Adani start work, the Rinehart coalfields, all of those activities which will provide real jobs, secure jobs for workers and will support the small businesses and medium-sized businesses in the north that support those industries.

Last night's budget, as I said, was one of the best I've seen, and I've seen a lot over the last 28 or 29 years. Some have been very good. I heard Mr Swan deliver six budgets, I think it was. Each budget, he promised that next year we would be in surplus, and not once did he deliver a surplus. So I'm delighted to see this year, in my 29th year in this parliament, a budget that has brought the country back into surplus and got the country back on track. And with projected surpluses into the future, we will be able to start paying off the debt that was run up in the Labor years and get rid of the $18 billion we pay every year in interest rates on borrowings that previous governments have made.

I have been in public life for 40 years now—11 as a councillor and almost 30 as a senator in this parliament, nine of those as a minister—and, in that time, I helped to shape some budgets, back in the old days, and have made my voice felt in more recent budgets. But, again, it's not me. We as parliamentarians get here only because of friends and supporters, and I do want to mention some friends of mine who have helped me all of the way through my life. For anything I may have achieved, they have been part of it. They are Peter and Lorraine, Tony and Janita, Neville and Elvie in the Burdekin branch of the Liberal Party also my family, my siblings—Fay, Beth and Jim and their families as well—all of who have been particularly helpful.

In the 28 years I've been here, things have changed. Budgets are, hopefully, getting better again. I don't like to say it but it's true that this place is not the place it was when I first came here 20 years ago. There is more nastiness, more division, more politics being played now than I recall when I first came here, and lies and hypocrisy just seem to be the order of the day. What really distresses me is when people get up and lie about things, and those lies are heard the world around and believed. Regrettably, comments like those we heard recently about the Barrier Reef being dead are just plain outright lies, yet they are heard around the world and they do affect jobs, do affect businesses in Australia.

It seems to me now that facts and truth are irrelevant in some of the debates here, and people have the tendency just to say whatever they like and try and make that out to be facts. But apart from that, hopefully, in the end, we all do come here to try and make a difference and, hopefully, we all do make a difference in one way or another for the betterment of Australia and all Australians.

There was in the budget good news for lots of people and not so much good news, I guess, for some others. But I do see that there is increased funding for the aged, and that's perhaps something that I might be interested in, a few years in advance. But I just want to recognise that in electing me to parliament, and even to council, my constituents got good value for money, because they really got two for the price of one.

I have to mention that my wife, Lesley, has been my greatest supporter all the way through my life, and particularly in my political life, because she's the first sounding-board; she gives me lots of thoughts. She encourages me, as I'm sure all of our spouses and partners do. I particularly want to pay tribute to Lesley and the work that she has done for me over the years.

Before I go to the minister, thank you, Senator Macdonald. It's not very often we hear first readings tangled up with a valedictory note as well, so congratulations. Thank you.

In summing up, I take the opportunity on behalf of all colleagues, I'm sure, and particularly colleagues in the Liberal and National parties, to thank you very much and honour you for your 40 years of public life, Senator Macdonald, and for your almost 30 years in this place. That is a rare achievement. I myself can't imagine still being here in another 23 or so years, but to have achieved that is something that can never, ever be taken away from you. There is no doubt that both your supporters and your opponents would agree that you are someone who fights very, very hard for the things you believe in, including the regions and Queensland, and North Queensland in particular. You fight hard for really important industries in our nation—you mentioned some of those—and you are someone who has never taken a backwards step. I'm sure that Senator Cameron and Senator Wong will particularly miss you and your contributions during question time—and others.

I intend to be back!

Indeed. Whilst there are great challenges ahead, may your contribution in this place continue for a long time. I want to thank you for your service, Senator Macdonald, and thank you for your great contribution. To Lesley and all of your supporters: thank you. Thank you very much.

I conclude by thanking all senators who have contributed to the debate on Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020. These supply bills seek authority from the parliament for the expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the 2019-20 financial year. The total of the appropriations sought through these three supply bills is just under $45.7 billion. The bills must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2019, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery.

The appropriations proposed in these bills are based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2019 annual appropriation as presented at the 2018-19 budget, adjusted for economic and program-specific parameters, and the effects of decisions announced as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook or included in the 2018-19 additional estimates appropriations bills. Therefore, this funding will last through until the end of November.

I wish to emphasise that these bills seek provision only to appropriate money to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until appropriation bills have passed. This arrangement allows for the budget appropriation bills, or similar bills, to be passed in 2019-20 by the next parliament, if necessary. Once again, I thank all senators for their contributions and commend these bills to the Senate.

by leave—Could I just indicate that it did seem like a valedictory speech from Senator Macdonald. Senator Macdonald and I have got a long history in this place—as long as I've been here. I just indicate that he is the ultimate Liberal warrior; there is no question about that. I think that, at times, he's been cantankerous, he's been curmudgeonly, but he has always run the Liberal line. I wish him and Lesley all the best for the future. I don't want him to come back!

Thank you, Senator Cameron. And, yes, the Senate will be the poorer without the Cameron-Macdonald blues! The question is that these bills now be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

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 move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

This Bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment) Bill 2019, will enable a one-off Energy Assistance Payment to all pension, allowance and veteran payments recipients, who are payable and residing in Australia on 2 April 2019, to assist them with their energy costs.

The energy assistance payment will be $75 for singles and $62.50 for each eligible member of a couple.

The Government is able to deliver this assistance because our responsible budget management allows us to guarantee the essential services Australians rely on.

The measure to make the Energy Assistance Payment builds on a 2017-18 Budget measure to make a one-off Energy Assistance Payment to certain income support recipients and extends the payment to all income support recipients. It also follows on from the Government's announcement, confirmed in the 2018-19 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, that the Energy Supplement will continue for new income support recipients.

Determining eligibility for this one-off payment is simple. You must be in receipt of one of the qualifying payments and be residing in Australia on 2 April 2019. Those qualified will automatically receive the payment through the Department of Human Services or the Department of Veterans' Affairs – they will not need to take any action, no claim is necessary. The payment will not be taxed and will not reduce their rate of income support.

Those people who have made a claim for payment on or before 2 April 2019 and whose claims are subsequently granted, will also be paid the one-off payment.

This legislation ensures that a person cannot receive more than one entitlement and no payment would be made to non-Australian residents, as they are not subject to energy prices in Australia. People who are not in receipt of payment because they are suspended on the test date will not be immediately eligible. Those whose payments are subsequently restored to a period covering 2 April 2019 will receive the payment.

Anyone who is paid the 2019 one-off energy assistance payment and who subsequently becomes ineligible for their qualifying income support payment on the test date (for example through a review of decision) will not have to pay it back, except in limited circumstances such as fraud.

The payment will help approximately 5 million income support recipients and veterans.

The total cost of this payment will be around $365 million. The Energy Assistance Payment will be paid automatically to most eligible recipients by the end of June 2019.

Yesterday Labor circulated a second reading amendment for what we expected to be an earlier version of this bill to the House crossbench, proposing the government should expand the payment to those on Newstart, youth allowance and other payments. Never in our wildest dreams did we anticipate it would be so successful so quickly.

Labor called on the government to extend the one-off payment to other people on means-tested income support, including Abstudy, Austudy, double orphan pension, Newstart allowance, parenting payment, partner allowance, sickness allowance, special benefit, widow allowance, wife pension, youth allowance and veteran payment.

Of course it was good to see that this bill has been changed, but it seemed that even the Treasurer was taken by surprise. On Nine News last night, when he was asked directly about extending the payment to people on Newstart, he didn't say yes; he said:

Well, Newstart does go up twice a year when it's indexed. But, importantly, the majority of people on Newstart move to another payment, or off Newstart, within 12 months. They hopefully go into work, and many have been doing that.

But it was a totally different script this morning. The Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, told ABC Radio:

Well, a couple of things. Firstly, the energy supplement will be extended to people on Newstart.

Sabra Lane said:

It will be?

Josh Frydenberg said:

It will be.

What a turnaround! This budget hasn't lasted overnight. It didn't last from Lateline to lunch. This just shows you how bad this rabble of a government is—an absolute rabble of a government, with a Treasurer who can't even get his budget to hang in overnight. What a rabble! What a terrible government! You are terrible! You need to go quickly. You should call an election soon and let the public determine that this rabble won't last any longer. You are pathetic! They are a rabble—that's what they are. They know they're a rabble. Look at their heads—hanging their heads in shame. Their budget doesn't last overnight. You are a pathetic joke—an absolute rabble of a government. You must go quickly. Go quickly!

A point of order, Senator Bernardi.

I've been waiting for 30 seconds to call a point of order on Senator Cameron, the last one in this place, just to reacquaint ourselves with old friends.

We will move to questions without notice.

Debate interrupted.

I advise the Senate that Senator Reynolds will be absent from question time today due to illness. In Senator Reynolds's absence, Senator Payne will represent the Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for Emergency Management and North Queensland Recovery; the Minister for Defence; and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Fifield. In last night's budget, the Treasurer delivered a once-off energy payment which left out thousands of Australians who rely on Abstudy, Austudy, double orphan pension, Newstart allowance, parenting payment, partnered parent allowance, sickness allowance, special benefit widow allowance, wife pension, youth allowance and veteran payment. On what basis did the government think those receiving these government payments were not deserving of support?

The government is aware of the financial pressures that are placed on households, which do make it harder for many Australians to pay their bills, especially those receiving income support payments. The government has taken the decision that around five million income support recipients will receive this energy payment, including those on the age pension and the disability support pension, as well as other working-age benefits, including Newstart and youth allowance. We are in the position to offer this support because of strong economic management.

This is indeed an example of the fact that pursuing good, strong economic management and a responsible approach to the budget is not an end in and of itself. It has meaning as far as it provides the opportunity for government to assist members of the community who need it. The government absolutely puts its hand up and acknowledges that we have taken a conscious decision to make this payment available for those on Newstart as well.

Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.

I don't know if you answered my first question. But on radio this morning, less than 24 hours after he delivered his budget, the Treasurer caved in to pressure from Labor and backflipped, saying that Australians on Newstart would now receive an energy payment. Can the minister confirm that this change was agreed in a crisis meeting between the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and finance minister last night? When was the minister first advised of the change—before or after the budget speech?

The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the finance minister don't have crisis meetings. They conduct the administration of government in an orderly way and on a methodical basis, as you would expect. What we wanted to ensure was that this measure secured swift passage through the parliament so that—

Senator Wong, on a point of order?

The question is: when was this minister first advised of the change to the budget? When was the minister first advised of the change—before or after the budget speech?

Senator Wong, you rightly remind the minister of part of the question. I consider him to be directly relevant to the other part of the question at the moment. Senator Fifield, have you concluded your answer or will you be continuing?

I'm happy to continue, Mr President. As I was saying, we wanted to ensure that this important measure would have swift passage through both chambers. We did not want to allow those opposite a reason, a rationale, to delay or prevent the passage of this measure. So, through the decision the government has taken, there will be more support, and I'm confident that this chamber will support the passage of this legislation.

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister confirm that the government's backflip, less than 24 hours after delivering the budget, has blown an $80 million hole in it? Isn't it clear that, with the budget unravelling, this is a government in crisis, continuing a sixth year of chaos and division?

What I can absolutely confirm is that what this government has done is deliver a budget that will see a surplus for the first time since—well, we'd have to go back to when Mr Costello was the Treasurer of this country. There used to be a rule, I'll call it the Costello rule, where the former Treasurer said that, for each year of bad Labor government, you would actually need three years of good coalition government to undo the damage. What this government has demonstrated—

Order! I will call Senator McAllister on her point of order when there's silence.

My point of order is on relevance. I asked for a confirmation of the cost of this backflip and that's yet to be provided.

You've reminded the minister of part of the question. I'm listening carefully. He has 23 seconds remaining to answer.

As I was saying, this government has demonstrated that within six years you can actually repair six years of damage done by Labor. We have got the budget back in balance. Obviously there's still the work to do to pay down the debt of those opposite, and we will.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. How does the Liberal-National government's plan for a stronger economy, as set out in the 2019-20 budget, provide the opportunity for hardworking Australians to get ahead?

I think it's time to remind the chamber again that, when we came into government in September 2013, the economy was weakening, unemployment was rising and the budget position was rapidly deteriorating. Today, the economy is stronger, employment growth is much stronger, the unemployment rate has got a 4 in front of it and, of course, we've got the budget back in a strong and improving position—in fact, we've got the budget back in the black. What a stronger economy delivers is better opportunities for families to get ahead and the opportunity to get a job and to get a better job. It also means, as more people are employed, that government collects more personal income tax revenue without the need to increase taxes. More people paying tax means more revenue for government without the need to increase taxes. Do you know what the government can do in that circumstance? We can cut taxes. We can provide income tax relief to encourage and reward and incentivise hardworking families across Australia, as well as fund all of the essential services across health, education—you name it—that Australians rely on.

Of course, when Labor were last in government, they made such a mess of the budget in the context of a weakening economy, rising unemployment and a rapidly deteriorating budget position. Do you know what happened under Labor? They stopped listing essential medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In our period in government, on the back of a stronger economy, on the back of more effective expenditure control and on the back of managing the budget better, we have actually been able to invest in providing affordable access to high-quality medicines for all patients across Australia. Two thousand medicines have been listed during our period in government, at a cost of about $10 billion. These are the sorts of things that a good government that manages the economy properly and manages the budget properly can do. This is not the time to change direction and go back to the discredited Labor way of the past.

Senator Hume, a supplementary question?

How does the Liberal-National government's plan for a stronger economy guarantee the essential services that Australians want and expect?

As I was just indicating, our economic plan has made it possible to deliver more and better services Australians deserve: more medicines on the PBS, more access to quality health care, secure defences, less congested roads, a new Inland Rail network for eastern Australia and a new Western Sydney Airport, breaking a deadlock that had eluded successive governments for decades.

But we're not complacent about the need to continue to build a stronger economy, which is why we have a plan for stronger growth, with another one and a quarter million new jobs over the next five years. It's a plan that will drive stronger wages growth across the economy. It's a plan that is based on rewarding aspiration, enterprise and effort. That is why in last night's budget the government also announced more tax relief for small- and medium-sized businesses. We want small businesses to prosper. We want them to employ even more Australians and pay them better wages. That is why we need to ensure that they can be as successful as they possibly can be. (Time expired)

Senator Hume, a final supplementary question.

How will Australians be safer and more secure under a Liberal-National government's plan for a stronger economy? Are there any alternative approaches?

The impact of alternative economic approaches is entirely predictable. There is no question that if Mr Shorten was successful at the election it would make our economy weaker, make our country weaker and make Australians poorer. A Shorten Labor government would take us backward with higher unemployment, weaker growth, lower living standards and a budget mess. Mr Shorten sneers at those who want to get ahead and only promises them a higher tax burden. He's already said that aspirational middle-class Australians do not deserve tax breaks. That is what Mr Shorten says. If you buy an investment property to secure your family's economic future, the Labor Party will have their hands in your pocket. If you buy some shares for your retirement, the Labor Party will have their hands in your pocket. If you try to build a nest egg to pass on to your kids, the Labor Party will have their hands in your pocket. The Labor Party does not know how to manage money. When they run out of money, they come after yours. That is the message to the Australian people. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Fifield. In the 2018-19 financial year, the coalition government oversaw a $3.4 billion underspend in the NDIS. In last night's budget it was revealed that in the 2019-20 financial year the Morrison government is banking a $1.6 billion underspend in the NDIS. Can the minister confirm that this means that 77,000 people will miss out on the NDIS this year alone?

Can I say, as a former minister for disabilities, how disappointed I am that those opposite, who know full well how the NDIS operates, are seeking to create a problem that does not exist. The NDIS is operating under this government exactly as it would operate under those opposite. The NDIS is fully funded under this government and will continue to be fully funded under this government. Funding for the NDIS is like many programs within government: it is a demand-driven program. The NDIS estimates are updated up or down at every budget, as they would be under those opposite. The NDIS estimates are updated up or down at every MYEFO, as they would be under those opposite. The NDIS estimates are updated up or down at every final budget outcome, as they would be under those opposite.

The NDIS is a program which is in transition. We are transferring from a state based system to a national system. People are progressively moving from their state based arrangements to the NDIS. I would hope all colleagues would be pleased to acknowledge that more than 250,000 Australians who have a disability are now benefiting from the NDIS, and 78,000 of those are people who are receiving supports for the very first time. Everyone who is eligible for the NDIS and who has transitioned to the NDIS will get the support that they are entitled to. They will get the support that they deserve. For those opposite to portray the usual process of estimates being adjusted as something strange and unusual is quite, quite wrong.

Senator Brown, a supplementary question.

In response to the revelations, Kirsten Deane of Every Australian Counts has said, 'It is completely unacceptable to leave people with disability waiting two years for a wheelchair while you bolster the budget bottom line.' Is Ms Deane wrong?

I know Ms Deane very well. She has done an outstanding job advocating for Australians with disability. I think many colleagues in this place have worked with Kirsten Deane. But it is completely and utterly wrong for those opposite to contend and purport that there has been funding cut from the NDIS. That is not true. All funding that is needed by NDIS participants will be forthcoming. There will not be anyone who requires support under the NDIS who does not receive that support. Every person eligible for the NDIS will receive the support to which they are entitled. Those opposite should know better than to seek to cause fear and distress among people with disabilities by misrepresenting the way the budget works. (Time expired)

Senator Brown, a final supplementary question.

What does it say about the priorities of the Morrison government that it's willing to use a $1.6 billion underspend in the NDIS to prop up its budget's bottom line?

Everything that Senator Brown just said is wrong. I had hoped that, if there were one area of policy where bipartisanship could be maintained as we head into an election, it would be the NDIS. I would have hoped that those opposite, rather than seeking to cause fear where there is no reason for fear, would be part of helping to explain the way the budget process operates and helping to explain to Australians with disability, their families and their carers that there's nothing to worry about, that the NDIS is fully funded and that everyone who is entitled to an NDIS package will receive their full package without any deviation. It is extremely disappointing that those opposite can't raise their sights on this issue.

My question is to the Leader of the Government, representing the Prime Minister. Minister, the people of Australia are ready for strong action to stop our climate breakdown. They are desperate for some leadership and vision. Minister, how on earth do you explain that your government has spent more on opening and closing Christmas Island over the last four weeks than you will spend on climate change over the next four years?

This government is absolutely committed to strong, effective and appropriate action on climate change, including through our $3½ billion climate change package. I'm sure you would remember, when we came into government in 2013—do you know what the situation was in terms of meeting the Kyoto Protocol targets by 2020? We were 755 million tonnes of CO2 behind. That was after a six-year period of a Labor-Greens government. I know that the Greens part of that government was not so supportive of Labor's carbon pollution reduction scheme. I can understand that. I had a lot of sympathy for that at the time.

Do you know where we're at now? After six years of Liberal-National coalition government we are running 367 million tonnes of CO2 ahead of our 2020 emissions reduction target and we have a clear plan to meet the 2030 emissions reduction target of 26 per cent that we signed up to in Paris. You know what? The Liberal-National Party will always pursue sensible environmental policy in a way that is economically responsible. You can go to your supporters and continue to try to make them believe that you can shut down the economy and that that is a sensible way to go. That is not the way we're doing it. We are telling the Australian people very openly and very transparently that we want to do the right thing by the environment, meeting our emissions reduction targets that we've committed to but in a way that is economically responsible, because we want families around Australia to continue to have the best possible opportunity to get ahead.

Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.

Minister, we're facing a climate emergency and over the next four years you're committing $189 million for your so-called Climate Solutions Package, yet you're spending 174 times more than that—a staggering $33 billion—to pay massive mining companies to burn fossil fuels. How on earth do you justify that to the Australian people?

The problem with socialists is that they don't understand the difference between spending money and raising less in revenue out of the economy—and I wasn't reflecting on the Labor Party. I heard that Senator Wong might have been getting a bit sensitive there. When I say 'socialists', I mean those Greens socialists at the bottom of the Senate chamber over there.

Let me just make it very clear: when the government raises less in tax out of the economy, that is leaving business and Australians with more of their own money. You're obviously talking about the fact that, in relation to road user charges, businesses that don't actually use roads are not required to pay road user charges, which is of course an entirely reasonable thing to do. I mean, if you use roads, you pay road user charges; if you don't use roads, you don't. That is what we believe in on this side of the chamber, and we believe in stronger economic growth, in more jobs and in— (Time expired)

Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question.

Minister, since 2012 the coalition's received $4.7 million from the coal, oil and gas industry. Given last night's budget sellout on climate, can you fill us in on a figure that wasn't in the budget papers: how much money do you expect to get in donations from the coal, oil and gas industry to fund your election campaign and to continue selling out Australians when it comes to action on climate change?

I completely and utterly reject the premise of the question.

My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, Senator Cash, who recently visited a number of small businesses in Launceston with our Liberal candidate in Bass, Bridget Archer, and me. How would the Liberal-National government's budget benefit our nation's 3.3 million small and family businesses and their 5.7 million employees?

I thank Senator Askew for the question. I acknowledge that it is her first question and congratulate her on that. Colleagues, as we know, in last night's budget the Treasurer yet again overwhelmingly affirmed the coalition's commitment to small and family businesses in Australia. Why? Because we know that small and family businesses are the engine room of the Australian economy. When small and family businesses in Australia grow, they create more jobs for Australians. Last night was a vote of confidence in small and family businesses across Australia. In particular, as you are aware, we increased the instant asset write-off from $25,000 to $30,000 and we extended it out to 30 June 2020.

Colleagues, because of the strong economy that we have put in place, we were also able to increase the threshold, from businesses with an annual turnover of $10 million or less to medium-sized businesses—we've expanded it to medium-sized businesses—with an annual turnover of $50 million or less. That is what you get when you put in place a strong economy: you can give back in particular to small and medium businesses in Australia. That policy alone will benefit around 3.4 million businesses, employing around 7.7 million workers. Of course, this comes on top of our tax cuts for small businesses, which we're able to fast-track, again, because of the policies that we have put in place that have given us a strong economy. These tax cuts will see small and medium businesses in Australia paying 25 per cent by 2122. Again, if you back small and medium business, you create jobs for Australians.

Senator Askew, a supplementary question.

Minister, why is supporting small business so important to ensuring continued economic growth and returning the budget to surplus?

As we all know, when small and family businesses in Australia prosper and grow, they create more jobs for Australians. When we were elected to office in 2013, we said to the Australian people that we would put in place the economic framework so that businesses in Australia could create jobs. That is exactly what we did. We said we would create a million jobs within five years, and we did that ahead of time. Under the coalition government, the Liberal-National government, the economy has created almost 1.3 million jobs. We have now been able to make another promise: if we are re-elected, we intend on ensuring that we put in place the right policies so that businesses out there can prosper and grow to create a further 1.25 million jobs. Last night's budget was the next stage of the Morrison government's economic plan, which we intend to deliver for the betterment of Australians.

Senator Askew, a final supplementary question.

Minister, what are you doing to ensure that Australian small businesses are getting the skilled workers that they need to continue to prosper and grow?

Again, a big feature of last night's budget was the more than half a billion dollars of investment in skills for today and for tomorrow. We understand that businesses need employees with the right skills. One of the big announcements in last night's budget was that we will invest in 80,000 apprentices. That's right, colleagues. That's 80,000 apprentices across Australia in areas of skills need. We want to put in place the right policies, look at where the skills are required and ensure that businesses—in particular, small and family businesses—have access to the skill requirements that they need. As part of our investment, in excess of half a billion dollars, we're also going to ensure that those who are recently unemployed do have access to the foundational skills that they need to ensure that they are able to fully participate in the workplace.

My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, Senator Payne, and relates to local content in the Future Submarine program. Estimates questions on notice have revealed the following: a total of $1.9 billion in contracts has been awarded for the Future Submarine project; Naval Group have been awarded two substantive contracts, totalling just over $1 billion, for design work to be predominantly carried out in France; and Australian entities have been awarded $834 million in contracts, but Defence has advised that only 67 per cent of that money is being spent on local content. We have $1.9 billion in contracts that have been awarded by the Future Submarine program, but only $569 million has been spent on local content. That's about 30 per cent. What explanation does the government have for dropping this figure from the original 90 per cent, as announced by Minister Pyne, to 60 per cent and now to a mere 30 per cent for local content?

I thank Senator Patrick for his question and some advice of the question. As Senator Patrick is well aware—in fact, perhaps he is better aware than most in the chamber, given his own professional experience, one would hope—this is a very long-term project. He knows that. This is a project which this government took on after those opposite completely abrogated their responsibility to ensure that Australia had the submarine capability it required to do the jobs that we asked the ADF to do. Our commitment to Australian industry engagement and industry content in the Attack class submarine program is absolutely steadfast.

Senator Patrick used a couple of figures in his question. He referred to a 90 per cent figure, which, as I recall, was actually used by a then DCNS official and not initiated by Minister Pyne. The involvement of Australian industry in the Attack class submarine program is critically important to its sovereign construction, its operation and the sustainment of the Attack class submarine fleet. That's the premise which we have operated on from the very beginning of this process. I have told this chamber, on a number of occasions and in the various incarnations of my responsibility, that we will not put a ceiling on local content because we want to absolutely maximise it.

We've made a variety of major announcements on how we're securing work in Australia, including the signing of the strategic partnering agreement; the signing of the design contract; the signing of a framework agreement between Naval Group Australia and ASC, identifying ways to collaborate with each other to support Australia's sovereign submarine capability; the establishment of the Naval Shipbuilding College in South Australia, to ensure that we've got the workers we need to get the jobs done; the transition of 270 jobs— (Time expired)

Senator Patrick, a supplementary question?

The department has given guidance as to why the number is so low at this stage, suggesting we don't have the know-why or the know-how at this early stage. However, we've got plenty of know-how and know-why, and they're in ASC in Adelaide. Unfortunately, we know that DCNS offered to partner with ASC in this build, in this program. That has been conceded by Defence. Do you accept that, when you carve them out, you've made a multibillion-dollar mistake in terms of local content?

I absolutely do not accept the premise of Senator Patrick's question. I was just about to say in my previous answer that we're transitioning 270 submarine design jobs from France to Australia. We've announced that Laing O'Rourke is the managing contractor to construct a purpose-built submarine yard at Osborne North, creating hundreds of construction jobs. We've announced that Lockheed Martin Australia will design and integrate the $700 million combat system for the Attack class, creating around 200 Australian jobs.

We are still in the very early phases of this. But, in terms of activities that are going to be located here, we have, just for starters: detailed design; product engineering; design authority for sustainment; land based integration and testing; sea based integration and testing; construction of the submarine construction yard, which I referred to; construction of the 12 boats themselves; construction of the support infrastructure—ranges, wharves and training; and development of a sovereign supply chain to support the fleet, including ongoing sustainment of the fleet such as upkeep, updates and upgrades. We are absolutely committed to maximising Australian industry content. (Time expired)

Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question?

In 2016, yes, Mr Costello did say 90 per cent, but Minister Pyne repeated that to the South Australian electorate. We've now moved from 90 per cent. He said 60 per cent in a radio interview in Adelaide. You have conceded that you haven't put any maximums. We're only at 30 per cent. Minister, how low are you going to let this go?

It strikes me as passing strange that, as far as I can tell, the only people in Australia who are talking down the development of the Attack class submarine are senators from South Australia like Senator Patrick and occasionally those opposite, when they feel a twinge of guilt about what they completely failed to do for the entire term of their government.

Our job, our task and our commitment is to maximise Australian content and to maximise Australian industry engagement. It is what I have prosecuted, it is what Minister Pyne has prosecuted, and it is what my colleague Senator Linda Reynolds will continue to do as the defence industry minister.

My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation, Senator McKenzie. How is the Liberal-National government's strong economic management benefitting those Australians living in regional areas?

I thank Senator Williams for his questions. He knows that when the regions are strong so too is Australia. He's championed this his entire senatorial career.

Regional Australia produces over 30 per cent of our GDP and 70 per cent of our exports and drives the wealth production across our nation. The Liberal-National government's focus on returning the budget to surplus for the first time in more than a decade means that we can invest further in the areas that Australians care about. There will be additional tax relief to support hardworking regional Australians—the public school teachers, the nurses, the tradies in our communities—with more than $1,000 of their hard-earned dollars back in their pockets because of our changes. This will help, no matter where we live.

We are investing to help people get home to their families safer and sooner, connecting our regions as part of our record $100 billion investment in our nation's infrastructure. This will help manage our growing population, improve freight and transport routes for our fabulous fresh produce, connect communities and reduce traffic accidents and fatalities.

Returning the budget to surplus is not an abstract concept; it produces real benefits and outcomes for people right across the country. No longer an abstract construct in this country will be fast rail. We have put $2 billion on the table to connect Melbourne to Geelong. We've also invested in developing eight business cases to connect east coast regional capitals with the regions. The budget surplus also allows us to invest in the Building Better Regions Fund to improve and support growth and local jobs in our regional community. It also means we're able to invest in our young people, so critical to our prosperity, and to support them with vocational training, apprenticeships and, in times of difficulty, mental health, sport and suicide-prevention programs. This is what real fiscal— (Time expired)

Senator Williams, a supplementary question.

I thank the minister and I ask: how will regional Australia benefit from the record investments in infrastructure announced in budget 2019?

There are a hundred billion reasons why regional Australia should be excited about our investment in key infrastructure. There's the additional $1 billion we're adding to the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative, to take our total investment to over $4.5 billion, to provide long-lasting benefits long after the construction finishes. Through this initiative we're investing in over 25 key freight corridors, including feeder roads, to more efficiently connect agriculture and mining regions to our ports, airports and other transport hubs. There's more than $2 billion to improve road safety and there are dedicated programs to improve roads right across rural and regional Australia. As local government minister, I know the vital role that local councils play in identifying and improving local roads, and, because of this sound fiscal management, we're able to provide $1.1 billion to local councils right across Australia to improve their local roads through our iconic Roads to Recovery Program.

Senator Williams, a final supplementary question.

Now for my last question in this place, and a real curly one to the minister: what would be the consequence for regional Australia of alternative approaches that fail to prioritise crucial infrastructure?

That is not such a curly one after all, because I think the greatest risk to the prosperity of our nation, and through hampering the productive capacity of the regions, of the agriculture sector, of the mining sector, is those people opposite, because of the dirty deal that they will do with our economy-wrecking Greens, who actually want to see the end of the mining industry, employing hundreds of thousands of Australians in the regions.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Why are the CFMEU forestry and mining divisions not saying to you, 'What is your preference deal?' and why are you actually going to stand with these people who are going to put your own members out of work? There is one reason, if you're a regional Australian, to back a Liberal-National coalition and the budget: we will look after your families, we'll look after your jobs and we'll provide a safe, prosperous future. (Time expired)

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Order, Senator Wong! It's the last question time for quite a while. Everyone take a deep breath.

Senator Watt interjecting—

That's what you keep telling me, Senator Watt. Senator Bernardi.

I must say that this question has been developed from the contribution of thousands of Australians, and the question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Across recent history the UN has criticised Australia's human rights record under previous and current coalition governments, subjected us to a barrage of criticism over asylum seekers and offshore detention and criticised the boat turnback policy. We've been rapped by the special rapporteur on torture and accused of chronic noncompliance that was off the charts, meaning we had very little to be proud of. Reportedly, the member for Denison wants to refer coalition ministers to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Why does Australia continue to support an organisation that allows genocide, torture and true crimes against humanity to go unchecked and waste time undermining our border security?

I thank Senator Bernardi for his question. I think it's very important to remind ourselves of the importance of effective multilateralism, of the importance of the contribution that it makes to protecting and promoting the rules based international order, that it makes to contributing to our own objectives in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia focuses on contributing to an efficient and effective UN. We don't always agree. In fact, we have robust differences of opinion from time to time within the UN and its associated agencies and bodies, like the Human Rights Council, of which we are a recently elected member. But the contribution to those things, where strong global cooperation sets a tone, where it sets in place rules and norms for constructive diplomacy in every region of the world, is a very important part of Australia's engagement and has been thus since the inception of the United Nations, where Australia was a founding member 70 years ago. We see a period of rapid and accelerating change and we see times of rising nationalism and geopolitical competition, but that does not mean that we should walk away from those organisations in which we have the opportunity to argue for the rules based international order and in which we have the opportunity to protect and promote those systems and processes which enable us to solve problems together. Our most urgent global challenges are not going to be solved by any one country acting alone. There are a vast number of them. As Senator Bernardi has alluded to and as I have said explicitly both here and elsewhere— (Time expired)

Senator Bernardi, a supplementary question.

According to DFAT annual reports, when the coalition took office, Australia contributed $193 million that year to the UN. Unlike self-funded retiree slow rates of return on investments, the UN has a enjoyed 46 per cent funding increase over the coalition's six-year life span, to $282 million. Australia has been ravaged by drought, cyclones and bushfires, so why do we keep increasing aid funding to a body that condemns us?

I do think it is an invidious comparison to suggest that our relatively reasonable contribution to bodies such as this prevents this government from making the contributions that we do in relation to natural disasters and emergencies in our own country. This government has taken significant steps to support those most seriously affected by the worst of natural disasters recently, whether they have been floods, fires, cyclones, drought and ongoing drought, which we acknowledge is an extraordinary challenge for those suffering. This government does not accept this is an either-or proposition. We are able, through the management of a strong economy, to play a responsible role in the international community and to contribute to security and stability in so doing, but also to support those Australians in greatest need.

Senator Bernardi, a final supplementary question.

In this place I've raised specific questions about the Paris climate pact and the diversion of Australian aid money to ghost programs in Afghanistan and to purveyors of terrorism in Palestine. Is the government proud of throwing away rapidly increasing amounts of precious taxpayer money to the United Nations, which continually opposes our border security and our sovereignty?

When Senator Bernardi raised those issues of concern, the government—and other senators, I may say—has of course made appropriate investigations. I acknowledge that some of those have needed to be addressed. Some have come to nothing. I am not for a moment claiming that the system in which we operate internationally, the rules based international order which we work within, will always solve and address every problem. The world would be a very different place if it could. But the contribution that Australia makes, as a supporter of the rules based international order, as a contribution to security and stability in our own region and elsewhere, is a very important one. We have been a leader in this context for decades and decades. We raise concerns when we have them. We engage in robust discussions and debates with those who run— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm that under Mr Morrison's budget last night millions of working Australians earning less than $40,000 will miss out on a bigger tax cut while bankers and CEOs will receive a tax cut of $11,000 a year?

No, I cannot confirm that. You should not believe something just because the shadow Treasurer says so. This government, in our second major income tax relief package for hardworking families, has again prioritised low- to middle-income earners as well as continuing to address bracket creep, as well as continuing to simplify our tax system with a view to incentivising and rewarding hardworking Australians. This is very important.

The good senator asked me about the tax burden at the lower income end. Somebody on $30,000 a year gets a 10.6 per cent tax cut as a result of the income tax relief package that this government has put forward, whereas somebody on $200,000 gets a 0.2 per cent tax cut. Somebody on $30,000 a year will be paying $2,142 in tax whereas somebody on $200,000 will pay $67,000 in tax—$2,142 versus $67,097. The point is, our tax system is highly progressive and, once our plan has been legislated in full, the top five per cent of income earners in Australia will continue to pay one-third of the income tax revenue generated in Australia.

We on this side of the chamber understand that it is entirely appropriate and economically important to incentivise, encourage and reward aspiration. Of course, it is entirely appropriate and important for the future economic success of all Australians, including and in particular low- and middle-income earners, to ensure all Australians have the right incentive to work— (Time expired)

Senator Ciccone on a supplementary question.

Can the minister confirm that the majority of people who will miss out on a bigger tax cut will be women? Why is Mr Morrison making it harder for working women to make ends meet?

Senator Ciccone, I welcome you to this chamber and I wish you a very successful career for many years to come—hopefully for quite a bit longer on the opposition benches. What I would advise you very genuinely is, when you're handed questions by your tactics committee, perhaps try and listen to the answer to the primary question before you just read out the first supplementary that you are handed, because the premise of the question is entirely wrong. If you had listened to my answer to the primary question, you would know that the premise of the question is entirely wrong, because Australians at the lower income end are getting higher tax cuts on the percentage that—

Oh, percentages—

'Oh percentages', says Senator Wong; yes, indeed. Let me repeat it: somebody on $30,000 a year gets a 10.6 per cent tax cut under our government, whereas somebody on $200,000 a year gets a 0.2 per cent tax cut. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order on my left, now on my right!

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Senator O'Neill, I've just called order; your colleague is waiting to get on his feet. Senator Ciccone on a final supplementary question.

With cuts to Medicare, hospitals and schools, and bigger tax cuts for bankers and CEOs, doesn't this show that, after six years of cuts and chaos, this government is only for the top end of town?

That is just a bit of student political rhetoric that I completely reject. This Liberal-National government is a government that is focused on the best interests of all Australians. We are focused on making sure that all Australians have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. We want to ensure all Australians have the best possible opportunity to lift their living standards. We understand that the way to do this is through a stronger economy, and that is why we continue to pursue our national economic plan, which has been successful in delivering a stronger economy. What is the alternative? The alternative is the high-taxing, antibusiness, class warfare agenda of the Leader of the Opposition which will make the economy weaker, which will make the country weaker and which will make all Australians poorer.

Do you know what? Socialism has been tried in other places around the world before. And do you know what it does? It makes everyone poor, including and in particular low-income earners. If you want to help lift low-income earners, if you want to give the opportunity for low-income earners to become high-income earners, we need a stronger economy. (Time expired)

My question is to Senator Canavan, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. I ask the minister: how are our government's strong economic management and the budget plan providing for the resources to invest in new market opportunities for our farmers and our agricultural products?

I thank Senator Macdonald for that question and recognise his great support and passion for the North Queensland agricultural industry in particular and the great sugar industry around the Burdekin, where Senator Macdonald hails from. Senator Macdonald is right to highlight the fact that this government understands that, for our farming sector to do better and for our farmers to be able to provide for their families and stay on the land, they need to be able to sell their products. They've got to have markets to sell the products to. They've got to have growing markets to get more money to stay competitive and also to make sure they keep the bank happy and the wife happy and the family happy and all those things happy. That's what they need. That's why, as a government, over the last six years we have signed new trade agreements with Japan, with China, with Korea, through the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreements and with Indonesia more recently—all massive markets for our farming produce. Those agreements have helped agricultural producers make more money.

I'm going to raise one particular highlight—one particular individual circumstance that is well known to Senator Macdonald: 2PH Farms down at Emerald and the Pressler family. I know Senator Macdonald, through his career, has helped them significantly through different issues, such as viruses and what have you, but they've also benefited significantly from this government's conclusion of particularly the Chinese free trade agreement, which has allowed great Central Queensland citrus products to go into the growing market of China. It has allowed that business to expand. It employs hundreds of people in Emerald and is contributing to the Central Queensland economy of that area, all thanks to the fact that we're getting more markets open.

That's why in the budget last night we also further announced $30 million to enhance Australia's agricultural trade. This will help farmers overcome some of the non-tariff barriers that exist. Most of the tariff barriers are gone or are being removed, but sometimes it's hard to get products classified and approved through customs in different countries. This funding will help farmers navigate that process, open up more markets and get more income and provide more jobs in regional communities.

Senator Macdonald, a supplementary question?

I thank the minister for that. Thank you for mentioning 2PH, which is a great Australian company doing great things in the export area. But, Minister, not all of our farmers, just at this moment, are doing quite as well, because of droughts and floods, particularly in the north and north-west of our state. So I ask the minister: how is the government supporting those farmers facing hardships through drought and floods?

I recognise the fact that Senator Macdonald represents some of the areas that have been impacted the hardest by drought, including around Townsville and having visited Giru a few weeks ago and seen the impact on the cane fields there, which was not as devastating as we saw in the gulf areas with the cattle industry but still a big impact for those farmers. That's why we announced more than $6 billion of drought funding in the budget last night and over $3 billion in flood relief. That includes the immediate $75,000 grants we provided to farmers impacted by this flood. That's three times the normal level, given the significance of this event. In recent weeks, we've announced that we'll make available up to $400,000 in grants to graziers to restock their land so that we can get these properties, particularly those in the gulf that have lost thousands of cattle, possibly up to half a million cattle, back on their feet. We've provided $5 million to CWA, the Country Women's Association, to provide assistance to those in drought, and we're also offering concessional loans. There are a lot of other things in the budget to help. We're doing all we can to get people back on their feet after these devastating floods and droughts.

Senator Macdonald, a final supplementary question?

Again I thank the minister for that and appreciate his advice about how we've helped farmers in need. But we're a government, I know, that looks to the future, and I ask the minister: how is the government securing the future of our farmers and, through them, of our nation as a whole?

What we have is a positive vision for the future of farming in this country. What we want to see is us grow as a farming country from the $60-odd billion we produce today to $100 billion in years to come. We want to increase the number of people we feed from about 75 million people now—over double and nearly triple our own population—to over 100 million people around the world. The way you do that is you build dams. You have to store water. The way you do that is to allow people to develop land. Sometimes they have to clear trees to put in new crops—to grow food that is good for the world, not just for us. Over there on that side, they don't want any of that. They don't want to build dams, they certainly don't want to let farmers manage their own lands and they are insulting our farming communities in this country by adopting Greens-Left policies that are going to lock up the land and not let our country progress to growing more food and developing more local economies in our country.

My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations, Senator Payne. I refer to the Treasurer, who last night told Australians:

… every one of us wants to see wages growing faster.

Can the minister confirm that, in addition to overseeing record-low wage growth, the government last night cut forecast wage growth? If so, by how much?

Depending on the timing of elections and returns to parliament and outcomes, that may be the last charming and engrossing question from Senator Cameron we hear in this place. I think it's important to note that for the record, because we've heard lots of charming and engrossing questions from Senator Cameron over time.

It's interesting that he goes to the question of wages growth. We on this side know one thing about wages growth. The difference between us and them is that you have to have a stronger economy to ensure wages growth. The difference—

I raise a point of order on relevance. I simply asked: can the minister confirm that, in addition to overseeing record low wage growth, the government last night cut forecast wage growth? That's the question. The minister should be drawn to the question.

You've reminded the minister of the question. She has been speaking for 45 seconds. I'm listening carefully.

I think it would be useful to look at actual budget results in the context of Senator Cameron's question. Unlike those opposite, what our budget results have consistently shown is that we have consistently exceeded expectations and that we are delivering a surplus. That would be foreign territory for those opposite, unless they have memories that go back to 1989. Notwithstanding that, we of course operate on the basis of using conservative forecasts—

Senator Wong, on a point of order?

She got there.

Senator Wong is not raising a point of order.

Those opposite might not like to hear about it and they might not like to think about it but we have maintained our path back to surplus on the back of those forecasts and our spending discipline. We want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. That's what we're delivering: a stronger economy—1.2 million more jobs created by Australian businesses as part of our stronger economy, with wages growth picking up. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Phillip Lowe, has said we are seeing a turning point now evident in the wage price index due to the stronger labour market— (Time expired)

Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.

In addition to overseeing record-low wage growth and a cut in forecast wage growth, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has voted eight times to cut the wages of over 700,000 workers relying on penalty rates. How does cutting wages reflect a commitment to higher wages?

If you want to look at a risk to the economy, a risk to jobs and a risk to wages, look over there on that side. That is where the risk to the economy, jobs and wages is. What about Labor's—

Senator Wong on a point of order.

It's question time and the minister has gone directly to having a go at the opposition, which we're used to—we know that's their game plan—but the question is: how does cutting wages reflect a commitment to higher wages?

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Well then, answer that question, Senator Cormann.

Order! The minister was speaking for 11 seconds. I will give the minister a chance to continue a couple more sentences. Senator Payne.

As I was saying, this strong economy is what will deliver higher wages. Without a strong economy, you cannot deliver higher wages. I understand why this is unfamiliar territory for those opposite, because they don't have the experience in their term of office to have delivered that. And we know, even from the policies they have exposed so far, that they are promising $200 billion in higher taxes.

Order! Senator Cameron, on a point of order.

Mr President, this minister doesn't have a clue. What we've asked, simply, is: how does cutting penalty rates relate to higher wages? The minister should be drawn to the question. If she doesn't know, she should just say she hasn't got a clue.

Senator Cameron, I recorded part of your question as saying, 'How does cutting wages reflect a commitment to higher wages?' I believe the minister is being relevant to that part of the question. She is talking about higher wages. Senator Payne.

Thank you. I'll tell you who doesn't have a clue, Mr President. Senator Doug Cameron doesn't have a clue. He doesn't have a clue about the impact that $200 billion of higher taxes will have on this country and on this economy. He doesn't have a clue about the impact of their big, new carbon tax, but independent modelling shows it will cost over 300,000 jobs.

Order! Senator Payne. Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question.

Maybe we can do better this time. Last month the Minister for Finance argued that record-low wage growth was a deliberate design feature of the Australian economy. Is the coalition government's decision to cut wages, and continued failure to do anything to address record-low wage growth, a part of its deliberate design to leave Australian workers worse off?

Senator Cameron—consistent to the last—misrepresents government ministers in almost everything he says, and he's just done it again. What the finance minister has made very clear is that the only way to lift wages is a stronger economy built on more jobs and lower taxes. What Senator Cameron is refusing to acknowledge is those men and women who run small businesses, all over Australia, who are living in absolute fear of those opposite being elected and destroying their businesses, destroying the economy, and destroying their future and that of their children.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of questions from Senators McAllister, Brown, Ciccone and Cameron.

As all of the answers to questions in question time today from this government highlight, what we have before us in this budget is a fake budget, full of fake promises. If you drill down into the answers to every one of the questions asked by the opposition today, you can drive an absolute truck through all of the premises inside the answers to any one of those questions.

We have heard here, in the answers to questions from Senator McAllister to Minister Fifield, that they have treated Australians on low incomes as a complete afterthought in this budget. Less than 24 hours after this budget was delivered we see a backflip for forgotten Australians who weren't included in the $75 payment—those on Austudy, ABSTUDY, double orphan pensions, Newstart allowance and parenting payments. Why didn't you think of these people before?

Let's move to the other people affected by this budget. Look at the 'fairness' of the tax cuts contained in this budget, which are inherently biased against those on low incomes. Those earning under $40,000 will get a puny, tiny tax cut compared with those at the top end of town. If you take someone who is a student on Austudy, they were going to miss out on their energy supplement; it has now been rectified. Those on low incomes are absolutely not getting their fair share of the tax cuts in this budget. Instead, if you look at the forecasts for these tax cuts, it is an absolute bonanza for the high-income earners in our nation—an absolute bonanza! If you look at the wage index of our nation, as Senator Cameron asked of Senator Cash, and if you look at the false declarations of wages growth in this country that this government has forecast, not once has this government met forecast wages growth predictions. I think it was 3.5 per cent in the 2017-18 budget by 2020. In the following year, it was pushed out to 2021. And now we are seeing wages growth being pushed out another year.

What if the assumptions that the government had put forward about wages growth in our country had been correct? According to the papers that the government has put forward, wages in this country should have grown by some seven per cent—that is despite the fact that the government does things like attack penalty rates. What kind of thing is it to expect that you can deliver wages growth in our nation while, at the same time, cutting penalty rates? It simply doesn't stack up. You do nothing as a government to stimulate wages growth, because your industrial relations settings—and Senator Cormann said it himself—are pretty much designed to keep wages low in our country.

So, as we head into this election, which I hope will be called on the weekend, we have laid out before us, plain and clear, a fake budget full of fake policies. The fundamentals in this budget simply do not add up. There is the NDIS saving that should have been spent and the slow progress of this Commonwealth government in dealing with the states. There are the attacks on penalty rates and the lack of wage rises. Assumption after assumption— (Time expired)

I remind senators that in the motion passed earlier today the exact cut-off for this debate will be 3.30 pm.

The budget is back in black and Australia is back on track. Are there 12 more beautiful words in the English language than those? If there are, I haven't heard them. I am so proud to be speaking this afternoon on Treasurer Josh Frydenberg's first and outstanding budget—the first of many Frydenberg budgets, I hope. It's a remarkable budget because it does return the budget to surplus, and it does so without increasing taxes and while guaranteeing essential services. In fact, not only have we returned the budget to surplus without increasing taxes; we're returning the budget to surplus while cutting taxes. We're delivering hardworking Australians the tax relief that they need and deserve. In fact, cumulatively, between this budget and the last one, we're reducing personal income taxes by almost $300 billion. That makes the choice at this election very clear between the opposition led by Mr Shorten and the government led by Mr Morrison, and the clearly contrasting tax plans that we're taking to this election.

From the coalition you have $300 billion of lower personal income taxes, and from the Labor Party you have $200 billion of increased taxes, at least. That's a $500 billion turnaround for hardworking Australians, in terms of the tax burden they will bear, depending on who wins this upcoming election. In this financial year alone, up to 10 million working Australians will receive tax cuts of up to $1,080—in this financial year. By the time our tax plan is rolled out in full, 94 per cent of taxpayers will face a marginal rate of no greater than 30 per cent. This effectively eliminates the scourge of bracket creep for all workers earning between $45,000 and $200,000. They'll face no disincentive, in the form of higher taxes, to taking on more risk and more hours and to being more productive and entrepreneurial.

Of course, we're not just delivering a surplus but putting the federal government, finally, on a path to paying back the debt burden that was left to us. We've taken six years to get back to surplus, despite the best efforts of those opposite to make it even harder and longer, and we're forecasting that within 10 years all of the net debt accrued as a result of the irresponsible fiscal path we were placed upon, as a country, by the Labor Party will be reversed. The damage will be undone. Net debt will reach zero by 2029-30. In time, this will help alleviate the $18 billion of interest payments that Australian taxpayers currently have to meet every year. That $18 billion of interest payments a year is one of the single biggest budget items that we have to service, and that is in a time of record-low interest rates. God forbid—if we weren't able to put ourselves on a path to fiscal repair—that interest rates ever return to higher, more normal, levels. This, of course, is despite the best efforts of the Labor Party, particularly in this chamber, to thwart our efforts to repair the budget—to make that task as difficult as possible.

Importantly, we've done all of this—returned the budget to surplus and provided meaningful tax relief for working Australians—while guaranteeing the essential services that Australian people rely on. This government will deliver record funding for health. It will deliver record funding for education. It will deliver record investment in our national defence. We've done all this without raising taxes. We haven't had a hit on self-funded retirees. We haven't had a hit on property investors. We haven't had a hit on small- and medium business owners. We've had no hit on those who pay income tax and we've had no hit on those who use family trusts. All of those people will be in the gun if Mr Shorten and the Labor Party are successful at the upcoming election. How do we do this? We do it by restraining spending growth with prudent fiscal management—led particularly by our Minister for Finance, Mathias Cormann—and presiding over a growing economy that's delivered 1.3 million jobs. The choice could not be clearer.

I was sitting in your chair earlier on, Madam Deputy President, when I heard Senator Macdonald talk about the standards in this chamber and how they've slipped over the last 28 to 29 years he's been here, and I can say that over the 14 years I've been here the nastiness has been just incredible. I've seen it myself from the time Mr Abbott took over the leadership. Standards really did drop. I don't think I'd get much of an argument from those of us who aren't Liberal senators.

Senator Macdonald also talked about the lies perpetrated in this chamber, and in the other chambers, that are gotten away with. But there is a greater lie here. We are not back in the black. We're not. There's still debt. It's projected that we won't be back in the black until next year. So there's another blatant lie that's being peddled by the government. We understand that their backbench senators get wheeled out and have to run the party line, and that's a classic example. I'm not blaming Senator Paterson, because it's what the Treasurer's saying and what the Prime Minister's saying, but I want to quote one page of an article that's come to my attention. It's by Greg Jericho from The Guardianand it's under the heading 'The seven graphs that expose the Coalition's 2019 budget fairy tale'. I won't go too far into it, but he does say:

Tax cuts, surpluses and fancifully optimistic forecasts add up to a make-believe budget.

He says:

Morrison splashes the cash in final election sell to the suburbs

The rosy forecasts in Frydenberg's budget—and the big assumptions behind them

I'm quoting him. If it were me saying it, I'd refer to their proper titles. He also says:

This year's budget is an odd mix of tax cuts and spending measures targeted to win an election, but with assumptions so joyous and optimistic that you could be forgiven for thinking the Liberal party wants to lose just so it can blame the ALP for not living up to their predictions.

People are a wake-up to this. The media are a wake-up to this.

This has been a really strange session. I'm not using these as props, Madam Deputy President. I just want to put them under my nose so I can refer to them. Something was brought to my attention by Senator Gallacher this morning. I hadn't noticed it. This is the first time it has happened in living memory, certainly for me—and I'd be interested to hear from other senators, especially you, Madam Deputy President. Normally in the newspapers after the budget there is a photo of the Treasurer looking like a leader. You know how the cameramen get down and they make the Treasurer look like they're huge and this is a thumping win for our nation. What do Australia's papers carry today? Can you believe that just about every paper in this nation—I'll hold them down here so I don't get told off—features cartoons?

In The Australianwhich I call the paper they give away for free at the airport—there is the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, and he's got no clothes on and he's sitting on a cloud. He's the love cherub with a bow and arrow. He's smiling and he's got big rosy red cheeks. He's shooting arrows out there, and there's money being aimed at a nurse and a construction worker, I assume, with a helmet on. But, in the background, there is a big black ominous cloud with lightning flying out of it.

Then we go to The Fin Review, one of the last organs you would think would turn the budget into a cartoon, but here they have Mr Frydenberg on the back of a truck, with 'Back in Black' written on it, and he's playing a guitar. There's the Prime Minister drawn in the cartoon. He's playing a flute or something. They're mimicking the AC/DC video for 'It's a Long Way to the Top', down Swanston Street. But there's a big road sign saying, virtually: 'Look out. There are holes in front. Roadworks.' This is how seriously they're taking it.

Here's the front page of The Daily Telegraph. We've got The Terminator—I was going to say 'The Cormannator'—puffing on a cigar. He's with others, and they're cooking a barbecue, and the headline takes the mickey: 'Prime cuts'. Then we have this one here, The Canberra Times. They have Mr Frydenberg dressed up as a yodeller in the mountains , and he's got funny pants on with money falling out of them. Then they've got the Prime Minister sitting on a bull there, ready for the 'election rodeo'. I'm not making this up.

Wait till we get to this one, the Herald Sun. Oh my goodness me. I'm not allowed to use it as a prop, and I wouldn't dare, but, anyway, here's a picture of an overweight Prime Minister with a pair of shorts and a footy jumper on. He's kicking the ball and showing hairy legs. It just keeps getting worse. Then we have this one here, The West Australian. They've got Mr Frydenberg as some genie rubbing a bottle, hoping for wishes, and it says that you get 30 wishes, not three. It's an absolute joke. They're a wake-up to you.

I can only thank the senator for his commentary about cartoons in newspapers. It shows how much the Labor Party have got to attack in the wonderful budget.

Madam Deputy President, tomorrow night you're going to be subjected to what will be called an alternative budget by the alternative government. It will be full of lies, mistruths and misconstructions. Let me just warn anyone who might be listening to Mr Shorten tomorrow night about Labor's record on what they promise and what they do. Remember 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'? A Labor leader said that and was elected, and the first bit of legislation that came in was a carbon tax. Mr Swan, for the six years that I heard him deliver budgets in this house, each year promised that the next year there would be a surplus of the budget, and not once was there a surplus. In fact, in most years the deficit went up.

If you want to know what Labor promises, just go back to the 1993 election, when Labor promised tax cuts. In fact, they did more than promise tax cuts; they actually passed laws. They were called the l-a-w law tax cuts. They were legislated. Labor did that because they thought they were going to lose the 1993 election. As it turned out, miraculously, they won that election. You know the first thing they did when they came back into office? They reneged on them. They cancelled those l-a-w law tax cuts. So, whatever you hear Mr Shorten say tomorrow night, just know that it won't be truthful; it'll be misconstrued. Don't take my word for it—go back and look at the record of Labor's budget malfeasance.

There are a couple of things that need to be raised. The first is that Senator Pratt kept talking about penalty rates being dropped by this government. A lot of Labor senators keep talking about that. It is a complete, abject, outright lie. They know that penalty rate decisions are made by the Fair Work Commission. And who set up the Fair Work Commission? The Labor Party in government. Who appointed most of the judges to the Fair Work Commission? The Labor Party—yet they continue the lie that it's the government that has cut penalty rates. The second is that Labor simply can't be trusted with money.

This is a wonderful budget. Every low- to middle-income earner will get $1,000 more in their pay packet once the government's laws are brought in. For a dual-income family, that's $2,160 to help low-income earners and middle-income earners, to support consumption growth and ease the cost of living As my colleague Senator Paterson has explained, there are tax cuts for all, going into the future, and there are tax cuts immediately for small business, the engine room of Australia's economy. There is the instant tax write-off increase from $25,000 to $30,000—and it seems, if I'm reading the budget right, that that now becomes a permanent feature for small business.

And why can we give these concessions to small business? Why can we make these concessions to low- and middle-income earners? Why can we have record spending on education? Why can we have record spending on health, with more drugs, more expensive drugs, put on the PBS? Why can we substantially increase infrastructure expenditure to $100 billion over the next 10 years? Why can we do all this? It's because we managed the economy carefully. We've got the budget back into the black. We've got the budget in such a way that, in the forward years, there will be more surpluses, and we'll be able to build more hospitals, more schools and more roads. That's what you can do when you carefully manage finances and carefully manage government expenditure. Labor, on the other hand, will spend like crazy. We know that. Everybody knows that. They will buy votes with it, but someone always has to pay, and we've seen the results of that. We've seen the job that our government have had to do to get the budget back into the black and keep it that way. We need to do that because we need that money to spend on essential services. (Time expired)

I also rise to take note of answers to questions asked of a number of government senators in relation to last night's federal budget. As my colleagues have already said, there's really only one way you can describe last night's federal budget, and that is: a massive election con job. This budget last night comes after six years of neglect of the Australian people and, worse still than neglect, outright cuts to the services that so many Australians depend upon right across my state of Queensland and right across this country. Over the last six years we have seen cut after cut from this Liberal-National government to schools across Queensland, to hospitals across Queensland and to infrastructure that Queensland desperately needs as a growing state.

On top of all of those cuts, the other thing that has defined this government over the last six years is absolute chaos. From year to year, from Prime Minister to Prime Minister, the knives have been out constantly, and the undermining has happened constantly as well. I was just thinking before that we're now on our third Prime Minister under this government, and, if they try really hard, they've still got a few hours left to knife another Prime Minister and put in a fourth. That's the kind of thing that you can't rule out from this government, such is the level of chaos we've seen from them over the last six years—six years of cuts and chaos delivered by this government. They're trying to paper over it now with a new Prime Minister, a new Treasurer and a new federal budget. But I have confidence that the Australian people will see through this and that the Queenslanders back in my home state will see through this and will see that this is just an election con job—that a government that is on the ropes, that has neglected them for six years, is trying to rush through in a belated attempt to win them over.

As I was watching last night's budget, it reminded me quite a lot of sending someone a belated birthday card six years after their birthday. For six years, this government has cut back on services to Queensland and neglected what Queenslanders need. Six years later, on the eve of an election, they come out and say, 'Here are a few sweeteners; we'll try to win you over.' The problem this government has is that, in my experience, when you send someone a belated birthday card, all they remember is the fact that you forgot their birthday in the first place. I'm very confident that last night's budget will show that Queenslanders, and Australians in general, will not forget the fact that this government has cut their services and will not forget the fact that wages have barely grown under this government. They'll remember all those things, just like they would remember it if it were a birthday that this government had forgotten and then sent them a belated card six years down the track.

I was also remembering before—we're all reminiscing a little bit, because this is probably the last day of sittings before the next election—former senator George Brandis. Who could forget one of the LNP's shining stars in Queensland over many years? Some of you might remember that he had some things to say about the Queensland LNP before the last state election. He described them as being very, very mediocre. I think that description could also be applied to last night's federal budget delivered by this government: very, very mediocre.

It was particularly mediocre for my home state of Queensland. All last night's budget did—rather than put money back into the services that Queenslanders need—was actually lock in the hundreds of millions of dollars of cuts that we've seen to Queensland hospitals and the hundreds of millions of dollars of cuts we've seen to Queensland schools, TAFEs and apprenticeships. In question time today we had ministers getting up and talking about all this great news about new funding for skills. Why didn't you do some of it sometime over the last six years, rather than pulling it out of the bottom drawer just before an election?

Mackay, one of Queensland's most important regional towns, is now suffering from a skills shortage, with unemployment down to about three per cent and employers struggling to find people for jobs. Why would that be? Could it be to do with the fact that this government has cut tens of thousands of apprenticeships over the last six years? All of a sudden they want us to forget about that and look at the fact that they're putting in a few little trickles of money for apprenticeships and for skills into the future. The budget last night locked in those cuts to schools, hospitals and TAFEs. It didn't reverse them at all. The budget has no plan to lift the wages of Queensland working people, who have barely had pay rises for any of the six years that this government has been in power.

Probably worst of all, there is not a single dollar of funding from the federal government for new infrastructure in Queensland—not just this year but next year as well. They want us to look at all these infrastructure projects they're talking about, but they're years into the distance. Not only would you need to vote for this government at the coming election; you'd need to vote for them at the next one as well. It is a joke, it is a con job, and Queenslanders will see through it. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to climate change.

Well, another budget and another year of the coalition selling out our future: billions of dollars in subsidies to help burn fossil fuels; money to help unlock new gas; and a bill to be rammed through later on this evening—with Labor's help, I might add—to enable taxpayer money to push more fossil fuel projects overseas. In fact, this budget contains more money to reopen the Christmas Island detention centre—so the Prime Minister could hold the most expensive press conference in our country's history—than it does new money to respond to the emergency of climate change. Our temperature records are tumbling. We just had the hottest three months ever recorded, smashing the previous record by a degree. We are running at over two degrees Celsius above the long-term trend. In recent times, apocalyptic scenes have dominated our news. In my state of Tasmania, communities have been threatened, and our precious, unique wilderness World Heritage area has been devastated by fires made more likely and more dangerous by the breakdown of our climate. Vast areas of Queensland have flooded— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I'm just trying to remember where I was up to when I last spoke. It was something about the government being an absolute rabble—I think that's where I got up to, and I think I was dead on when I gave that position. I was talking about the budget falling apart overnight. It didn't last from Lateline to lunch. This is a government that has just lost it completely. This government has got no focus. It is still trying to deal with the division and the dysfunction that has epitomised a government now with three Prime Ministers. It's just a terrible situation that we're in.

This budget won't be the silver bullet that makes people forget about how bad this government has been over a period of six years. Here we are after six years—we're probably six weeks out from an election—and I can tell you that a $75 tax cut won't undo the cuts and cruelty that this government has been dishing out over the last six years. As I said, we sought to move an amendment in the House to see the payment extended, because there's no good reason for people on these payments to be excluded. They face the same cost of living and, in many cases, are, in fact, on a lower payment. While Labor supports this payment, make no mistake that, after six years of chaos and cruel cuts, the Australian people will see right through this cynical and desperate attempt from this rabble of a government to save its own skin.

This government must take the Australian public for fools. They must think that pensioners have forgotten what the government tried to do to pensioners. What the government will do today with this one-off payment doesn't undo the fact that this budget is being propped up by vulnerable Australians. Shamefully, this government has built almost a quarter of their projected budget surplus on underspends in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Prime Minister has counted a $1.6 billion underspend towards the budget bottom line next year. This is a disgrace, not an achievement. It's $1.6 billion in services and support that people with disability will miss out on because the government has botched the NDIS and underspent at every turn.

It comes on top of a shocking $3.4 billion underspend in the 2018-19 financial year and over $6 billion to date. This is a direct result of delays in the NDIS rollout, with over 77,000 people missing out on the NDIS this year alone, and it's a consequence of people being unable to use their plans because services and support are simply not available. People are waiting months and, in some cases, years for basic equipment. People are going without the right therapy and personal support. The NDIS has fallen into crisis under this government. People are getting poor-quality plans, they are not being treated with respect, services are being pushed to the brink and waiting times are completely unacceptable. After six years of neglect, the government's kneejerk announcement on NDIS prices, six weeks out from an election, is too little too late. The bottom line is that Australians with disability are the ones paying so Scott Morrison can bolster his books.

For 834 days, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government tried to cut the pension for over 1½ million pensioners, as well as recipients of Newstart, youth allowance and other payments, by scrapping the energy supplement. The energy supplement was designed to help vulnerable Australians with the cost of power bills. Scott Morrison's plan would have cost a single pensioner $14.10 per fortnight, or around $365 per year, and cut $21.20 a fortnight, or around $550 a year, from couple pensioners. This wasn't a plan for a one-off cut; it was a cut every fortnight, every year for decades. Labor opposed this cut and committed to reversing it.

Pensioners will never forget that in every single budget the Abbot-Turnbull-Morrison government has tried time and again to cut the age pension. In 2013, Prime Minister Abbott promised that there would be no cuts to the pension. Yet in 2014 the Liberals tried to cut pension indexation—a cut that would have meant pensioners would have been forced to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. In that very same 2014 horror budget, the Liberals slashed $1 billion from pensioner concessions designed to help pensioners with the cost of living. In 2015, the Liberals did a deal with the Greens political party to cut the pension to 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets test. In 2016, the Liberals tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. For over three years, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has refused to review and adjust the deeming rates, while the Reserve Bank cash rate has fallen from 2.25 per cent in February 2015 to 1.5 per cent today. For two years, the Liberals planned to scrap the energy supplement, cutting the age pension to 1.5 million pensioners. For four years, the Liberals tried to raise the pension age to 70. Labor has fought each and every one of these cuts to the age pension. We have fought them tooth and nail.

Meanwhile, over the past three years, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has cut and outsourced over 2,500 jobs from Centrelink. During this time, we have seen a blowout in call wait times to Centrelink and wait times to get onto the pension. This government has made it even more difficult for pensioners to contact Centrelink and to access the pension. Labor will boost Centrelink with 1,200 jobs. We will improve the services, reduce the wait times and make income support available and accessible as and when Australians need it.

Try as they may, the government can't gloss over their gaping lack of energy policy with their energy support payment—this miserly energy support payment. After six years, they continue to be at each other's throats over energy policy, with 13 energy policies over six years. They're more interested in tackling each other than tackling climate change or energy prices. Since the Liberals formed government in 2013, wholesale energy prices have doubled. In contrast, Labor have a comprehensive plan to boost renewable energy and put downward pressures on prices. We do have an energy policy.

I would love to know what happened to this bill. How did something that wasn't in the budget last night end up in the parliament this morning? Was there a crisis meeting? When was the crisis meeting? Who was there? Did they deliberately leave out Newstart and other payments or was it an accident? And in the House this morning, the Minister for Social Services, Paul Fletcher, said, 'You're either fair dinkum or you're not. The numbers are either in your budget or they're not.' Paul Fletcher doesn't set the world alight but, I have to tell you, this just shows you all you need to know about this government. The government aren't fair dinkum about people on Newstart or youth allowance or the double orphan pension, because they weren't in their budget last night.

Labor is of the view that it's well past time that the Australian public get a chance to pass their judgement on this rabble of a government, on this government who don't care about families, who don't care about young people, who don't care about the underprivileged, who don't care about the vulnerable in our society. This is a government that are simply about the big end of town, because they were prepared, rather than deal with the issues that are important to the vulnerable in our society, to hand over $80 billion of tax cuts to multinational corporations, to the banks and to the richest corporations in this country. Again, that tells you all you need to know about this disjointed, discredited rabble of a government.

We need a government who understand the pressures that are on ordinary working families. The reason they don't understand is that most of them come from privileged backgrounds, not all of them, but most of them. Those that haven't come from privileged backgrounds have abandoned the working class and formed an alliance with the powerful and the privileged. I've got even more contempt for them than I have for these privileged ponces who sit over there lecturing workers about having to lose their penalty rates. They don't understand what it's like to roll up to the checkout at Woolworths, Coles or Aldi and just pray that your MasterCard won't bounce so that you can pay for your groceries. I've been there. My family's been in that position. We understand how tough it is for people to be in that situation. Blue-collar workers earning 40 grand a year are doing it tough. The cost of living's going through the roof and all this lot want to do is hand $80 billion over to the big end of town. That's exactly what they would do if they could get away with it, because we heard Senator Cormann during question time again raising the lowering of tax and getting the economy moving—trickle-down economics. They are a pathetic mob. They are an absolute pathetic mob. Working-class people need better. Working-class people deserve better. When this government come in and spend the bulk of their time changing leader, attacking each other, how could they ever get it right to actually look after the people who deserve to be looked after in this country?

They talk about equality of opportunity. How can a poor family in, say, Mount Druitt in the western suburbs of Sydney, faced with institutional poverty, faced with intergenerational unemployment, have equality of opportunity? How can their kids get equality of opportunity when this mob want to cut funding to public schools, when they want to hand more money over to private schools, when they won't put proper money into the health system? How can any working-class family in suburbs like Mount Druitt around this country get a fair go? They can't do it under this terrible government. And this is the government that wants to cut penalty rates. Those opposite were in here, day in, day out, arguing that penalty rates were old-fashioned, that penalty rates were not appropriate anymore. Yet, when I worked, my penalty rates at least gave me the opportunity—maybe not every year, but once every couple of years—to save up to take my family on a holiday, if I was lucky. And they just think penalty rates are an old-fashioned institution. No, penalty rates actually put food on the table for working-class families. Penalty rates actually put shoes on children's feet and school uniforms on their back. But, given that those opposite are so remote, so privileged, on a $200,000-a-year base rate, how could they ever understand how hard it is for working-class families to battle?

If there's one thing we need to do, it's to get rid of this coalition government. The National Party, who supposedly represent rural and regional Australia—some of the poorest regions in the country—talk a big game when they're up in the bush, but when they come in here they back cuts to penalty rates; they back tax cuts for the millionaires, the billionaires and the multinational corporations. And then they wonder why they're being abandoned by traditional National Party voters. I'll tell you why they're being abandoned: the public have had enough of them kowtowing to the Liberals. They're the doormat of the Liberals when they're down here. They're not taking the right steps to protect rural and regional Australia on welfare, on wages, on climate change. It's time for a change. It's time for a new government. It's time for a Labor government that looks after working people in this country.

I rise to make a contribution on the debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment) Bill 2019. As we know, this is a one-off energy assistance payment, the grand total of which is $75, for people on a range of income support payments. Having said it is a one-off payment of $75, I note that any dollar that goes into pockets of people trying to survive on income support means a lot to each of those people. But, in the scheme of things, a $75 one-off payment will not address some of the most fundamental issues that people on income support face.

Let us remember that this government never intended for this payment to go to people on Newstart and youth allowance. They never intended it to. They have been shamed into also making this payment to people on Newstart. I bet it's been done through gritted teeth. We know they didn't want it to go to people on Newstart, because when this issue was first leaked to the media there was outrage about Newstart. They could have fixed this before last night's budget. But, no, it was done overnight, and all of a sudden there are different figures for this payment from what was in originally in the budget papers. It's very clear this is a last-minute thing; they were shamed into doing it. If they really cared about people on Newstart, we would have seen an increase to Newstart.

This is where I find some of the commentary from the Labor Party outrageous, when they know very well that people trying to survive on the measly Newstart payment—which has not been increased for 25 years—are living in poverty. They know that people are living in poverty. In the arguments that the government and, for that matter, some on the other side of the chamber make, they comment about this being a transition payment. This morning on the radio when the Treasurer finally acknowledged and let people know that Newstart recipients will get this $75, he still repeated the same old myth—that this is a transition payment—when 64 per cent of people on Newstart have been on it for over a year, 44 per cent for over two years and 15 per cent for over five years.

This is a payment that was designed when the labour market was different. It is a very different situation now, and we have both of the old parties unprepared to increase Newstart. People struggling to survive on Newstart need an increase now. Even some members of the government agree with that, and even their former Prime Minister John Howard, the architect of Welfare to Work, now admits that we need to increase Newstart. So, yes, let's review income support payments, but after we have seen an increase to Newstart immediately. That is what's needed in this country, and that's what the Greens are going to this election with: an increase in Newstart.

We've been campaigning for an increase to Newstart for years and years and years. Members in this chamber who have been here long enough know that I tried to live on it for a week in 2012. It hasn't seen a real increase since then. Then, it was difficult; seven years later, it's even more difficult for people to live on Newstart. It is outrageous that people are still condemned to this—and this government doesn't care. They were completely ignored in the budget. For the government to come out and say, 'This is a budget for people on low incomes,' is just not true, because those on low incomes are the very people that are struggling on Newstart or struggling on youth allowance. They deserve an increase. Instead, the government layers out largesse on the wealthy end of town. That's where the bulk of the tax cuts go—the wealthy end of town. It prefers to layer largesse on the wealthy and ignore the people that are struggling to survive on Newstart. That is what the community is hearing really clearly from the government. The government didn't even want people on Newstart to get the $75 energy assistance payment—the very people that would benefit the most from this payment to help them with struggling to survive.

This bill, along with a whole range of other bills, is being forced through the chamber by five o'clock tonight. There were over 21 bills on the list, because some of the bills were done together. We're at bill No. 4. In just over an hour, we will stop and go into another process of first speeches and valedictories, which I'm sure will be very worthy, and I will be here listening intently. But then we'll go into a series of divisions to knock through those 17 bills, one of which is on the cashless debit card, which of course affects people on Newstart as well. It affects people on Newstart and people on a whole range of other payments. It is a cruel budget measure which the government told a blatant untruth about in the budget speech, saying that it's cut alcohol by half and it's reduced gambling. That's a blatant untruth, when they know that the ANAO report clearly said there is no evidence to support a claim of reduction in social harms. It's a blatant untruth, and yet they're ramming the bill through this place—with the complicity of the ALP, I might add. The ALP know very well we won't get to debate the CDC bill, because it will be one of the 17 that are rammed through this place with no debate, come five o'clock. That bill condemns people to at least another 12 months on CDC and, if the government have their way, they'll be transferring all the people on BasicsCard, the terrible flawed experiment of income management in the NT, to the cashless debit card as well.

So here are the ALP, who claim to be fair and who did not support rollout of the trial in the Goldfields. But now they are supporting the continuation of the cashless debit card in the Goldfields, in the East Kimberley and in Ceduna. They have some amendments that they have circulated, which, again, we won't get to debate; we will just get to vote on them. They're going to try to convince the community that they're trying to make it a little easier for people to get off the card. Last night, in this place, I articulated very clearly that to get off the cashless debit card is very hard. The amendments that I have seen circulated on the cashless debit card do not improve it that much. It leaves it up to the department quite a bit. It also leaves it up to the flawed community panel, where there is one. If they had bothered to ask anybody living in those communities, they would know that that process is flawed too. These, again, are people who this government demonises because they are unfortunate enough to have to try to survive on income support—specifically, Newstart, one of the lowest of those payments. Youth allowance, in fact, is even lower.

The ALP are assisting the government to get that done, and let no-one else tell you differently. That's what they're doing by agreeing to the motion on hours this morning and by agreeing to ram these 21 bills through this place, most of them without debate. What they are doing is being complicit in driving those flawed approaches through. I, for one, am not going to let the community forget what has happened in this place and how it affects people's daily lives. It is appalling that this government forgets the people on Newstart and is ably assisted by the opposition in punishing people on income support even more. People deserve to be living on more than $40 a day, which is what they are currently doing if they are trying to survive on Newstart.

Given the timing, I will pass the call. That's because we've got so many bills to continue on with. I could talk for a very long time about the injustices of this budget and about the injustices of the measures this government is trying to force through this place. However, I'm aware that other senators want to make contributions on the over 21 bills that are going to be forced through this place in a very short amount of time. I move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name, on behalf of the Australian Greens:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate calls upon the Government to re-regulate electricity prices and establish a public retailer to lower electricity prices."

This payment will help a tiny bit for people who are living on income support payments. It will help a small amount for those struggling to survive on Newstart and youth allowance, but it is not a solution to the problem. The problem is that people are living below the poverty line. They are struggling, they are vulnerable and they need an increase to Newstart. It needs to happen immediately. It cannot wait while some sort of review is done; it needs to happen immediately. If this government cared about the whole of the Australian community, it would have ensured that there was an increase to Newstart and youth allowance in this budget, instead of handing out largesse to the big end of town.

If any more evidence were needed of this government's insensitivity to the need to enhance fairness our society, it came with the Treasurer's overnight backflip on the energy assistance payment. Like many others, I was appalled that it was denied to people on Newstart. As if it's not bad enough that the value of Newstart and associated payments has not increased in real terms in a quarter of a century, some of the poorest people in the community were to be denied help to keep themselves warm and to cook their food. Overnight, the government thought better of its stinginess. It was not because it genuinely cares about the most unfortunate in our society but because there is an election around the corner.

Something is better than nothing, but a one-off payment of $75 is tantamount to an insult to the less well-off in our community, who have been struggling with rises of much, much more than that in their energy bills in recent years. Australians are paying a high price, literally, for the failure of this government to get its act together on energy and climate change. The $365 million for one-off energy assistance payments is not evidence based policy. If the government were really taking the problem of energy bills seriously, it would spend that money on energy efficiency. Improving energy efficiency tackles an underlying cause of high energy bills, whereas the benefits of the one-off energy assistance payment will be short lived.

My bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving the Energy Efficiency of Rental Properties) Bill 2018, would only cost $21 million to $29 million in total, in contrast to the $365 million. Importantly, my bill would offer not simply temporary stimulus but long-lasting benefits, despite its modest costs. It not only cuts power bills for some of the most needy but cuts consumption as well—win-win. The bill was designed to help those worse off in our society, those who have been left behind by successive energy policies. It is narrowly targeted at renters, who could benefit most from energy efficiency but have been forgotten.

The energy debate in Australia is stubbornly focused on the supply side, on prices, but the demand side, energy efficiency, lacks sufficient scrutiny despite overwhelming evidence of its benefits to reduce energy bills. Energy efficiency offers the single greatest, simplest mechanism to cut energy bills not just over one quarter but over decades.

According to a report released earlier this year by Green Energy Markets, energy efficiency investment could slash $7.7 billion per year from energy bills and create the equivalent of 120,000 new full-time jobs. Taking the problem of energy bills seriously requires careful policy development, not a desperate, last-minute cash splash. Taking the problem of energy bills seriously must involve a national energy efficiency strategy. The scale of the problem is too large and important for energy efficiency to be an afterthought.

Policies that promote sustainability and give relief and hope to those who need it most should be supported. While I support this bill, I do so reservedly, noting that there are better policy options available that would do far more in much better ways. Evidence based policies that would have lasting impacts on reducing energy bills have been put aside in favour of simplistic, insulting policies like this bill. How fair is that? Hardly fair.

I rise to indicate that Centre Alliance will support this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment) Bill 2019, but I think it's important to lay out a perspective that has not yet been put to the chamber—that is, a little bit of history around one-off energy payments. I ask people to reflect back to 2017, when we were dealing with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 to reduce the amount of tax of companies who had a turnover of less than $50 million—to try to reduce their tax burden. It was during negotiations in respect of that bill that then Senator Xenophon—I was an adviser at the time to Senator Xenophon—and I had a discussion with the government. They were trying to reduce the burden on business, yet the largest burden on business, the thing that everyone was coming to us and saying in the constituent office in Adelaide, was that energy prices were too high. Businesses were suffering because of high energy costs and some of them were facing closure.

As part of our negotiation to get a better outcome, we supported the tax breaks for the smaller businesses, but we also insisted on some changes that needed to be made and some additional things that needed to happen in order to assist businesses to deal with high energy prices. We did ask for a study to be done on the EIS arrangements. We asked for gas retention leases to be viewed from a use-it-or-lose-it perspective. We asked the government, and of course they agreed to do these things to develop what is now known as the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, which is now in regulation and, I point out, has not been used—in my view, in error. That's a mechanism that allows the government to forecast what's going to happen with gas supplies in the next year, and if they feel that there's going to be a deficit of supply they can invoke this mechanism. This has the effect of cancelling all export licences, which then have to be renegotiated and need to be renegotiated in a way that ensures we have supply to the domestic market. In my view, this should have been invoked already, because we're now facing a situation—just through this poor management by the government—in respect of gas prices, and gas prices are now back on the rise.

We even had the ACCC doing a mea culpa in respect of some of the things that they'd suggested about gas. We were then facing a real issue with gas prices and electricity prices. A mechanism was introduced by the government, but unfortunately they haven't exercised it. They appear to be a little reluctant to do so on the basis that some of these big energy companies will no longer offer support to the Liberal-Nationals.

It was also during that negotiation that Centre Alliance, then the Nick Xenophon Team, negotiated a one-off energy assistance payment. It's interesting, because when I look through this bill it talks about a one-off payment. It's not actually a one-off payment; this is a repeat. It's a repeat because, over the last 24 months, the government was supposed to sort out the energy problem—the electricity problems that we have here in Australia—and we wanted to have a one-off payment that got people through those hard times while the government got on and fixed our energy issues.

Since that time, we've had an EIS proposed, and then we went to a clean energy target with Dr Finkel. We also had a NEG that was proposed—the National Energy Guarantee. Then we had NEG-plus and then, most recently, the big stick was proposed. But in every single one of these instances the government failed. One of the biggest policy failures of the Liberal-National government is that they simply have not dealt with rising energy costs. That is crippling Australian businesses and it's seeing some people making decisions to move offshore. Of course, it then results in the need for a bill like this which—once again—we will support, but we support it knowing that it's in fact probably the starkest evidence we've got that there is failed policy on the energy front and on energy prices here in Australia. I don't think there's any excuse that government can offer up—we walked through EIS, CET, NEG and NEG-plus to a big stick, none of which were implemented, and not because there would not have been support in this chamber; simply because there was significant infighting. I don't really want to play politics, but it has been a failure for the Australian people. Energy costs are too high in this country. That's why we need this bill: it should have been fixed and it hasn't been.

Senator Spender, your first speech?

No. This, again, is not my first speech. I rise to be the only parliamentarian, I suspect, who will oppose this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment) Bill 2019. This bill provides a one-off payment to various welfare recipients, ostensibly for the purposes of electricity costs but, of course, they can use the payment for whatever they want.

This bill robs Peter to pay Paul. Now, Peter has had a terrible deal over the past 11 years because Peter represents future generations. Over the past 11 years, we have had deficits, year in, year out. That means more debt. That means more of a debt burden on Peter, our representative of future generations. Now this policy is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul represents our current welfare recipients. We should not be providing money to current welfare recipients if that involves hurting future welfare recipients by putting Australians in more debt, by being less able to have a sustainable welfare system in the future and by being more likely to have a crippling tax burden in the future.

Last night in the federal budget, Josh Frydenberg, our Treasurer, said that we've got to avoid the crippling interest debt that we have and the interest bill that we're paying year in, year out. I think he referred to $18 billion. This payment is adding to the interest burden. It is absolutely ridiculous for the Treasurer to say in the one speech, 'We've got to avoid adding to the interest burden on future generations,' and then within sentences add to the interest burden on future generations. It is sheer hypocrisy.

The only reason this payment exists is that they want to get it out the door now because they're going to have a deficit this year anyway and they don't want to hurt their chances of getting a surplus in future years. It is dodgy accounting and it is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment) Bill 2019. I note that a second reading amendment has already been moved by Senator Siewert on behalf of the Australian Greens that adds at the end of the motion:

", but the Senate calls upon the Government to re-regulate electricity prices and establish a public retailer to lower electricity prices."

The reason we're having this debate is that many people in Australia are struggling with their power bills. That's a result of a few different policy settings. There's no doubt that the poles and wires, which have been invested in, in recent years—in fact, decades—up to a gold-plated standard, have contributed significantly to power bills, which is one of the reasons the Greens have been advocating, for many years, that we need to do more to empower people to generate and store their own electricity on their premises, whether that be people's homes or people's small businesses. We certainly need to do more to encourage, and provide financial assistance to help, people to invest in things like rooftop solar and batteries, which are now available and which, if they follow the price curve of most technologies, will start to significantly reduce in price in the very near future.

Of course, in last night's budget, the government didn't provide any meaningful support for those things. In fact, the budget was grossly negligent in its response to the greatest public policy challenge facing humanity at the moment—that is, the breakdown of our climate and the climate emergency in which we find ourselves. It was another budget and another year of the coalition selling out our future. It contained billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies. It contained money to help unlock new gas resources in places like the Northern Territory. There is a bill being rammed through later tonight, with Labor's assistance, to enable Australian taxpayers' money to push more fossil fuel projects overseas. In fact, this budget contains more money to reopen the Christmas Island detention centre, so Prime Minister Morrison could conduct the most expensive press conference in our country's history, than it does new money to address climate change. This is the wrong way, and the government needs to go back.

Our temperature records have been broken. At the moment we are 2.2 degrees above the long-term trend. Colleagues, our climate is crumbling around us as we debate this budget. In recent times apocalyptic scenes have dominated the news. In my home state of Tasmania, communities have been threatened and our precious, unique Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area has been devastated by fires—made more likely and more dangerous by the breakdown of our climate. We've seen vast areas of Northern Queensland and mid-northern Queensland flooded. We've seen a million dead fish floating in the parched Murray-Darling Basin. These are the graphic results of a disaster caused by humanity, and it is caused by humanity burning fossil fuels.

This is only the beginning, unless we get serious about climate action. We can't get serious about climate action until we get serious about getting out of coal, which the Labor and Liberal parties in this place are refusing to do. Why do they refuse to act? It's a very simple answer. It's because together they accept millions of dollars in dirty donations from the coal corporations in this country. Unlike the major parties, the Greens do not take donations from the big polluters. We will not let the corrupting influence of those donations rob us, our children and our grandchildren of a future. We don't take those donations, which means we can develop a clear plan to phase out of coal and embrace the jobs-rich renewable energy revolution.

We want to make this election a referendum on climate change and a referendum on coal. We are asking people to vote Green in the Senate, to send a message to the major parties that they need to end their love affair with coal. We're asking people to vote Green in the Senate for a strong voice to demand climate action now, because we think about the future not just in budget cycles, not just in electoral cycles, but in the long-term. We care about people. We care about the natural world. And we are here in the Senate to hold the major parties to account.

We do have a plan to transform our energy future in this country, to create jobs and to deliver better and higher-quality public services and a better quality of life for us and the generations of the future. When thousands of children walked out of their classrooms last month to strike and demand strong action on climate change, we didn't lecture them, like the Prime Minister and government ministers did. We paid them respect by listening to them. I went to the action in Hobart. It was one of the most uplifting, empowering events I have ever been to. It was a cacophony of noise, of passion, of intelligence, of determination and, yes, of anger, because these kids see so clearly what so many in this place cannot or will not see—that their future is being stolen from them by the dirty emitters, the big polluters, and their lackeys in here in the major parties to whom they donate their dirty political donations.

So, when people go to the ballot box next month, they have a choice. They can vote for the major parties who take the corrupting donations from the big polluters, from the coal industry and from the gas industry in this country, or they can vote for a party that refuses to take that dirty money and, as a result, has the courage to stand up and demand strong action on climate change and demand an end to the mining, burning and exporting of coal from this country.

I thank colleagues for their contribution. This bill will enable a one-off energy assistance payment to be made to all pension allowance and veterans' payments to those residing in Australia on 2 April 2019, to assist them with their energy costs. The payment will be $75 for singles and $62.50 for each eligible member of a couple. The payment will not be taxed and will not reduce their rate of income support. The payment will help around five million Australians at a total cost of $365 million. I commend the bill to colleagues.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge — Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy

low-income thresholds for singles, families and seniors and pensioners in line with increases in the consumer price index. These changes will ensure that low-income households who did not pay the Medicare levy in the 2017-18 income year will generally continue to be exempt in the 2018-19 income year if their incomes have risen in line with, or by less than, the consumer price index.

The Medicare levy low-income thresholds ensure that people who pay no personal income tax due to their eligibility for structural offsets — such as the low-income tax offset or the seniors and pensioners tax offset — generally do not incur the Medicare levy.

The changes to the thresholds mean that no Medicare levy will be payable for individual taxpayers with taxable income that does not exceed $22,398 in 2018-19 (increased from $21,980). Single seniors and pensioners with no dependants who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not incur a Medicare levy liability if their taxable income does not exceed $35,418 (increased from $34,758).

Further, in combination with the individual thresholds, couples and families who are not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined taxable income does not exceed $37,794 (increased from $37,089). Couples and families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined taxable income does not exceed $49,304 (increased from $48,385). The thresholds for couples and families go up by $3,471 for each dependent child or student (increased from $3,406).

The increase in thresholds will apply to the 2018-19 income year and future income years.

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

Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2019, which will amend the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families, along with the dependent child-student component of the family threshold, in line with movements in the CPI; the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset, along with the dependent child-student component of the family threshold, in line with movements in the CPI; and the Medicare levy surcharge low-income threshold, in line with movements in the CPI. The measure applies to the 2018-19 income year and later income years. This follows the practice of dealing with this annually, as per the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2018. This is a regular process that ensures that the most vulnerable Australians are not disadvantaged while maintaining their access to Medicare, our world-class universal health system.

I want to make a few brief points, reflecting upon what my colleagues in the other place said this morning. The shadow minister for health and Medicare, Catherine King, noted this morning that the 2019-20 budget has locked in the Prime Minister's cuts to public hospitals in a too little, too late health budget full of reheated announcements that don't make up for six years of Liberal chaos. As Treasurer, Scott Morrison cut hospitals in every budget he wrote, and as Prime Minister he has now locked the cuts in. For six years, the Liberals have prioritised an $80 billion tax handout for the top end of town, and they've done that over prioritising Medicare, schools and hospitals. This is a Prime Minister who is completely out of touch and only cares about the top end of town.

Prime Minister Morrison has refused to restore the $715 million he cut from hospitals under the current funding period and he's persisting with his plans to rip billions more out of our hospitals over the next six years. Patients will suffer because of these cuts, as they are confronted with longer emergency department and elective surgery waiting times or are forced to travel far from home for treatment. Bill Shorten and Labor will deliver a fair go for Australia by reversing these cuts and making massive new investments with our $2.8 billion better hospitals fund.

While Labor will always welcome new investments in general practice, this budget doesn't come close to making up for the five-year rebate freeze that has ripped $3 billion out of Medicare. This is a freeze the Liberals first imposed in 2014. Now they're promising to lift it, matching Labor's long-held commitment, and they're doing this just six weeks out from an election. In the other place this morning the shadow Assistant Treasurer said that the Australian people are far too smart to fall for this spin. They know that the cost of going to the doctor has risen, and that's why so many of them have been delaying going to the doctor. Last year, Labor noted that the official Bureau of Statistics figures showed that one million Australians delay or avoid seeing their GP each year. They do that because of the cost. With another 1.7 million Australians skipping specialist appointments, this means that the health of Australians is not being properly dealt with under this government. Yet the Liberals make the laughable claim that Medicare has never been stronger and that their commitment is rock solid. Remember all of Tony Abbott's promises before he became Prime Minister? Well, this is certainly a similar position, from this government.

He was going to privatise it!

I must say Senator Williams has not covered himself with glory today. He's had a good parliamentary career, but, towards the end of it, he's really slipping. To defend Tony Abbott, to defend the cuts during that 2014-15 budget that caused so much damage in rural and regional Australia, is an absolute joke. Senator Williams, you're a mate, you've been a good parliamentarian, but, man, you have dropped the ball today.

Whether it's making Medicare more expensive, cutting funding to public hospitals or putting health insurance profits before patients, Prime Minister Morrison can never be trusted on health. Labor created Medicare, and only Labor will ensure that Australians can access the health care they deserve. Although Labor will support this bill—a bill that is largely a product of convention rather than passion—we must emphasise the existential threat that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison/Hanson government and its recklessness pose to our valuable and cherished universal healthcare system. Only Labor will protect Medicare.

Firstly, I think I'd like to thank those who have contributed to the debate! Thank you, Senator Cameron! The Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2019 amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners in line with increases in the consumer price index. This will ensure that the low-income thresholds keep pace with the increases in the cost of living. The amendments to the Medicare levy low-income thresholds apply to the 2018-19 year of income and future income years. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Government is continuing to back business by helping them invest and grow by increasing and extending the instant asset write-off.

This Bill will increase the instant asset write-off threshold from $20,000 to $25,000 and extend it until 30 June 2020. The increased threshold applies from announcement on 29 January 2019.

Across Australia, there are over 3 million small businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million that are eligible to access the $25,000 instant asset write-off. These small businesses employ around 5.7 million employees.

The Government has built on the very successful $20,000 instant asset write-off first introduced by the Government in the 2015-16 Budget.

The Government's $25,000 threshold will improve cash flow by enabling small businesses to immediately deduct purchases of eligible assets each costing less than $25,000. There is no limit on the amount of assets that a business can purchase.

Assets valued at $25,000 or more can be placed into the small business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at a rate of 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each income year thereafter.

The pool itself can also be immediately deducted if its value falls below $25,000 at the end of the financial year.

To facilitate access to this measure, the 'lock-out rules' that stop small businesses that elect out of the simplified depreciation regime from re-entering it for five years will continue to be suspended until 30 June 2020.

This Bill will benefit small business, improving their cash flow and bringing forward investment.

The $25,000 instant asset write-off also reduces red-tape for small business as they no longer need to track the annual depreciation for assets that are written off immediately, or maintain detailed records substantiating their depreciation claims.

It will boost small business activity and encourage more small businesses to reinvest in their operations and replace or upgrade their tools and equipment.

I call on all Members and Senators to give this measure their full support.

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

I rise to indicate Labor's support for the Treasury Laws Amendment (Increasing the Instant Asset Write-Off for Small Business Entities) Bill 2019. I'm pleased to see a great Labor initiative debated in the Senate and pleased those small businesses across the country will continue to benefit from it. It's particularly good to see the Liberal Party and the National Party once again adopting sound Labor policy in favour of small businesses in this country.

An oxymoron!

I've got to say, Senator Williams, any government that would put Senator Cash in charge of anything, especially small business, is not looking after the interests of small business. It's particularly good to see the Liberal and National parties adopting our policy. As we know, it was the Australian Labor Party that first legislated for an expanded instant asset write-off from the $6,500 threshold in 2012. The coalition subsequently abolished the instant asset write-off, returning it to a $1,000 threshold before reintroducing an expanded instant asset write-off with a $20,000 threshold in 2015. The government has since renewed it, in 2017, 2018 and again now, in 2019. Of course, Labor supported the original measure and supported its two previous renewals and will support this one today.

While there's no difference between Labor and the government on taxes for small business, the principal difference at the moment is in relation to the Australian Investment Guarantee, announced last year. It will allow businesses to deduct up-front 20 per cent of all new investments, with the remaining amount depreciated in line with normal depreciation schedules. Assets such as machinery, plants and equipment—for example, things like trucks or utes—and intangible investments such as patents and copyrights will be eligible for the immediate deduction. This investment guarantee promotes investment in local economies. The investment guarantee is well targeted, fully funded, cost-effective, fiscally responsible and funded by Labor's reforms to the tax system. I want to make it clear to everyone that under a Shorten Labor government 99 per cent of businesses will receive a tax cut, no business will have its tax rate increased and all businesses will be able to plan and invest with confidence and certainty.

Let me turn to the amendment. Yesterday in the other place we debated this bill on the understanding that it would increase the instant asset write-off to $25,000, yet today the government has announced budget measures that increase the instant asset write-off again, to $30,000 for businesses of up to $50 million in turnover. This is just more policy chaos from this rabble of a government. The real challenge for small business in this country is this government and its hopeless policy development and relentless instability. How can you concentrate on doing the right thing by small business when the minister is in personal crisis and the government is in collective crisis? It just doesn't work.

Labor has been leading the way on small business policy, with our Small Business Access to Justice policy passing into law in the last parliamentary sitting period. Small businesses are less likely to seek help from our court system to stand up to big business. Small Business Access to Justice will make sure they get support to defend themselves against anticompetitive conduct. It's a policy which the small-business sector have wanted for a long time but which the coalition have repeatedly voted against—and you know why? All their mates are up there at the big end of town. Only with Labor and the help of some renegade Nationals did this important reform pass through the House. Labor will provide the stability small business needs. Labor will support small businesses with the Australian investment guarantee. I commend the bill to the Senate.

I just want to make a few comments on this very good piece of legislation. It's amazing that Senator Cameron says he opposes anticompetitive behaviour. We brought in the effects test—the amendment to section 46. Where were Labor? They were over there opposing the effects test. They wanted to protect big business so they could crush little business. Quite ironic, isn't it? We are the government for lower taxes, especially for small business, and this is another good policy brought in last night: the addition to the instant write-offs.

When it first came in, I spoke to businesses in Inverell like chainsaw outlets, retailers and mower centres about how it stimulated their business when people would come in and say, 'I can buy a chainsaw, a four-wheeled motorbike, an ATV or even a side-by-side and write it off straightaway.' It's not happening as much now, because of the drought. Unfortunately that has cost a lot of money in regional Australia. Hopefully, that will change soon. But it's a case where it stimulates people to spend money and it keeps small businesses going. We're glad to see that the criteria has been changed—up to $30,000—and that it's no longer just for businesses with up to $10 million in turnover but for those with up to $50 million turnover. That is an increase in the instant write-off of a purchase of capital equipment, from computers to heaters to air conditioners to machinery—you name it. That stimulates activity, keeps money going around the community and keeps people in jobs. It's a good policy and I commend Treasurer Josh Frydenberg for bringing it in last night.

It's also good to see—I'll make this comment while I'm here—the budget finally into the black print at the bottom. I remember back in 2012 we had a treasurer called Mr Wayne Swan. People would remember him. Four budget surpluses he promised—four! How many did he deliver? Zero. None. When it comes to a black-print budget surplus, it is something that is rarely seen in my life. Whether state government or federal government, when Labor is there, the budget only goes in red print. I think it was in 1989 the last time we saw a budget surplus from a Labor government—30 years ago. And Labor criticise our budget, our good spending, curtailing and getting the budget back to the black so we can stop mortgaging our children's futures away and make them pay our standard of living with interest. It is so wrong. I commend the Treasurer for a good budget last night and finally an end to the borrowing. I hope it lasts. I really do. This bill is another incentive for small businesses to spend to create economic activity, to keep the money turning around and to keep people in their jobs.

Again I thank those senators who have contributed to the debate. This government backs business growth and investment. We have fast-tracked tax relief for millions of small and medium-sized businesses as part of our plan for a stronger economy and more jobs. This bill is yet another illustration of the government's commitment to deliver support for hardworking Australian small and medium-sized businesses, reducing their tax burden and helping them to invest and grow. The amended bill increases the instant asset write-off to $30,000 and expands it to businesses with turnover of less than $50 million. Around 3.4 million business employing around 7.7 million workers will be eligible. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (18).

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (18) on sheet QQ104.

Labor supports the amendments.

The question is that government amendments (1) to (18) on sheet QQ104 taken together moved by Senator Colbeck be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

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 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—

The Government stands by those in Queensland as they work to rebuild their properties and communities following the devastating effects of the monsoonal trough earlier this year.

The speed at which the floods hit and spread through north and western parts of Queensland was terrifying, coupled with low temperatures, high winds and extended periods of rainfall. The scale of the damage is immense. We know the number of livestock lost in the floods or through illness is in the hundreds of thousands, with some properties reportedly losing their entire herd. At the same time, crucial and costly farm and business infrastructure has simply been washed away.

The impact socially, economically and otherwise on these communities is devastating. While the Government cannot undo the damage that has been done, we can ensure that farming families and affected communities are well supported as they rebuild.

To this end, the Government has set up the North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency, headed by the Hon. Shane Stone AC QC. The Agency will not only assist with the delivery of the immediate response, it will work with flood-affected farmers and communities to develop and coordinate a long-term plan for recovery and reconstruction.

We also recognise it is important to make sure that these communities have access to support immediately so they can get back on their feet as soon as possible.

In addition, we have seen severe storms inflict significant damage on primary producers in the Fassifern Valley, Queensland.

This Bill includes three measures all aimed at providing support to those affected by these events.

Schedule 1 to the Bill will make flood recovery grants exempt from income tax.

We have worked closely with the Queensland Government to provide more than $500 million to support flood-affected communities with the cost of recovery, such as clean-up, restocking and replanting and replacing on-farm infrastructure. This support includes:

Government grants are typically counted as assessable income for the recipient, meaning that taxpayers may pay income tax on the grant amount. However, given the exceptional circumstances, these grants are being made non-assessable, non-exempt income which means that:

No taxpayer will be left with an income tax bill as a result of receiving a qualifying disaster recovery grant. Every dollar received can go towards rebuilding and re-establishing operations following the floods.

Schedule 2 to the Bill will make storm assistance grants to eligible primary producers in the Fassifern Valley, Queensland, exempt income for tax purposes.

The Government is providing $1 million to the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, which will work with the Salvation Army and a local community panel to give grants to primary producers that sustained damage as a result of the severe storms of October 2018.

This Bill will make these grants exempt income for tax purposes, meaning that the grants are not counted as assessable income, but will reduce any tax losses that can be carried forward to future years.

This will ensure that no primary producer is left with an up-front income tax bill as a result of receiving these grants, supporting them in their recovery from the storms.

Schedule 3 to the Bill provides a special appropriation of $1.75 billion so that the Government is able to establish and administer a loan scheme that will enable banks to offer reduced interest rate loans to eligible flood-affected primary producers.

The loan scheme, to be administered by the North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency, will provide participating banks with a reduced cost of funding to be passed through to eligible primary producers in the form of reduced interest loans to help stabilise their financial position.

Together, these measures will provide further support to those affected by the Queensland floods and storms, helping them to recover and rebuild.

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

The Treasury Laws Amendment (North Queensland Flood Recovery) Bill 2019 clarifies that specific disaster recovery grants that relate to flooding between 25 January 2019 and 28 February 2019, primarily in Townsville, are to be exempted from income tax. It clarifies that specific storm assistance payments relating to storm activity on or around 25 October 2018, primarily in the Fassifern Valley in Queensland, are to be exempted from income tax.

It implements an announcement made by the Prime Minister on 1 March 2019 of a loan scheme to provide financial assistance to primary producers affected by the Northern Queensland floods. According to research from the Parliamentary Library, currently under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018 grants to businesses are taxable but grants to non-profit organisations are not. The North Queensland floods devastated the primary industries surrounding Townsville. It's estimated that half a million head of livestock were killed during the flood event. Small businesses and households in urban areas have also suffered lingering effects.

The bill will clarify that category C or D disaster recovery grants made under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018 to small businesses, primary producers or non-profit organisations within the time period specified are non-assessable, non-exempt income for taxation purposes. The amendments apply to the 2018 financial year and the later financial year for qualifying grants.

The bill will also make grants to primary producers non-assessable, non-exempt income if the grants are for repairing or replacing farm infrastructure, restocking or replanting and if they are made as part of an agreement between the Commonwealth and state or territory governments. This covers agreements entered into between 1 February 2019 and 1 July 2019 that are outside the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018.

Schedule 2 of the bill deals with the damaging storms of 25 October 2018. Those are the storms that hit the towns of Oakey and Boonah in South-East Queensland and in the Fassifern Valley and Darling Downs region. Primary producers in the Fassifern Valley estimated that the hail cost was $10 million worth of damage to crops on more than 20 farms.

The bill makes payments made through the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal—a private, not-for-profit organisation that is based in Bendigo, Victoria—exempt from income tax. The payments have been made by the foundation, under grants totalling $1 million from the Commonwealth, to support primary producers in the Fassifern Valley. The amendments apply to the 2018-19 financial year and later financial years for qualifying grants.

On schedule 3, the Prime Minister on 1 March 2019 announced:

… the Government has offered ADIs low-cost loans which they would be required to pass on to eligible farmers in lower interest rates. This will help those farmers to stabilise their financial position—and is estimated to be worth up to $2 billion.

The bill implements a loan scheme that will see the Commonwealth give a total $1.75 billion in loans to participating authorised deposit-taking institutions. The bill makes a special appropriation for that money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purposes of making loans to financial institutions under the program, known as 'Urgent assistance for eligible primary producers affected by floods in Northern Queensland'. According to the bill's explanatory memorandum, the money will be given to the ADIs as a low-interest loan, which will enable the ADIs in turn to offer low interest on new and existing loans to eligible primary producers. It's estimated that the impact on the underlying cash balance between 2019-20 and 2022-23 will be $0.7 million.

Labor supports this bill. We want to ensure that as much assistance as possible is provided to these communities in North Queensland who have suffered terribly because of the ravages of the floods. This is an extremely important bill. It's a bill that will provide assistance, and that's why Labor supports this bill. We are seeing too many storms, too many floods and too many droughts in this country. The sooner the coalition actually get on with dealing with climate change, the better it will be for this country.

Obviously, I support the Treasury Laws Amendment (North Queensland Flood Recovery) Bill 2019. As most senators will know, I'm based in Townsville, I live in Ayr and I treat Northern Queensland as my electorate. I'm very, very familiar with the cattle industry, the pastoral industry, in western Queensland, stretching from Charters Towers out to Mount Isa and beyond Camooweal to the border. It's a remarkable industry. It's a wealth creator for Australia. It has its difficult times. We saw the horrific pictures of cattle dying. Some were caught in trees as a result of the flood. I think, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, you were out there not long after the floods themselves. You would be well aware of the distress, the hurt and the loss of income.

I thank the government for introducing this bill. Senator Cameron has explained it, and the second reading speech of the minister has explained in detail what the bill is about. I just want to use my contribution to say thank you on behalf of the people of north-west Queensland who were in the floods and also the people of Townsville who were inundated by floodwaters—and some of them are still suffering—for the enormous government expenditure, the grants which have been generously given by the government and supported by every parliamentarian. I just want to express my thanks.

Whilst it's very much alive in the minds of Queenslanders, I also want to thank those who live in the capital cities in the south for their forbearance. Very often some might say, 'Why is all this money going to these industries far away?' But I know that people in the cities of Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide—every capital city—support the work of the government in trying to ameliorate as best the government can and as best the taxpayer can some of the impacts of the flood. I can only feel for the pastoralists and other primary producers in the north-west. They do face droughts regularly. There have been floods of this magnitude before, and in relatively recent times they've had floods that were not quite as bad and not quite in the same area—but they are part of life out there. Then, of course, these pastoralists had the live cattle export ban, which perhaps did more economically to destroy them than these floods have done. So they've had a pretty rough time. They're just coming out of that live export ban. They were dealing with the drought, and then these floods came. So can I, on their behalf, thank the government and also thank those who live in other parts of Australia for their support at this very difficult time.

As we approach 5 pm, we will move to the first speeches of two of our new senators. Albeit a couple of seconds early, I will call Senator Askew.

It is with great pride that I rise to deliver my first speech in this place. I have spent many hours over recent years in this beautiful building and I have immense respect for all it represents. As a result, I am humbled to be standing in this chamber as a senator for Tasmania.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the welcome I have received from you, Mr President, together with the Clerk, the Black Rod and the other officers of the Senate. You have been ready with welcome advice and assistance in recent weeks, which is much appreciated. I also acknowledge the warmth I have received from honourable senators around the chamber.

It was a great honour to be sworn in yesterday as the 605th senator in the Australian parliament and the 85th senator for Tasmania since Federation. I am acutely aware of the level of expectation and responsibilities that accompany the oath of office, and I intend to use my best endeavours to live up to the commitment that I have given to the people of Australia.

As you know, Mr President, I am standing here today following the resignation of David Bushby. David represented Tasmania with dedication and commitment over the past 11½ years. He was a proactive and influential member of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team, and I believe that as both deputy whip and then chief government whip in the Senate he earned the respect of those around him.

Many who come to serve their country in parliament can often identify the one person who instilled the initial thought that one day we could ourselves be elected to serve. Interestingly, that person for me was David during a conversation as far back as 2006. He is not only my predecessor but also my brother, and we were both greatly influenced by a challenge from our father, shortly before he died, to get actively involved with politics.

Growing up in Tasmania, I am the third and middle child of Max and Elaine Bushby. My father, Max Bushby OBE, was a member of the House of Assembly in Tasmania from 1961 to 1986 and Speaker of that house for four of those years.

My dad was a proud Tasmanian, who during his life worked in real estate and property development. He was a United Nations war correspondent during the Korean War, a lay preacher, and also very involved in numerous church and community organisations. Sadly, we lost him to prostate cancer in August 1994 at the age of 67—a great man, lost to us far too soon.

With Dad regularly absent from home due to parliamentary commitments, my mother, Elaine, was the backbone of our family in our formative years. She was also involved in many church and community organisations, and we all grew up with a clear understanding of the importance of making a difference in the world through active participation and a strong expectation.

Mum, who cannot be here today due to her deteriorating health, was also politically active, particularly through her long involvement in the National Council of Women in the area of policies affecting women. She was awarded life membership of that council for her efforts spanning more than 40 years, and I have often thought that she should have followed my father into politics. They certainly were a strong team, both in their marriage and in public life.

If she had decided to run for office, that would certainly not have been unprecedented in Tasmania. The first woman to enter our Australian parliament did just that. Dame Enid Lyons, the widow of Prime Minister Joe Lyons, was elected to the House of Representatives in 1943, representing the original United Australia Party in the then Tasmanian seat of Darwin—since renamed Braddon—in North-West Tasmania. She remained an MP until ill health led to her resignation in 1951. Her time in parliament was short but distinguished, and she went on to be active in public organisations for another 30 years.

Dame Enid Lyons was the first conservative woman from Tasmania to enter the federal parliamentary scene and, as senators will know, the first woman to be appointed to cabinet. Regrettably, since Dame Enid, there have been only two other conservative Tasmanian women elected to the federal parliament, until now.

Interestingly, all four women to represent Tasmania in Canberra have had family links. Two succeeded their husbands in parliament, and the other two of us were the daughters of politicians.

Shirley Walters was the first woman elected as a senator for Tasmania, from any party. She served from 1975 until 1993. Shirley's father was Sir Eric Harrison, who was deputy leader first of the United Australia Party and then of the Liberal Party under Prime Minister Robert Menzies. A leader at the time, Senator Walters was an early champion of the right of women to choose to be in the workforce or not. Teamed with former Labor senator Pat Giles, they made a formidable duo in developing policies in the social services and community affairs areas which were adopted by both major political parties. Their joint contribution has not been recognised enough.

Senator Walters was joined in the Senate by Jocelyn Newman in 1986. Jocelyn's husband, Kevin Newman, was the member for Bass, from the famous Bass by-election, from 1975 until 1984, and he was a minister for most of that time. Senator Jocelyn Newman was the Minister for Social Security from 1996 to 1998, and then Minister for Family and Community Services from 1998 to 2001. She also held the Status of Women portfolio during the period 1998 to 2001. Jocelyn resigned in 2002, leaving a lasting legacy in reshaping the delivery of social security entitlements, and being recognised as the minister responsible for establishing Centrelink.

It has often disappointed me that the Liberal Party has not better celebrated its achievement in areas of social policy. It was the Menzies government that introduced child endowment, the first governmental recognition of the additional costs borne by families. It was also a Liberal government that recognised the importance of adequate housing in the postwar era, and the first Australian woman to administer a department was Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, who was appointed Minister for Housing by Harold Holt on Australia Day 1966. She held that ministry for the next five years before achieving another first, as the first Australian woman to be appointed head of a diplomatic mission, as High Commissioner to New Zealand.

It's important that we remember the achievements of these trail-blazing women: Enid Lyons, Shirley Walters, Jocelyn Newman and Annabelle Rankin—all of them able politicians and all of them Liberals. I feel honoured and inspired to be standing in the shadow of such highly regarded and respected women. They are, however, just some who have paved the way for women in politics today.

We often hear about the need to increase the representation of women in politics. I agree. The simple truth is that we live in a representative democracy and it is self-evident that women comprise around 50 per cent of our populace. However, this is only one part of the equation. I also believe that we need diversity in all areas, be that age, gender, religious belief or work background. We rightly trumpet that Australia is a multicultural country, and we can reasonably hold up our example to the rest of the world of welcoming people from across the globe to be part of our community. But do our state and federal parliaments reflect this fact? They are beginning to—slowly—but it is a long journey and we still have a long way to go. In this regard, it is worth noting that, with the re-election of Liberal member Joan Rylah to the Tasmanian House of Assembly, 14 members in that 25-member chamber are now women. I believe that is the highest percentage in any parliament since Federation.

But the media seems a little fixated on parliaments. What is often not properly acknowledged, and celebrated, is the large number of capable elected women representatives in local governments across Australia. In my own state, there are 29 local councils, 12 of which are led by women mayors, such as the George Town mayor, Bridget Archer, and there are many more women councillors. Most large businesses see the merit of increasing female representation on their boards, which is only logical since I think they will find that many of their shareholders are women, especially women who hold shares through managed superannuation funds. But, in this public debate, the women who head up other organisations are often overlooked, including those who lead local community organisations, not-for-profit bodies, professional associations and—dare a Liberal say it—even trade unions and employee bodies. They are all part of the superstructure that contributes to our Australian society.

My journey to this place has been interesting and may vary from that of many honourable senators. I left school following matriculation, and my later study was undertaken after having my family. I sincerely believe that I have valuable experience which I bring to the deliberations of the Senate and its committees. I worked in the banking and financial sector. I've worked in the not-for-profit sector, and I have been privileged to serve on charitable boards. I have also worked in public service alongside a number of politicians and ministers at both a state and federal government level.

Through my banking career, I have been fortunate to be offered many opportunities to grow and learn. I was encouraged to advance into leadership and management positions, and I am grateful to the managers and colleagues who believed in me. The business, retail and commercial knowledge I gained in that banking experience has underpinned my career. It is true that the banking royal commission, so ably chaired by former Justice Kenneth Hayne, has shed light on poor practice not only in banking but also in other financial institutions. As the old saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. However, the exposure of poor practice by some people in some banks and finance companies does, I submit, not truly reflect the vital work banks do in securing and strengthening our economy.

As someone who has spent the vast bulk of my working life in retail banking, I am the first to say that poor practices should be exposed and those undertaking them should be held to account. But it is important not to overlook the diligent work being undertaken by tens of thousands of loyal and committed staff who get great job satisfaction in assisting Australians with their everyday banking needs. The only thing that separates a bank officer from a bank customer is a counter. We all share the same pressures of home budgets, making ends meet, working out how to buy a house, planning for retirement and dealing with unexpected expenses which can arise. My experience with former banking colleagues and with senior managers is that almost everyone I met approached their job and their responsibilities with integrity and care for the circumstances of the individual customer. With this background, I welcome the Treasurer's announcement, delivered yesterday in the budget, of $35 million to support a corporate criminal jurisdiction in the Federal Court to address referrals for prosecutions stemming from the royal commission.

Another part of my career was working in the not-for-profit sector. For a short time I had the privilege of working with the StGiles Society in Tasmania, a disability provider originally formed to care for children affected by the polio outbreak in the 1930s. Eighty years later, StGiles now assists thousands of children and adults with disabilities each year across Tasmania. Growing up, our family lived quite close to the original StGiles complex. I remember as a young child attending the annual fete at StGiles with my parents and participating in the primary school choir when we visited to sing for the children. I always came away moved by that experience and inspired by the children, who were so positive and excited, despite the physical difficulties they faced and living in what was then a residential-style institution.

The future is certainly vastly different for people with disabilities. The introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme has changed the lives of so many people, giving them greater control over the services they use, and ownership and certainty over their future. This initiative, which was developed with bipartisan support, is a classic example of what can be done when we as politicians work together to achieve the best outcomes for the people of Australia.

As I alluded to earlier, I have worked with several members of parliament at a state and federal level. I would like to place on record my personal thanks to each of them for the opportunities they afforded me and their encouragement as I have pursued my aspirations over recent years. I particularly mention Guy Barnett, Michael Ferguson, Will Hodgman, Andrew Nikolic, Sarah Courtney and Dan Tehan. One thing they all have in common is a commitment to hard work and public service, which I may say has been my consistent experience in almost all of my interactions with members of parliament over the years, regardless of their political allegiance.

As a fifth-generation Tasmanian, I am enormously proud of my home state. It has been a great pleasure to see Tasmania flourish under the leadership of Premier Will Hodgman and his government since 2014. With the influence of strong fiscal leadership, the state has turned around and is leading in many indicators, including business confidence and investment, tourism growth and, most importantly, reversal of population decline. With world-leading ecotourism ventures, internationally acclaimed mountain bike trails and golf courses rated in the top 10 in the world, who wouldn't want to visit there or, even better still, move there. Tasmania's hidden secrets have been discovered, and our beautiful state is now attracting record numbers of tourists, with international tourist numbers up 15 per cent last year alone. Our population is growing, and many people from mainland states are making 'the Tassie change'—selling up and moving to Tasmania to enjoy our relaxed, healthy and very enticing lifestyle.

Of course, renewable energy is nothing new to any Tasmanian. We grew up thinking it was the norm. And it is worth remembering that, for all the spectacular achievements of the Snowy Mountains scheme, the Tasmanian network of dams and power generation built by the Hydro-Electric Commission and its successor is larger still. The federal government's recent announcement of the Battery of the Nation will significantly enhance this asset and Tasmania's status as a home of renewable energy.

I welcomed the Prime Minister's recent announcement that migrants will be encouraged to settle in regional Australia and that will be an incentive for them on the path to achieve permanent residency. It is a truism that our major cities on Australia's eastern seaboard are becoming overcrowded, with the associated infrastructure pressures that go with fast-increasing populations, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. It is also true that the Tasmanian government and employers in my state welcome new arrivals with open arms. I think my colleagues from South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory would echo those views. It is essential that our population policy recognises where the needs are and that the migration framework caters for that.

In welcoming permanent migrants, I think it is important for us to remind ourselves just why people choose to come to live in Australia. When asked, one of the common points they make is the stability of our government and our institutions. We might understand that Australians have a healthy cynicism about politicians, part of the tall poppy syndrome which may be seen to be part of our national make-up. But it is important to reflect that many in the waves of postwar migrants, who came to Australia because of the disruption in Europe of the two world wars, and many who have come in recent years from Asia expressed the same view about yearning for a country with stability, not only in government but in our courts and institutions; stability in gainful employment; and an education system they can rely on for their children. I believe it is a mistake to jettison the bedrock values that have been the foundation of Australia since European settlement, based on the misplaced view that this is what new migrants want.

One topical example comes to mind. Our system of government and laws is based on Judeo-Christian principles, and we begin the day's proceedings with a Christian prayer. Senators do not have to say the prayer or even be present in the chamber when it's said. There is no compulsion, but it has been a part of our parliamentary proceedings since the first meeting in 1901. There has been a proposal in Victoria to abolish the Lord's Prayer in that parliament. It was made by a minor party in that state's upper house. I want to place on record that it seems to me to be a particularly poorly timed proposal in the wake of the awful events in Christchurch. A response to intolerance should never, logically, be more intolerance. We respect those of all faiths who have come to Australia, or indeed those of no faith, just as we respect Australians born here according to their creed or belief. I have never heard one leader of a non-Christian faith call for the abolition of the Lord's Prayer in our parliament. These suggestions always come from other quarters, and, as I say, when unpacked, aren't at their core really about inclusion at all—quite the opposite.

On the theme of stamping out intolerance, one of the campaigns I look forward to supporting in the Senate is the initiative against cyberbullying. Every generation has its bullies, but the electronic age has given bullying a devastating and sinister new dimension. All of us have been shocked by examples of young Australians who have taken their own lives or who have been profoundly affected by bullying on social media, with their parents and other friends often totally oblivious. We as a parliament need to support all endeavours to stamp out this type of behaviour and at the same time establish safe-haven structures for those who are being bullied.

It is a great privilege to be standing here today representing the people of Tasmania on behalf of the Liberal Party. I thank the members of the party for the confidence they have shown in me; my Liberal Senate team colleagues Senators Abetz, Colbeck and Duniam; and the leadership of the Tasmanian division, especially state president Geoff Page and state director Sam McQuestin—I have known and worked with them for many years in a variety of capacities, and I thank them for their consistent advice and support.

I am very fortunate to have a wide circle of friends and colleagues, many of whom work in this building and some of whom are here today. There really are too many to mention by name. However, please accept my thanks for your guidance, support and friendship over many years. Having said that, I would like to acknowledge just two: Phil Connole and Don Morris. They are not just long-term friends but also mentors, and I thank them for their valued advice over many years.

To my staff, who, despite our short time together, are already a strong, cohesive team: thank you for your commitment, dedication and hard work, and thanks in anticipation for what I am going to ask you to do! None of us here could operate without the support of our staff.

I would also like to recognise those of my family who have joined me here today: my brothers, Peter and Michael, my sister, Helen, and sisters-in law Debbie, Janine and Jan, with her partner John. I am proud to see my son, Thomas, and his partner, Hannah. And I'd like, of course, to thank my husband, John. The encouragement and support you have all given to me is appreciated more than you will ever know. As a family, we are so fortunate to have such a close and supportive relationship, despite our geographical spread.

Although my mother could not join us today, I am sure that she is watching me from the Sandhill nursing home in Launceston, accompanied by my daughter, Amanda. I am confident that, like all mothers, she will be my greatest critic, but I know she will also be my most vocal supporter. Mum, you have always been an inspiration to me, demonstrating your Christian faith through the life you have lived and showering us with your unconditional love. We could not have asked for more.

Only a few months ago, I could not have contemplated being sworn in yesterday as a senator for Tasmania. None of us knows what the future holds. Whether my time in this place is long or short, I commit to serving the people of Tasmania to the best of my ability and to representing their views and aspirations in this place. I thank the Senate.

Order! I remind senators this is the first speech of Senator Spender, and I ask them to maintain the normal courtesies.

Thank you, senators, for indulging me with this opportunity, at the busy time that it is, to deliver my maiden speech. Like many of you, I will be facing the electorate in a matter of weeks. So, if I don't win, this speech will double as a maiden speech and a valedictory speech, which might be a first, so I might even get into Odgers, which is great.

In perhaps another first for a maiden speech, I will be promoting some policies that I know are unpopular. But that's because the Liberal Democrats craft policies intentionally not to maximise popularity but out of empathy for all people affected, including those people who are often dismissed or ignored in Australian politics.

By way of introduction, I admit to being a policy wonk. In 2001, when I was in the federal treasury department, a colleague, John Humphreys, and I created this libertarian party that we sneakily called the Liberal Democrats. It wasn't actually us being sneaky. We just read a lot of books about liberal democracy and we thought it was a good idea—honest. I've devoted all my adult life to studying and working in government, learning its many failings and trying to restrict it. For the past five years I've been former senator David Leyonhjelm's right-hand man, so I'll take credit for all the things that he said and did that you liked, and for everything else I'll leave the blame with David!

I'm a libertarian, which I think means we think about others when we think about policy. I'm a man, so I'll never need an abortion, but I think they should be legal. I'll never need breastfeeding aids, but I think they should be GST-free, just like water, milk and medical devices. And I'll never choose to carry pepper spray, but if others want to take up that option, they should be free to do so to defend themselves against vile thugs. I'm not really a drinker, but I think you should be free to drink at all hours. I've never been addicted to nicotine, but I think you should be able to vape instead of smoke cigarettes. I'm not a regular shooter, but I think shooting is a great pastime and sport that is constantly subject to unthought-out policy change. I'm more at home in front of a book than in the great outdoors, but I think that enthusiasts of four-wheel driving and other outdoor pursuits should be able to access public lands and waterways. And—unlike David Leyonhjelm—you'll never catch me on a motorbike, but if you and your mates like jumping on a motorbike, I will not declare you to be an outlaw bikie gang. This is typical of all libertarians. It's a live and let live philosophy. I'm not pretending that politicians from the Liberal Democrats are the only politicians that can show empathy; it's just that our political party is so naive that we let our politicians show their empathy even when it is politically suicidal to do so.

I acknowledge the Ngunawal people, whose ancestors owned this land. To me, land rights continues to represent a fantastic opportunity for self-determination, prosperity and security. I think our governments can do even better on land rights than what we've done in the past. We can avoid imposing conditions on land rights and we can remove the conditions that we've imposed in the past. If the Indigenous owners of Uluru want to stop people climbing Uluru, they should be free to do so. I believe that land rights should always be provided as freehold so that Indigenous owners have the security to make long-term investments. And I believe that land rights should be alienable so that Indigenous owners can borrow against the land and, if they choose, even sell land. And I believe that governments should assist with converting large land-holding bodies into smaller, separate land-holding bodies if Indigenous members wish for that.

I support a First Nations voice enshrined in our Constitution. The First Nations voice proposal is a modest proposal. It is a body that could be routinely ignored, and tasked with nothing, so it would be hardly a new ATSIC and it would be hardly a third chamber of parliament. Think about the Indigenous voices we most often hear. They are often associated with the delivery of existing government policies and have a vested interest in the continuation of those particular policies. If we had Indigenous leaders directly elected by Indigenous Australians, they could end up being the same people, in which case we would have gained nothing and lost nothing. But they could end up being different, in which case they could help us move on from the current failing status quo of policy.

Let me also just raise an alternative to having a standalone Indigenous body. We could provide those who identify as Indigenous Australians with the option at federal elections of voting in an Indigenous electorate rather than their local electorate, as New Zealand provides. This would conform with the important principle of one vote one value and it would also mean that Indigenous leaders elected by Indigenous Australians would be in the parliament, in the main game. Again, there is the risk that we would have uninspiring parliamentarians just asking for more taxpayer funds for existing Indigenous programs. But there is a chance that we could end up with leaders who are more inspirational and visionary than that.

The Liberal Democrats base their policies on empathy, but a political philosophy based on empathy is not a recipe for popularity because most policies have two sides. If your policies recognise that, they end up being based on tolerance and compromise rather than trying to attract the extreme. Think of the issue of environmental protection. Like many others, I believe that land clearing should stop, that habitats should be protected and that land should be reforested. But people who share these views invariably do not own the land that we are concerned about. It is lazy and inconsiderate to just wipe out the rights of landowners. Instead, concerned Australians should put their money where their mouths are and pay for the preservation and reforestation of land themselves. If we did this, Australia could be covered with conservation covenants, which are agreements where landholders are paid by concerned Australians to preserve and reforest their land. If we did this, the amount of land that would be protected would depend on how much we truly care about the environment.

Another way to assist in environmental protection would be to slow population growth. Unfortunately, the current population debate is mired in the immigration debate. But if we are serious about slowing population growth, we need to consider home-grown population growth. It might not be popular to say so but we need to think how we assist those with children. Australians should be free to have as many kids as they wish, but governments should not encourage people to have children, which they currently do by providing family payments of up to $10,000 per year per child. This is on top of parenting payments designed to keep low-income families out of poverty.

I propose that per-child family payments should continue for families with children and for those about to have children, but they should be phased out for those in the future who have children. This would only make a small contribution to slowing population growth, because it would be rare for financial assistance to contribute to determine how many children to have. But the contribution would be important and warranted. This approach would have regard to Australians without children, including those Australians who desperately want to have children but can't—those Australians who are paying money, through their taxes, to fortunate people like me who have received the gift of children. Unfortunately, in Australian politics Australians without children are forgotten. They are invisible.

Political parties also tend to fail to empathise with taxpayers in general, because parties get benefits from big-spending policy announcements where the costs are spread out across all taxpayers, and the taxes are hidden. But the Liberal Democrats will fight new spending proposals anyway.

A highly concerning new area of government spending is the millions of dollars of corporate welfare going to the private defence export industry. This is our very own grubby and creepy attempt to have our own military industrial complex. Right now, Australian taxpayers are subsidising companies to provide materiel, including remote weapons systems, to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia—those repressive dictatorships that favour torture over freedom and human rights. It is absolutely galling that taxpayers are forced to support this putrid dealing with the devil.

Closer to home, a less extreme form of taxpayer abuse is the provision of age pensions to families and households that own million-dollar houses. This is the major parties buying votes by extending a payment intended for those who need it to those who don't. Another form of taxpayer abuse is the various policies to attempt to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, particularly the coalition's direct action plan, which involves paying emitters who promise, hand on heart, to emit at a level less than some arbitrary level.

I'm not pretending that the Liberal Democrats will be able to determine energy and greenhouse policy in Australia, but if the Liberal Democrats are re-elected to this crossbench and the coalition is re-elected to the government benches, the Liberal Democrats will vote against all extensions of the direct action plan to waste taxpayers' funds. And if Labor forms government, we will vote under their scheme that any money from emissions-intensive generators, like coal-fired generators, doesn't end up in the pockets of less emissions-intensive generators, like wind farms, but instead ends up in the pockets of Australians through income tax cuts and lower fuel taxes.

And any deal that we strike will involve the abolition of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and will involve the legalisation and regulation of nuclear power, the safest form of power there is.

Housing affordability

The Liberal Democrats' concern for households facing high electricity prices and high income taxes and fuel taxes also extends to households facing stamp duties.

Stamp duties are oppressive. They keep renters out of the housing market. In Sydney you need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to the state government, for nothing in return, to buy a house

If we abolished stamp duties, we would help renters without hurting existing homeowners, and existing homeowners would be helped, because they could move houses when they change jobs, rather than live their life in commuting hell.

The only way we could get of stamp duties is through Commonwealth leadership, because the states are addicted to stamp duty revenues.

I used to own my own house, and it was fantastic to do so. I could put up pictures on my own walls and I could dig up my backyard to my heart's content. More Australians should have this opportunity, but it will take leadership in this place to achieve it.

Refugees

As well as dealing with the First World problem of getting Australians into their own homes, we should confront the reality that there are millions of refugees who would love to call Australia their home.

And we need to confront the reality that there are millions of Australians who don't want one more refugee in this country.

How do we deal with those two realities? How do we show empathy for refugees and empathy for those Australians who don't want a bar of them?

We need to reinvigorate the policy where concerned Australians, rather than taxpayer funded government agencies, fund, support and house refugees.

Think of all the cars emblazoned with the bumper sticker 'say yes to refugees'. Imagine if all those car owners said yes to housing in their own home and covering the expenses of, for as long as required, a refugee or refugee family.

We need to be the change we want to see in the world.

Western civilisation

In my last few minutes let me speak about liberal democracy, this system of Western civilisation based on empathy; where our friends have freedom of speech, religion, association, assembly and movement, and—more importantly—our enemies have freedom of speech, religion, assembly, association and movement; where laws apply to all equally regardless of colour and creed, where laws are made by elected officials, where laws apply from the moment they are enacted and not before and where laws do not seize property without just compensation; where you cannot be searched, you cannot be arrested and your property cannot be seized without probable cause; where you cannot be imprisoned unless your criminal act and your guilty mind are proved beyond reasonable doubt in a single trial not based on self-incrimination but based on evidence that you can criticise and scrutinise; and where contracts are routinely respected because of mutual trust, but, where disputes arise, contracts are enforceable by courts.

This is our liberal democracy, and it is often referred to as Western civilisation, even though there are great liberal democracies in the East. Some amongst us say they support Western civilisation but say that Western civilisation is under threat from external forces and that we need to compromise Western civilisation in order to save it. On each count they are wrong. Liberal democracy and Western civilisation is thriving. It is winning and it has been winning for decades. Those who seem to doubt this don't seem to realise how intoxicating liberal democracy is. People come from far and wide to liberal democracies and immediately love the tenets of liberal democracy and defend it. They become the staunchest defenders of liberal democracy.

Some decades ago Pauline Hanson, whom I wish a speedy recovery, said that we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Well, the Asians came and it was an absolute triumph. It was possibly the best decision Australia ever made. Australians of Asian descent are marching in our streets demanding action on climate change, and Australians of Asian descent are in our police forces supervising those protests. Australians of Asian descent are prosecuting criminals in our courts, and they're defending them as well. Australians of Asian descent are working in our businesses, and owning them as well. And, in a couple of weeks time, Australians of Asian descent will be manning our polling booths, sometimes in shirts of blue and sometimes in shirts of red. Liberal democracy won and keeps on winning.

More recently, Senator Hanson said that we were in danger of being swamped by Muslims and suggested that we ban immigration from certain Muslim majority countries. But the overwhelming majority of Muslim migrants are already converts to liberal democracy, not radical Islam. In fact, many of them are fleeing radical Islam. We have well-resourced security agencies to pre-empt and detect attacks from radical Islam, but the absolute strongest defence we have is the overwhelming support in our communities for the opposing philosophy, liberal democracy. Those who fear radical Islam sometimes suggest that we should do away with tenets of liberal democracy, like non-discriminatory immigration, freedom of association and freedom from arbitrary detention. But, out of fear of radical Islam, they are providing a lifeline to radical Islam. Instead, we should support our liberal democracy because liberal democracy will always beat the unattractive weakling that is radical Islam.

Mr President, I, hopefully, have conveyed to you how the Liberal Democrats stand for liberal values and how, no matter who the Liberal Democrat politician is, we all share the same principles. We are a force for stability where other parties are subject to the whims of focus groups and changing leaders. The Liberal Democrats will always fight for free speech, a lower tax burden, the end of the nanny state, the end of the police state and the end of the war on drugs. We will fight for power so we can leave you alone.

Unlike other maiden speeches, I won't be thanking a list of people who have helped me in my achievements, simply because I'm a casual appointee and I haven't achieved anything to date. I will just again thank the senators for indulging me with this opportunity, and I wish the best of luck to those senators who are facing re-election. Thank you.

We'll now move to valedictory statements from Senators Scullion, Moore and Cameron. I will invite the three senators to make their statements before I call for contributions from around the chamber regarding all three. I'll commence with Senator Scullion.

Mr President, as I rise I acknowledge the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples on whose traditional lands this Parliament House stands. I also acknowledge their elders, both past and present, and I'd like to particularly recognise one such elder in the gallery—Matilda House. Matilda was also in the gallery nearly 18 years ago to hear my maiden speech. Thank you, Matilda, and your extended family, for making me so welcome on your country.

I rise in this place today to offer my thanks and acknowledgement to those individuals and communities that have supported me in my time as the Country Liberal senator for the Northern Territory and to also offer some observations about my time in this place. First, and most importantly, could I offer my thanks to all those Territorians from all walks of life who supported and, in fact, voted for me in the last six elections. You can always rely on Territorians for good judgement.

I thank the Country Liberals for their unwavering support. I'm proud to belong to a political movement that always puts Territorians first. I acknowledge how tough it is for so many Territorians at the moment, and I hear your cries for change. I must say that it has been a real honour to have been the first-ever conservative cabinet minister to hail from the Northern Territory, and I genuinely hope I'm not the last. I simply can't overstate how critical it is to the governance of our nation to have representatives from north Australia sitting around the cabinet table.

Mr President, I thank you and acknowledge your professional and impartial leadership of the Senate. It's an absolutely crucial role, and I acknowledge all the Presidents since I arrived in this place. They've done a remarkable job in often difficult circumstances in maintaining peace and good order, particularly with those on the other side. I'd also like to thank the Nationals for their support during my time in the Senate. I've been supported by such great leaders—John Anderson, Mark Vaile, Warren Truss, Barnaby Joyce, and now the excellent Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack.

I know for a fact that every other senator in this place secretly wishes they could be part of our Nationals Senate team. Why wouldn't you want to be part of such a close-knit family that so effectively leverages the best outcomes for regional Australia? And I can tell you, Mr President, that we have a lot more fun doing it! It's a party of great characters like my good mate Wacka Williams. What a wonderful contribution you've made. Australia and particularly your constituents in New South Wales are richer for your time in the Senate.

Senator O'Sullivan—Bazza, mate, regional Queensland has lost a fearless champion, and this place has lost a committed contributor. Thanks for being such a funny bastard. I suspect your wicked good humour helped us all through some of our tougher times. Senator Steve Martin, our Nationals most recent addition, your endless capacity and enthusiasm for your beloved Tasmanians will, I'm sure, see you returned as a much-needed champion for regional Tasmania. I should also acknowledge your recently acquired ability to put more fish in the boat than me, a record I will correct on my next visit.

To Senator Matty Canavan: mate, you're just so hard to keep up with. You're a walking encyclopedia, a man who seemingly overnight can absorb, evaluate and then respond to the most complex of documents. You constantly demonstrate the innate ability to engage so quickly with everyone you meet. On behalf of north Australia, thanks, mate, for all the positive change you've created.

To my wonderful mate Senator McKenzie, Cyclone Bridget: it's rare to meet such a hardworking, effective senator. Regional Victoria is just so lucky to have you. You'll continue to be my close personal friend. I can tell you: sitting next to you is about the only thing I'm going to miss about bloody question time!

Can I also recognise the support of Bozzie, Sandy and Nashy before they left this place. Bozzie in particular is that rare breed of parliamentarian who never really retires once they leave this place. He is always on the phone. There was no fight, big or small, that Bozzie was ever too afraid to take on, and he usually won, too. You're a class act, mate. I only hope my retirement doesn't look anything like yours! But it is people like Bozzie and parties like the Nationals that make Australia such a great nation, the truly remarkable democracy that it is.

The Nats are the party for the regions, for remote Australia, whether it's on the coast, in the bush, in the desert or in our major regional centres. We never, ever take our regions for granted, because there are threats. We have this perverse situation where we have small but vocal groups of activists, primarily in southern and eastern Australia, dictating to rural Australians what industries they're allowed to have, what industries they're not allowed to work in, and what jobs they can and cannot have. Well, we in the Nationals fight for rural industries, shamelessly and proudly. We fight for industries like farming, like mining, like forestry and like fisheries. There is no shame in being a diesel mechanic working on a bauxite mine or an iron ore mine or, heaven forbid, a thermal coalmine. Nor is there any shame in being a beef producer, a dairy farmer or a cotton grower and growing the best food and fibre anywhere in the world.

We on this side—and certainly I—are not afraid to support the proposed Adani Carmichael mine or the development of the Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory. Not only will these projects meet all of the state and territory environmental approvals, as they must do; they also have the overwhelming support of traditional owners and the communities in those regions. The traditional owners support these projects; so do the communities. They want the jobs, they want the opportunities and they want the economic development that they will deliver.

As you know, I'm a very keen hunter and sporting shooter myself. So I was very pleased that we all supported a motion reaffirming our commitment to the National Firearms Agreement. We all proudly support the legal rights of law-abiding firearm owners. The National Firearms Agreement hailed the most significant gun reforms in our nation. I believe these laws have achieved the right balance between keeping the community safe and giving firearm owners, whether sports shooters or farmers, a well-regulated and licensed framework to own and use their firearms.

I should make special mention of that excellent class of 2001. It's amazing how few of us remain. As a member of that class, Senator Penny Wong, thank you for your leadership and your guidance of those opposite for many years—and a few of them needed a bit of guidance too! You've made an articulate, dignified and often courageous contribution to this chamber. Congratulations.

There are still a few who predated my arrival. To Senator Marise Payne: Marise, thank you for your friendship and leadership in a variety of portfolios. I know from my garrison town of Darwin how much you were respected in the role of Minister for Defence and what an incredible job you are doing as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Well done, mate.

To Senator Mitch Fifield, Mitchie Boy—again a great mate and supporter. You've done a remarkable job of leading government business in the Senate. To Mathias, the Machine: I thank you for your leadership in the Senate. You're doing a fantastic job, and I trust that you'll excel in that role for many years to come. To the remainder of our coalition team, to Linda, Birmo, Cashy, David, Rusty, Richard and Zed: what a remarkable bunch of Australians you are; what a cracker frontbench. You are completely deserved of the prize we have in you.

To the remainder of those opposite and to all my coalition colleagues, thank you for the contributions you've made to the Senate and to that other place. To the prime ministers I have served, Mr Howard, Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull and now that excellent Prime Minister Mr Morrison, thank you for your advice, your leadership and, most importantly, your seamless, endless patience.

To the Territory senators I've served with, Trish Crossin, Nova Peris and Malarndirri McCarthy, the collegiate relationship we have enjoyed, most of the time, has ensured that, in this place, the Territory's interests have come first.

To the Greens, while there are not a lot of policies and philosophies I necessarily support, you have clearly stood by your beliefs and rarely vacillated from them. You have my every respect. Since I've worked so closely with Senator Siewert, could I make a special mention of Rachel and her passion for Indigenous affairs and support for Indigenous communities. Thanks, Rach, for your support and assistance in dealing with my portfolio matters.

To One Nation, without a doubt, Pauline—and I'm sorry you're not here to hear me—you are the most controversial politician I've ever worked with. Whilst I mightn't agree with you on all of your policies, I thank you for supporting a number of reforms in my portfolio that have made lives better for Indigenous Australians.

With controversy comes division, and I think the challenge for all of us in the place and as leaders in this place is to always to strive to appeal to Australians' better nature, rather than our worst. I do hope all of us can provide that leadership not only at the next election but in the years that follow.

To the crossbenchers, Senator Bernardi, Chesty, we've had some great times together and I'm sure we'll catch up for some more. To Senator Hinch, Derryn, I don't know anyone else who'd spend time behind bars for their beliefs. You have continued your principled crusade for the most vulnerable Australians since you arrived in this place. All the best for your continued efforts.

Nick Xenophon sort of snuck out. I know he's no longer here, but he remains a good friend of mine. I thank him for all the laughs. To Centre Alliance, to Senators Patrick and Griff, I've enjoyed a great working relationship. Thank you.

I also acknowledge Tim Storer and the very recent—perhaps a dash of sunshine for a very short moment!—Duncan Spender. Although I didn't really get to spend a lot of time with either of you in this place, I wish you both the best of luck. To Brian Burston, now with Clive Palmer's United Australia Party, it's been great to work with you. Clive is a very colourful character whom I know well.

We should never pretend that, as senators, we can achieve anything in this place without the support of our incredibly hardworking staff. You can see them up there in the President's gallery. They are very special, and have been so ably led by Bev Cubillo. Bev's been with me for the best part of 17 years, and she reckons that you get a shorter sentence for murder! A big thanks for your fantastic work, Bev, and also to Gusey, Justine, Billo and Adam, who do such a fantastic job in my electorate offices in Darwin and Alice Springs.

To my ministerial staff, supported by my dedicated and ever enthusiastic chief of staff, Ben Peoples—Benno, you've done a tremendous job leading the team of Bala Jacob, Katherine, Ali, Rick, Trilby, Bretty, Rachel, Hannah and Coops—thanks so much to you all for your dedication, hard work and support and for sharing a multitude of adventures with me over the last 5½ years.

I'd like to also take this opportunity to acknowledge my previous staff, including my previous chiefs of staff: Russell Patterson—fantastic job mate and good to see you; Kevin Donnellan, thanks for your work, mate; Kerrie Tim, the first Indigenous chief of staff—what a great legacy, Kerrie; and Sekur Clayton, you looked after me for so many years I promised I'd get you in Hansard one day!

To all the parliamentary staff who seem to magically run this place—our cleaning staff, all of our security staff, our wonderful Comcar crew, Hansard and all those other staff—you really are the engine room of the Australian parliament.

I also acknowledge the committed staff in my departments, whom I have worked with over my time as minister both in community services and the Indigenous affairs portfolio. I acknowledge those who are in the chamber tonight. I thank the many departmental liaison officers who have worked in my office; the regional network staff, who do a fantastic job supporting all my frontline service delivery; and the leadership of the department, particularly Ray Griggs and Professor Ian Anderson, who is the most senior Indigenous public servant, and who is in the gallery today.

In 2007 I was lucky enough to be asked to serve as Minister for Community Services under the Howard-Vaile government.

Whilst all elements of this portfolio were fascinating, I'd particularly like to thank the disability sector for helping me understand the detail of the challenges that faced us and to share with me the better policy approaches that would ensure that all Australians, irrespective of their circumstances, were treated fairly and equally. I'm confident that the NDIS is making a real difference and will continue to do so.

My current portfolio of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs is one I held in opposition for some time and, in my now informed view, is without doubt the most challenging and important of all cabinet responsibilities. Now, those who will undoubtedly quietly disagree clearly have never held a portfolio. Despite the challenges we inherited—and I know that we have made significant progress—when I say 'we', I mean Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in genuine partnership with government. It would be disingenuous in the extreme for me or our government, or indeed our parliament, to take credit for the success in these endeavours without recognising and acknowledging that, without our now long and enduring partnership with our First Australians, we would never have achieved the changes in the landscape we see today. I would particularly like to thank Senator Pat Dodson for his friendship and assistance with my portfolio—I value them both.

Could I acknowledge and thank the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council, so ably chaired by Roy Ah-See and Andrea Mason. I also thank the past co-chair, Chris Sarra, and the current members, Fraser Nai, Dr Ngiare, Djambawa Marawili and Susan Murphy.

The Indigenous Advisory Council was never just advisory. That was made abundantly clear, I think, in the first two or three minutes of the first meeting. They have assisted in every element of policy development across such a wide range of issues and, on behalf of our shared constituency, thank you.

With the able assistance of then Prime Minister Tony Abbott, we made significant structural reform, the first of which was to bring the primacy of a standalone portfolio of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs for the first time into cabinet. The past hotchpotch approach of each portfolio having separate programs and funding arrangements was replaced by a new regime which brought all the funds supporting our First Australians together under the IAS, the Indigenous Advancement Strategy.

Whilst at the outset there were a few detractors, this reform brought demonstrably more rational oversight and a far more coordinated approach with an unashamed focus on education, employment, and community safety and wellbeing. It was this structural reform that allowed government to seek advice from our First Australians who were receiving services as to their community priorities rather than governments. A principal legacy of these reforms is a move from 30 per cent of the services being delivered by Indigenous businesses when we started to 60 per cent Indigenous delivery today.

I'd particularly like to acknowledge the Empowered Communities program, which now provides community advice on which programs continue to be funded and assists with timely adjustments to program delivery. I thank the hundreds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders throughout Australia for their robust efforts in moving our parliament to deliver the programs their communities need and support—a huge reform from the convention that government knows best.

Could I also acknowledge Galarrwuy Yunupingu and thank him for the great assistance he provided me in redesigning township leases that kept in the case of Gunyangara the new township lease completely under Aboriginal control. This process has become the new standard for township leasing. Bapaji, thank you.

Just last week I was delighted to chair the first ministerial council meeting that included our First Australians. This is a significant move from the convention of only the state, territory, and Commonwealth ministers meeting to the long overdue inclusion of the coalition of Aboriginal peak organisations. For the first time, our First Nations people are at the centre of Australia's endeavours to close the gap of opportunity and equity, and I'd like to thank Pat Turner for co-chairing this historic meeting with me.

Probably the most significant policy introduced by this new partnership has been the Indigenous Procurement Policy, so successful in not only the quantum of the Commonwealth procurement of the First Nations businesses moving, as I've said in this place ad nauseam, from $6.2 billion to now over $1.83 billion but, most importantly, the change in the lives and circumstances of around 40,000 Indigenous families in that they gained a principal breadwinner through full-time employment as a consequence of this initiative. Could I also acknowledge and thank the leadership of the premiers, chief ministers and mayors of all the state, territory and local governments that have adopted this initiative as their own. I hold every confidence this will have a positive and enduring impact on the circumstances of First Nation businesses and their swiftly growing number of employees.

To all those who seek the Treasury benches, a word of advice: this new way of doing business in equal partnership with our First Australians is the way of the future—a hard-fought and deserved future, and a partnership that must forever be.

Finally, and most importantly of all: my family. To my children, now adults, Sarah, Daniel, Luke and their partners Jacob, Suzie, Jamielee and little Kiki—good to see you, Biddle—including my nephew, Luke: you have given me incredible support throughout my time here. Thank you for always being there for me.

To my lovely Carol: I could not have done much of this without you, mate. I thank you for your support and your sacrifices over the years; I love you very much.

I hope my modest achievements in this place validate the responsibilities and trust that Territorians have placed in me. I thank them for the opportunity to serve.

I just want to put on record that every time I've been called to speak in this place by any President or Deputy President I've always had a special shiver, and that shiver is with me tonight. As I did with my first speech, I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land then paying my respects to elders of all cultures. The Labor senators who came here in 2001—Ruth Webber, Linda Kirk, Ursula Stephens, Gavin Marshall and Penny Wong—had the special privilege of having an introduction session with the inimitable John Faulkner and Robert Ray. During that session we were advised—I remember this so clearly—that the speeches that would be most remembered about most of us in this place would probably be the first one and those made about us after we're dead. That was possibly not particularly comforting for those who were terrified about our looming first speeches but it makes me a little bit more confident about this one tonight.

I was not particularly keen to make this speech this evening but I decided, after some thought, that what I wanted to do was put on record my thankyous to so many people who have meant so much to me and who have made this experience great. When that initial grouping got together, that was our first opportunity to meet the amazing range of people who care so much about this place, our system and this marvellous building and who wrap services around us to ensure that we can do our job as well as we can and be part of this continuing legacy of the Senate, the parliament and our history. In that time they made me aware that probably nothing I personally could do would bring down this Senate. That was a comfort: as the Senate has continued since 1901—so far, so good.

I want to start by thanking Richard and the Clerk team. You follow on from the most amazing people. When we were first here, I was given so much support and encouragement by people like Harry Evans—wonderful—Anne Lynch and Rosemary Laing. I recently was talking with Rosemary and I said that I lived in this place to ensure that she never frowned at something I did or said. She, as always, was inscrutable and gave me the belief that I had not done so. I hope that was genuine.

I also want to remember the remarkable Cleaver Elliott. In my time, his passion, commitment, knowledge and humour gave me and so many other people such a great understanding of the importance of what we do and how we can do it better. He took this knowledge not just to our parliaments but to parliaments across the Pacific, and there are still people who talk about the training sessions that Cleaver did in other parliaments that make me proud not just of him but of our whole system.

I pressed twice to get more water tonight just so I could see the attendants who look after us so well in this place again. Thank you, John, so much. John, Bryan, Adrienne, Rosemary, and Fiona and all those who've gone before you, I thank you for your unstinting help, greetings and positive nature. Whether it's 9:00 in the morning or 2:30 in the morning, they never fail to make us feel welcome and to let us know they're around here looking after us. Thank you so much to all of you.

To Hansard, all of you, everyone in Hansard: I apologise for my appalling notes. I know they're quite well known in the Hansard area and they won't be any better this evening either. I also thank you for exposing my overuse of the meaningless adverb 'actually'. Just scrub it out every time I say 'actually'—that's worked so far so good.

To Broadcasting: I apologise for my noisy jewellery. I know it has caused trouble in the past and people know when I'm speaking. It's a bit like having a cat with a bell on it—they know when I'm about to speak. I do apologise because I realise over the years that I tend to talk to you. When I'm talking in this place, I know you're supposed to speak to the President but I find when I'm speaking that I'm inevitably talking to Broadcasting. I apologise and I hope you haven't found it too threatening.

To all the people in Parliamentary Services here and in Brisbane, thank you so much. Our team has been served so well by your patience, your consideration and also your effort. You really cared about the services you were providing to us—the people who helped us in Brisbane particularly—so thank you so much. There have been some moves and so on but you've always been great, so I wanted to say thank you and I will be seeing you before I leave.

To 2020: thank you for your patience, understanding and inevitable nonjudgement. Whenever I have dealt with you, it's been fantastic. To the Comcar drivers, wherever you are, I'm not sure whether people truly understand the value of your service until they no longer have that service—that's what I've heard from other people. Thank you for the courtesy, the absolute certainty that we're going to be looked after and for the knowledge that, again, people care. The team in Brisbane can stop having that contest about whether they will get there before I'm waiting for them. It's been going on for years and I know it's been looked at but I like to be early, at least to start with—that's important.

To the security people, you are always helpful, always smiling, making everyone feel welcome. For those of us who have had the wonderful opportunity to travel, Colin and Onu in the international branch have been there for us and have worked miracles when there have been some very tight times. Thank you so much. And, Colin, you will have to find more people to come to those lunches now at the last moment. Thank you for the opportunities.

To the people in the gym, thank you. There are some people here who know about the wonderful services of the gym. I know there are people who have never seen where it is. If you do get the opportunity, pop down and see them; it's usually not fatal.

To Dom and Bridget and the whole team at Aussies: If there is one thing that brings unity to this parliament, it is Aussies. They absolutely care for us, and the place offers us welcome all the time. Thank you so much. We will miss you. Also, to the dining room staff and all the people who serve at so many of our functions, thank you. It often strikes me in this place how you will see people serving at breakfast early in the morning and then you see the same people serving at late-night functions on the same day. I think we all benefit from the extent of their service, their work and their professionalism. I really want to put on record how much I care for them and for the cleaners in this place—absolutely. We see them, we smile at them. Their work is exceptionally caring and professional, and they're part of this building. They're part of a team that lives here. Thank you so much. I have probably forgotten people, but I will just put on record that we all know that you care for this place and that you've extended that care to each of us—so thank you very much.

I particularly want to thank all the people who have made submissions and provided evidence to Senate and other parliamentary committees. For me, our committee system is the heart of our Senate. We have extraordinary opportunities to hear from people who care deeply about issues which affect them. I've been shocked, angered, inspired, challenged and brought to tears sometimes by the contributions to our committees. Each of those red and white books that we all have in our libraries, sometimes way too many, reflects important issues that people have felt the confidence and the trust to bring to us, because they wanted their parliament, their Senate, to hear what was important and how they can make changes to policy—and they work. So many amazing policies, so many programs, so many royal commissions, have come from the work of the committees in our Senate. I think it's important that we know that that system is there, that we value it as it should be valued and that we use it to its best extent. It is what I always say makes our Senate special.

Committees also provide us the opportunity to work together as a Senate, regardless of which party we come from and regardless of what we think we know about an issue. It's our chance to work together as a committee, to travel together, to get to know more about each other—which is sometimes a little difficult. It also provides real friendships. I have to say that, through my work on a number of committees, I've established friendships with senators from across this place, which remain very true and very special for me. Our committee process also gives us the opportunity to make friendships and connections with people who have come to talk with us. Through many of the committees on which I've worked, I now have people whom I consider friends, who come to me with their purposes and their causes and who stay in contact. I can't name them all; it would be inappropriate. But I think I do have to mention at least Leonie Sheedy and the amazing CLAN group, whom we got to know through important committees around the forgotten Australians—those forgotten Australians who will never be forgotten anymore. We made that promise to them.

There are also people in the mental health area. We had an extraordinary committee inquiry into Australia's mental health many years ago. Those connections are still there—the advocates, the professionals, the people who care. It's hard to pick out particular ones, but I want to put on record this evening that the experience many of us in this place had working on issues around women's gynaecological cancer changed lives. We had the opportunity to work with people who were looking at their own condition and at their own death in many ways but who were still prepared to come and share, to ask and to express needs that we could actually then give back in policy. The increased focus on ovarian cancer and other forms of gynaecological cancer which are now active in Cancer Australia came directly from that committee. The unity that we had in the parliament in supporting that issue and the royal commissions will always be very special moments for me.

Something we all know when talking about the committees is that we could not operate without the secretariats. Those men and women who give so much to keep these committees operating are really the backbone. Over the years, I have relied on so many and worked with them, sometimes with extraordinary expectations from ministers in terms of the deadlines put on the committee work. We need to treasure those people and to remind them constantly of the good work they do. I think it is something we all can share.

I also want to thank the governments who've been strong enough to say sorry. There was the time when my friend Kevin Rudd said sorry to Indigenous Australians in this place. I felt that this building actually throbbed. I felt the earth move when that expression was made, across not just this place but the whole of our nation. That apology, that identification that we had people in our nation who had been wronged, Indigenous people who had been wronged, and that the government—our government, our Prime Minister—on behalf of each of us was prepared to stand up and say sorry was extraordinarily special, and it continues to be important.

That experience has been had three more times, and I hope it will continue to happen. For the people who were in institutional care, Kevin, again, was the Prime Minister of the day. It took a bit of encouragement, because he and other people were concerned about whether he would be known just for saying sorry. But I think the importance was known by the whole of the parliament—that when you have a wrong you need to apologise. From the experiences that we heard, again through the committee system, we have now made an apology to the people who were in institutional care, which continues to remain so important to them.

Then again, a few years later, we had the forced adoptions inquiry. We met women and their children and their families who were damaged by governments in Australia—some of them thought they were doing the right thing, but nonetheless lives were damaged—and again our parliament, our government, decided that this was such a great wrong that we needed to say sorry. I, and people who have met those people, continue to understand how important that experience was.

So I want to thank governments that are strong enough to say sorry. Very recently Prime Minister Morrison actually took the apology statement to people who had been identified through the royal commission process as having suffered sexual abuse in institutions. Again, you could feel the way that the parliament was connecting with people, with our community, and I think that's what makes us strong. So thank you to those governments who knew that they could say they were sorry.

I want to say thank you to my party, the Australian Labor Party, and particularly to the members of the Queensland branch who have given me the opportunity to serve as a Queensland senator in this place. When you actually make that oath and sign those amazingly large and important historical documents that sit there when new senators come on, it is a contract. It is a position of trust. I really want to thank the people in the Queensland party who gave me this chance and who felt that I was serving them well.

I love my state, and I've had the great opportunity, basically through this job, of meeting many people from all parts of Queensland. In fact, that extends to all parts of the nation. I would like to acknowledge the school hall program, which meant many of us got a chance to go to a lot of places that we may not have known existed before. I went to a school that had five pupils, who had not had a library and who had not had a hall. I went to very large schools. It was a wonderful experience to be there and be part of that whole process, so thank you to the party.

I also want to particularly thank the party for a special joy that I've had in this parliament, which was representing the party on two national institutions. The National Archives has an advisory council by legislation, including members of parliament. The National Archives provides the memory of our nation, collecting and preserving Australian government records that reflect our history and identity. So to David Fricker, who is the director-general, and Denver Beanland, my mate from Queensland who's the chair of the council: thank you so much for the opportunity to serve on that council. It is important, and I really think, again, it's the history of our nation.

Another special joy—I must have been standing in the right place that day—was that I also got appointed to the National Library Council. Our National Library is an absolute treasure. It's so close, and yet I know people in this place may not have got there. So please take the opportunity to visit the Library and the Archives. The Library, by its legislation, is responsible under the act for maintaining and developing a national library collection of material, including a comprehensive collection of material relating to Australia and its people. That's us. So take the opportunity to go to the Library and learn more about the wonderful services that they have. To Dr Marie-Louise Ayres, who's the current national librarian, and Dr Brett Mason, who is now the CEO of the advisory council: thank you as well for that chance to serve with you.

I want to also thank the party for the wonderful chance in the last two parliaments to serve as a shadow minister. It wasn't my goal. It was not something that I had planned to do, but it was a wonderful chance to look after two particular portfolios that mean so much to me. One was as the shadow minister for women for disability and careers—my friend Carol Brown now works in the disability and careers area—and the other one, the one that I'm doing in this parliament, is as the shadow minister for international development and the pacific. I cherish the opportunities I've had to work in this space and the people I've had the chance to meet.

There are so many advocates and NGOs and people who care about all these areas, but I want to particularly mention the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development, which I've mentioned many times in speeches in this place. That group—I can see people who've been on the group nodding—encapsulates the issues of international development, the Pacific, women, disabilities and our whole focus as parliamentarians working on developing policy in this area. I really encourage parliamentarians in the next parliament to work on this cross-party committee, which is so important to our area. I couldn't leave this area without giving a little nudge to Penny and her office, who've done work in this space and provided opportunities. I'll also mention the Sustainable Development Goals. I will not go into a long rant on that. I've done that many times before, and I assure you I will continue to do it. But, if you look at what the SDGs talk about, it's what we need: we need to work together.

Mr President, I haven't got too much more. I did have a time limit, but I've noticed with interest that there's no clock moving, so that's terrifying for everybody! I'd like to acknowledge my union, the CPSU, the union that serves people who work in the public sector. I am a public servant. I have been a public servant my whole working life, just in different ways. I particularly acknowledge Bill Marklew, my good friend in Brisbane, and his team. You have been behind me, you have been my friend and you've been my support. I am a life member of that union and I will always be active. They mean a lot to me.

That leads on to my absolute support and advocacy for the public sector. That's where I worked. I see public servants doing the jobs that we require of them all the time, and I look on them with respect through the Senate estimates process, which I know we love and adore—in fact, I actually do enjoy Senate estimates. I don't believe it is a gladiatorial contest; I believe it's somewhere you exchange information. When I see the work, commitment and genuine care for our society that the public service should be doing, I want to genuinely put, again, as I did in my first speech, my absolute commitment to being part of the public sector.

I'll talk about my team—I can't name them all—from over the years. We've built up a bit of an alumni group of people who've survived working in my office. There are a few of them up there. There's Meredith and Monique, who are walking. It's fantastic. They have actually been great to me. I can't name them all, but they have shared the passion and they have shared the journey. I particularly want to mention Anne, who was with me from the start, from the Sunshine Coast. I actually was blessed by having two Merediths—one is with me here tonight and the other is the backbone of my office, my friend and someone with whom I work so closely and we couldn't do it without her. It has been a great privilege to work with her and also Claire. We know Claire from the Labor Party. When I was working in another position in this job, she helped me through the intricacies of the operations of the Senate and was there when I returned in shock after a heavy question time of taking points of order. She was always there ready to support me when I returned quite exhausted and deeply concerned about whether I'd done the right thing in this place, so thank you very much.

I'll mention my long-term commitment to having women in parliament. I want to put on the record my thanks to EMILY's List, an organisation with which I've worked with for many years. They have been strong. They have been supportive. They work to have women in parliament, which is something we hear so much about, but, more than that, they work at inclusion in parliament so that we have people who represent their community in this place. My goal is that our parliament reflects our community. Everybody who is an Australian citizen should feel as though they can serve in parliament—really whether they want to or not. They can feel as though that option is here. We are getting better on that, but I think, as a parliament, we are seeing that we need to do that.

I want to thank the wonderful people who have supported us in the whip's office. They do a great job. You and your team are exceptional. I particularly want to thank Maria, Kay and Lenny. They provide so much support to us and are always there. They always should be thanked and acknowledged. To Penny, for you and your office: it's a tough gig and the office does amazing work and is there to provide leadership and support.

I want to thank my friends, who are always there. You should always have people around you who are your friends and who will tell you the truth, when you're failing as well as when you're doing well. I can't mention you all, but I particularly want to put on record Janice Mayes, my good mate, who actually told me I could do this job. I wasn't sure at the time, but she felt that was something she could tell me, in faith, that I could do. Thank you so much, Janice. Thank you to Virginia, who is always there and just makes life easier for many people by bringing her joy into their lives.

For my first speech, my family sat up there and I had nieces and nephews who were very young. They are now adults with their own families. Thank you to my two sisters and their families. They have been so supportive. I'm not sure whether they always understood this process, but they have become committed and I always knew that they were right behind me. For an end, I just want to thank everyone with whom I've worked. It has been a deep joy, a pleasure and an honour. There's unfinished business, and I won't be going away. I wish to put that clearly on record.

However, I want to end with just one regret. When I was sworn in and I had the kids with me, they got immense pleasure out of being in this place. One of the things they enjoyed most was running over Parliament House, throwing themselves down that wonderful green space. I have to admit that I did as well! There will be many people who will never actually know that experience, because things have moved on so much in this place that we don't have that. That is a regret to me. I'm sorry; I know the world has changed, but there was something particularly special about the openness and the welcome of the Senate that I joined, the parliament that I joined. I hope we will always keep that spirit alive, if not the ability to run over the hill. Thank you very much.

I also acknowledge the Ngunawal and Ngambri people and acknowledge their leaders past and present. I rise tonight to make my final contribution to the Senate, which I have had the honour of serving in since 2008, while representing the citizens of New South Wales and the great Australian Labor Party.

My work as a trade union official and senator has given me the opportunity to meet wonderful and interesting people throughout the length and breadth of this huge country. The overwhelming majority of Australians who I have met have been working people. They would probably describe themselves as 'ordinary Australians'. However, the working men and women of this country are anything but ordinary. In the main, the Australian working class are industrious, loyal, intelligent, politically engaged and big hearted. They are not xenophobic, ultranationalistic or racist, as some on the crossbenches would have people think. The men and women who work in factories, in hospitals, on building sites and in classrooms are the people who make this country great. These workers, many of them union members, build and maintain our great nation.

Knowing that I had to make this final speech got me thinking about why I'm here, what brought me to this place and what I have tried to achieve while I was here. In reality, it all comes down to one thing: socialism. I know those opposite have just about fainted!

I'm a proud socialist.

The first leader of the British Labour Party, Keir Hardie, was born in Holytown, a stone's throw from my birthplace of Bellshill. Keir Hardie said this:

Socialism is at bottom a question of ethics and morals. It has mainly to do with the relationships which should exist between a man and his fellows. Therefore it is the equaliser in the position of the rich man's too much and the poor man's too little.

The former member for Parkes, who I never met, Les Haylen, provided another take on socialism, and it's also one to which I subscribe. In 1961, Les Haylen described socialism in these terms:

anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-monopoly, anti-greed and anti-race discrimination, and forever opposed to the savageness of capitalism which has kept the world in fear and misery for centuries … Socialism is a standard of shared goods, jobs and opportunities. It's another word for equality—fair shares.

To this day, those opposite view this alternative economic program, one that has served so many of our allies so well, as inferior to capitalism and neoliberalism. Well, I'll let those opposite in on a little secret: you've got socialists in your ranks too; they just won't admit it! My old mate Wacka Williams is an agrarian socialist if I've ever seen one. Nobody that's been kicked in the guts by capitalism and the banks, like Wacka has been, could be anything else. What other reason could there be for a farmer and a trade unionist to get along so well?

But it was the late, great Leonard Cohen who provided probably the most poetic metaphor for inequality, unfairness and corruption, in his song 'Everybody Knows'. While I'm not going to test the standing orders, or your sensibilities, and sing, I'll read the first verse:

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded

Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed

Everybody knows that the war is over

Everybody knows the good guys lost

Everybody knows the fight was fixed

The poor stay poor, the rich get rich

That's how it goes

Everybody knows

I grew up in Bellshill, where there were a lot of poor people—a small working-class town a few miles south-east of Glasgow, in North Lanarkshire. Bellshill was a steel town, an engineering and mining town, a tough town. It was home to a large Lithuanian migrant population, which included my mother's family. I grew up in Scotland in social housing, colloquially known as the schemes, with my brother, Andy; my sisters, Marilyn and Sandra; my mother, Anne; and my father, Dougie. My father was a sergeant major in the British Army. He served behind Japanese lines in Burma with the British expeditionary forces, and then in India. He was a man stricken by the ravages of malaria and war. Like many returned soldiers, he ended up abusing alcohol and dying young. He was a strict disciplinarian, as sergeant majors are, and an authoritarian, which I think engendered in me a keen sense of civil disobedience. I am not a pacifist, but I hate war.

We never had much money, and my mum had a tough time making ends meet. I entered the workforce at 12 delivering newspapers. I left school at 15 to take up an apprenticeship as a fitter. I joined the union on my first day at work and, apart from marrying Elaine, it was the best call I ever made. In 1973, aged 22, Elaine and I left Bellshill with our 14-month-old daughter, Lynn, and migrated to Australia in search of a better life, one free from sectarian conflict and hardship. Because I had a trade certificate as a fitter and machinist, we had a choice of countries including the United States, Canada and New Zealand. However, Australia had a reputation as being an egalitarian, multicultural country where a worker would get a fair go and a fair day's pay as a result of large, effective trade unions.

Upon our arrival we stayed at the Endeavour Migrant Hostel in South Coogee. I was, in reality, an economic refugee—the sort loathed by some of the crossbenchers. As I've looked across this chamber in recent times, I've done so in the knowledge that there are some people in here who would have denied my family and me the opportunity to make a life in Australia if the decision had been theirs. Fortunately, those with xenophobic and racist views are in the minority, and their bigotry will never ever be accepted by mainstream Australians in this proudly multicultural country where about 30 per cent of residents were born overseas.

As a fitter, I was able to secure employment at General Motors Holden in Pagewood, at Garden Island dockyard and at National Springs. And Elaine was one of the first women to work on the production line at General Motors Holden as a spot welder—because we had $80 when we arrived in Australia, the equivalent of a week's wages. I had to work, Elaine had to work and we had to make a life in this country. I worked with other migrants, many from non-English speaking backgrounds who shared my dream of living in a bountiful, peaceful country, free of the poverty and divisive politics that had afflicted Europe.

In 1975, I accepted a job as a maintenance fitter at the Liddell Power Station near Muswellbrook. It was a heap of rubbish then; I don't know what it's like now—this lot want to keep it going! It was at Liddell that I became a union activist and convener. On arrival at Muswellbrook with Elaine, Lynn and our newborn daughter, Fiona, we discovered that the house provided as part of the job had been vandalised. When I raised this with the bosses, they just shrugged their shoulders. So here I am with a wife and two young children and nowhere to live but a dilapidated, dirty, unsafe worker's cottage. Fiona was only a few months old. Luckily for me, I was a member of the union. As soon as I spoke to the shop steward, he took it up with the bosses and we were given a different house, one fit for a family with a new child. I have never forgotten that act of support, strength and solidarity and I never will.

In 1982, after seven years on the tools at Liddell and after many industrial disputes, I was elected as a state organiser for the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union. In 1986, I became the New South Wales assistant state secretary of the union before becoming the assistant national secretary. From 1996 until I commenced my first term in the Senate in 2008, I was National Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers and the vice-president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

A union is only as strong as its weakest shop, and we would use the strength of our 'hot shops', the well organised sites, to raise standards across the industry. Pattern bargaining, as it was known, is the most effective way for working people to get decent pay and conditions. WorkChoices essentially outlawed pattern bargaining, and, as a result, workers' pay and conditions have stagnated while company profits have soared. Under the current industrial system, workers would have been unable to achieve shorter hours, career paths, superannuation and industrial democracy, free from complete managerial prerogative. John Howard's war on workers and their unions culminated in the waterfront dispute and the introduction of Work Choices, the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission.

In 2007, when the workers of this country rose up and countered these unprecedented attacks on their rights at work, I was very fortunate to be elected to the Australian Senate. I was encouraged to seek preselection by my friend and comrade Greg Combet—so you can all blame Greg! I was strongly supported by Sally McManus, a great trade unionist and a fantastic leader.

We often hear about the shortcomings of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years—more often than not from the Murdoch press. We hear about the internal fighting, the removal of a sitting Prime Minister and the endless cycle of payback. And, yes, that all happened. I opposed the removal of Prime Minister Rudd, and I think my position has been vindicated. The only thing worse than engaging in that sort of nonsense would be to witness it, ruthlessly exploit it and then immediately repeat it as soon as you got into power. And that's exactly what the Liberal Party has done.

Less spoken about are some of the great achievements of the Rudd-Gillard years, starting with the long-overdue apology to our First Nations people. Indigenous Australians continue to pay a heavy price for having their country stolen and their culture attacked. Rudd's apology started a healing process, and I firmly believe this important work must continue if Australia is to ever reach its full potential.

Another enormous achievement of the previous Labor government was guiding Australia through the economic turmoil of the global financial crisis without the widespread job losses and foreclosures experienced around the world. Some of this lot over there were saying that there was no global financial crisis—that it was an American or European crisis. I don't get it. How these people were ever seen to be good economic managers beggars belief. It should not and will not ever be forgotten that it was a Labor government that shielded the people of this country from the excesses of capitalism. This was real economic leadership by Prime Minister Rudd and Treasurer Swan. It stands out compared to the economic vandalism of the Howard and Costello years.

While this Senate has faced some serious headwinds throughout my time here, it's the recent contributions by neo-fascists masquerading as patriots that have caused me the most concern. I'll make this point very clearly. It is not Australia's Muslim community that is a menace and danger to our society and to what we collectively hold dear. It's not Australia's Muslim community who invited a toxic foreign entity like the NRA to buy our democracy and expose our community to semiautomatic weapons. It's the extreme Right; they are the incubators of hate and intolerance. It's One Nation, people like Fraser Anning and the extremists on the far Right of the Coalition that would destroy this great country if given half a chance.

The very wealthy, self-serving, anti-union former Liberal Party candidate, Pauline Hanson, pretends to be a voice for those without financial or political power. One Nation does this while voting with the Liberals on key legislation including the ABCC, penalty rates, free trade agreements and tax cuts for the wealthy. They pretend to love this country while dispatching their idiotic minions to sell us out to the NRA. They pretend to care about everyday Australians while subscribing to imbecilic conspiracies about the Port Arthur massacre. And now they want us to believe they were all taken out of context with their half-baked plan to hijack this parliament with US gun money. I strongly urge working-class Queenslanders, working-class Australians, to give this treacherous, treasonous rabble the boot at the upcoming election.

I say to the Australian Muslim community: you are welcome here. You are an important part of our multicultural society. You contribute far more than Senator Hanson and her poisonous policies. You belong here as much as anyone else, and don't let anyone tell you any different.

One of the most important trips I made as a senator was to the Wilkins aerodrome in Antarctica with the environment and communications committee, where scientists explained to me the impact climate change is having on our planet. How our opponents became so wedged on this important issue is beyond me. I do take comfort, however, in the knowledge that a Shorten Labor government, if elected, will take meaningful action on climate change to safeguard future generations.

Over the past six years I've been honoured to serve in Bill Shorten's shadow ministry as Labor's spokesman on, firstly, human services, housing and homelessness, as well as skills, TAFE and apprenticeships.

Unfortunately, Australia's housing market is failing. Home ownership is at record lows, rental stress is preventing young people from saving for a home deposit, and homelessness is skyrocketing. There are very few social outcomes that so unambiguously and shamefully expose our failure to live up to the promise of being a fair and decent society than the persistently high number of young Australians and older women either at risk of or experiencing homelessness.

We must stop viewing housing purely as a source of investment and wealth creation and recognise that a society as wealthy as ours should view having a roof over your head as a human right. I also believe that, given the social and economic importance of housing, it should be part of the infrastructure portfolio.

I am deeply concerned that too many politicians argue that 'equality of opportunity' is the key to resolving social and economic disadvantage. This rhetoric belies the massive difference in opportunity available to the children of the wealthy compared with the children of working-class and disadvantaged Australians.

Young people under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government have faced high rates of unemployment and underemployment, wage stagnation and penalty rate cuts, underinvestment in vocational education, and increases in the proportion of young workers relying on the minimum wage.

This hopeless and dysfunctional coalition government has also decimated our TAFE and apprenticeship systems by cutting more than $3 billion from the sector. There are 140,000 fewer apprentices since they were elected, and TAFE enrolments have plummeted by 24.5 per cent. Last night's budget did nothing to address this terminal decline; rather, it was a pea-and-thimble trick designed to fool voters into thinking they are investing more money when, clearly, they are not.

Among the highlights of my time in the Senate was the delivery of my proposal to establish the National Workers Memorial in Canberra. The memorial serves the dual purpose of honouring those killed at work and reminding us all of the need for occupational health and safety in the workplace—and, Wacka, thanks for your support on that committee.

If there is one small thing I hope I am remembered for when I leave this place it's consistency. I've consistently backed progressive causes, even when they have been unpopular. Sorry, Penny, but I've never voted for a free trade agreement in the caucus. I've never believed in the magical power of the markets and I've remained extremely sceptical about the virtues of privatisation and competition policy. Privatisation has not worked in health, in education, in the electricity market or in the vocational education sector. We've seen countless big government instrumentalities handed over to the private sector, who more often than not have profiteered while reducing services.

One of the most consistent criticisms levelled at me by the Murdoch press and others is that I engage in class warfare. Apparently, defunding public schools and hospitals, cutting legal aid, closing TAFE campuses, allowing wage theft and cutting penalty rates are not class warfare. If protecting the working class from the excesses of the wealthy elite and the coalition is class war, I plead guilty to class war.

When I was first elected to the Senate, a colleague told me that I was no longer a trade unionist but a senator in the Australian parliament. Like many other pieces of unsolicited advice, I ignored this. I have always been and always will be a proud trade unionist.

Many great men and women have served the Labor Party over the years—people like Senator Bruce Childs, a fantastic individual, a fantastic senator. But there is one New South Wales senator that I'd like to single out as having left an indelible mark on democracy, society and the law—that's Lionel Murphy. The former Attorney General's many reforms were driven by a visceral sense of social justice and a fierce determination to pursue equality for all. Lionel sought justice for women in the mid-1970s through his abolition of the Matrimonial Causes Act and the introduction of no-fault divorce. His establishment of Commonwealth legal aid provided many Australians previously shut out of the legal system with rights and access to legal support. Lionel's well-placed concern about the accountability and transparency of our national security agencies remains of fundamental relevance to Australian democracy today. This parliament needs more oversight—such as the UK parliament, the Canadian parliament and the US government all have in place—over our security services. If you want to give them more power, they must be more accountable.

Lionel is credited with establishing the Senate committee system—an innovation that has contributed so much to democratic accountability in this country.

There are far too many good comrades in the Labor Party for me to mention today, but I will single out my Senate colleagues for special mention: thanks, comrades; you've been great. They have been an inspiration and tremendous support for me over the years, and I thank each and every one of them for this.

In the other place, I want to make a special mention of deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek. I believe Tanya will make a truly great deputy prime minister and I hope she gets that opportunity very soon. I want to acknowledge Jenny Macklin, one of the most talented, hardworking, intellectually precise people I've ever met—a fantastic contributor to this nation.

I want to just say that my Queensland colleague Murray Watt has been a forensic interrogator in Senate estimates, and I know for certain he will make a significant contribution to Australian public life over the coming years. The same goes for my New South Wales comrades: Deb O'Neill, Kristina Keneally and Jenny McAllister—three remarkable women who will continue to serve this nation very well. Claire, you and I are going out at the same time but you have made a remarkable contribution to the Senate and to the parliament.

One of the most formidable and intelligent politicians I have ever met is my leader in the Senate, Penny Wong. Penny, you and I have had our differences on a range of policy issues. You have always argued your position with strength and integrity, even though your remarkable powers of persuasion failed to change my mind on trade and competition policy.

I could not leave this place without special mention of my mate Albo. What can you say about Albo? Self-made, raconteur, DJ—my goodness!—and not a bad numbers man. He is the ultimate political warrior. He dominated the House of Representatives as Leader of the House, and his contribution to Labor, allowing us to now be a genuine alternative government, should never be underestimated.

And finally, to my successor and AMWU brother, Tim Ayres: I wish you all the best for the future. I know you will serve the people of New South Wales well. Good luck, comrade, in the future.

I leave this place in the knowledge that the labour movement and the Labor Party are in great shape. Sally McManus and Michele O'Neil have reinvigorated the union movement with their uncompromising leadership style. I've been extremely impressed by the way Bill and Tanya have united the Labor Party, leading us out of the wilderness and into contention to form the next Australian government. Under Bill's leadership, the Labor Party again feels like the Labor Party I joined many years ago. It is unashamedly progressive, pro-worker, pro-women, outward-looking and confident. I am quietly confident myself that Australians will give Bill the opportunity to lead this great country. He will make a great Labor Prime Minister who will govern for all Australians, particularly those without access to wealth and power.

In closing, I want to thank the Parliament House staff, who do a tremendous job in keeping this place running. I'll just adopt the thank yous that Claire gave, and I think that'll save a bit of time!

I might mention the cleaners. The cleaners in Parliament House have been subjected to wage theft, and if the cleaners in Parliament House are subjected to wage theft, how can workers out in the general community be confident that their wages will be looked after? The cleaners do a tough job. The cleaners do a great job. Yet this rabble of a government allowed their wages to be cut. It defies belief.

In closing, I want to say that my own personal staff, both past and present, have been absolutely fabulous. They have provided me with the resources, support and advice that I have needed to do my job properly. Helen, Siobhan, Rebecca, Jason, Justine and Michael—a talented team—thank you. I must mention Phil Morgans, who worked with me for near on 20 years as my chief of staff in the union and is a friend and adviser without peer. Phil will be shaking his head, because I think this is the first time for a long time I've actually written a speech and stuck to the speech—probably because Wacka Williams and The Nationals have behaved themselves!

I want thank my wonderful wife, Elaine, who has given me the love and support I've needed throughout our time together. We have been married for 48 years—shit! I was going to say she's a lucky woman, but she'll shake her head. Actually, Elaine saved my life. Elaine supported me as I recovered from alcohol addiction.

To my beautiful daughters, Lynn and Fiona; their partners, Rick and Perry; and my beautiful grandchildren, Amy and Scott: thanks for being so great. Thank you for turning into reality your mum's and my hopes when we emigrated to Australia: to have a great life, not only for ourselves but also for you, in our adopted country. You have been a credit to us. We love you and we thank you for being so good.

Thanks, everyone. This is the last time you'll hear from me—but I liked the battle.

I rise on behalf of the government to pay tribute to Senators Scullion, Moore and Cameron for their service in the Australian Senate and to the Australian people. You hear sometimes, when people reflect upon politics, that they believe that politics and service in this place changes people. Of course, in some ways it has to—it has to change us in terms of enhancing our outlook, expanding our knowledge, and broadening and enriching our experience. But, equally, this evening the Australian Senate farewells three characters, three genuine individuals, who, I think, each leave with their core essential characteristics firmly in place, just as they entered this place with.

Nigel, your grounded authenticity is something that we all love so deeply. To the bloke from the bush, who is as much the bloke from the bush here in Canberra as he is up in the Territory or anywhere else around the country, and fisher from the north, who I think in his approach has always brought to bear that old proverb that it's better to teach someone how to fish than just to give them the fish—mate, we will miss you so much. You have much to be proud of—just by being here, to start with. Your background—indeed not unlike many in this place and not unlike those others we farewell tonight—is a background that we would not necessarily have expected to see come to this Australian Senate. You had a nomadic childhood in many ways, in terms of the places you lived. You found yourself making the Territory your home and working across mining, maritime salvage, security and engineering. Most notably, you worked as a fisherman, establishing your own fishing business, serving as chairman of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and coming to represent the Territory but also the fishers of Australia most fiercely.

You've been a fierce advocate for the Territory for those from your background, but also, of course, for First Australians—First Australians, first and foremost, right throughout. If anyone had any doubt about Nigel's affection for his home territory, you need only read his first speech, speaking of its natural beauty but also of the depth of its ancient heritage and the calling of its people.

Nigel, you reflected on your service as a minister in the Howard government and in a range of shadow portfolios. But it's been in the period since 2013 where we and many across the nation have been able to see the full force of your energy and conviction on display as the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. It's notable and it's to your credit. You are one of the few people in our government who has carried the same singular portfolio right throughout the time of our government and of your service within it. It's a testament to your deep understanding of the complexities, opportunities and moral significance. As you rightly said, being a standalone Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the cabinet afforded the issues the attention they rightly deserve.

Your relationship with our First Peoples predates this time in the Senate well and truly. As well as being with your fellow Territorians—your neighbours—you spent years living off the sprawling coast of Arnhem Land. You know their work and they know your work and the connections that are there. You matched your personal concerns with the practicality for tangible improvements over the last nearly six years. In particular, our government is so proud of the Indigenous Procurement Policy, which you have driven and championed and which has seen Indigenous businesses win Commonwealth contracts, creating jobs and opportunities across the nation and ensuring those jobs and opportunities are generating ownership, opportunities and greater prosperity for their Indigenous owners.

Your personal experience has driven you to ensure that you focus on other priorities, such as the Community Development Program, which has remote Australian communities at its heart and has helped remote jobseekers find over 37,000 opportunities for employment, many of which have translated into long-term, gainful employment opportunities. You've been instrumental in driving the Indigenous Advancement Strategy used so effectively to deliver support programs to the areas of greatest need. You have been a constant champion for the Indigenous rangers initiative, empowering Indigenous communities to protect the natural wonders of our nation and of their culture and heritage.

In recent times, you worked to secure the historic Closing the Gap partnership, a landmark agreement that will revolutionise the practical working relationships that exist between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and governments at both state and federal level, taking the Closing the Gap agenda, rightly, to the next level and its next place. Upon entering this place, you were one of the first to admit that many of the issues our nation faces in Closing the Gap are complex. They've been there throughout our modern history and will be there long into the future, but you can be proud of the fact you have made a focused, determined and, in many ways, successful effort to make crucial progress in terms of the lives of First Australians.

Away from the ministry, we commend you, Nigel, for having served in National Party leadership roles in the Senate chamber for many years, including as its Senate leader since October 2015. Few can truly appreciate just what a challenge it can be to lead the National Party, particularly the National Party in the Senate. Those of us who sit amongst the leadership group with you and have had that honour get rare glimpses and insights, but, of course, to be able to bring together the different perspectives of the Nats is one of life's great tests, and you have always been there rising to that occasion. As a dedicated Country Liberal, you've always fought hard for your party's cause in the Territory, and whilst here you stand proudly as a Nat, we know that you stand uniquely as a Country Liberal. For many of us Libs, you're a Nat who we always wanted. We'd have happily traded you in to the Liberal party room at any time and place, happily had you and seized you.

Who would we have traded him for?

That is too rich an invitation, Senator Fifield—far too rich an invitation for me! And particularly because I was going to observe that, on those rare occasions of certain free votes and deliberations on issues of values in this place, where sometimes I find myself voting against quite a number of my colleagues on some of those issues, Nige, you were frequently one of the ones I'd find sitting close to me, making sure that, though we might have been small in number, we made sure that the views and values we held dear were made clear.

I know that all on our side, particularly all coalition staff, will be looking upon your departure with one clear question: mango daiquiris—who's going to make the mango daiquiris in future? Who's going to be responsible for that key tradition that ensures the coalition staff Christmas party can, to some extent, live up to the wonders of the National Party Christmas party? It is well known. So, obviously, we expect you back with mango daiquiris!

Mate, your contribution over 17 years has been something that we have enjoyed and that you should be proud of. You've previously noted 'that the hopes and dreams of First Australians reflect those of all Australians'. How right you are. You can retire knowing that, through your dedication and work, those hopes and dreams are somewhat closer. And the work for all of us in this place is to continue to make sure that we deliver on that passion and vision that you've demonstrated.

We're going to miss your good nature, your good humour, the knowledge that you're somebody who any of us, I think, would feel comfortable reaching out to at any time in terms of our lives and in any circumstances. The fact that you've been so successful at befriending people right across this chamber, and especially some of those on the crossbench from time to time—the orphans of the chamber who come in here as Independents—is a testament to the way in which you reach out.

As you leave this place, we wish you, your wife, Carol, your three children, all of your loved ones, the very best for the future. In your first speech in this place, you invited all of your colleagues to visit the Territory and take home a slice of paradise. Well, you're getting to go back to paradise. I can assure you that many of us are going to come and make sure that we haunt you in your paradise, that we visit you there, that we make sure that, whether it is the barramundi or the wild pigs of the Top End that need to watch out once Nige is back, we'll also be there to make sure we get one of those rich Nigel experiences. Mate, thank you for your service.

Can I turn to Senator Moore. Claire, thank you also for the service you've brought—a real true Queenslander—to this place. I think most importantly it's the care, the compassion and the considered approach that stand out. Many who dislike the combat of politics would, if they had the chance to look around here, look at Claire Moore and think that you are the type of politician they want to see. I can't think of a time that I've served in this place with you where I've heard you say an ill word of anybody. You've always been thoughtful, careful and considered in the approach that you have brought to bear.

You spoke of your background, your lifelong time in public service. But, over 17 years here, that public service has allowed you to contribute in so many different ways. Your service on Senate committees is, I think, something that all will remember. I have to say: if I think of things I might regret at moments like this, it's that I never had a lot of time serving in Senate committees with you, Claire. But, in your contribution, when you spoke about the committee work on gynaecological cancer, I did reflect, of course, that I fill Jeannie Ferris's vacancy in this place. Just a couple of months ago I held, as I do each year, a large 'morning teal' in Adelaide acknowledging Jeannie and her work. But at that time we were talking about the work of the Senate committee on gynaecological cancers. I know the role you played in the thought leadership there and the fact that, with senators like you, people feel more able to open up and share their soul and their problems than they're necessarily always able to do. But I also know that you were a great rock of support for Jeannie during that time, as you have been for many.

I think of greatest note, in terms of your service here, is your time as chair of the community affairs committee. Many would see your time in the Senate as being synonymous with the work of the community affairs committee, but also, importantly, as you highlighted, the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development, as well as your consistent work in the AIDS space.

You reflected upon the jingle-jangle in the chamber at times. Indeed, I think the Senate will miss your decorative flair—you raised it, so I feel that I can go there!—so well displayed not only in the chamber but also, notably, in your senatorial office. Packing up will be quite a task, I imagine.

On behalf of the government, I want to commend you for the clarity of your convictions. You will leave here, I know, for a life pursuing many of your different passions and hobbies, from cricket to Irish folk music and beyond, and with the opportunity to find many a quality detective fiction novel, I'm sure. But you leave a place and a chamber that will miss the way in which you approach debates. You have approached them all with a sense of purpose and decency of which you can be very, very proud.

I turn to Senator Cameron, to Doug. I said that each leaves, in many ways, as they came: the grounded authenticity of Nige, the care and compassion of Claire, the warrior instincts of Doug Cameron—a warrior for his union; his party; his causes, particularly the cause of socialism; the people that he represents; and even, often, people who might not want Doug to represent them. Doug would stand there and argue the toss to represent them. He'll leave this place, but I am sure it won't be the last that we hear of his wicked tongue, with its sometimes cutting insults but also very rich sense of humour.

Doug, you spoke of your background, as you did in your first speech. You also spoke about a range of issues, and as always, after you've spoken in this place, it's incredibly tempting to anyone on this side to respond to highlight what we think are the inaccuracies or differences, but tonight I resist that temptation. Your career lends credence to the old saying that, while you may not always agree with another person's beliefs, you can certainly still respect the strength with which they hold them and the conviction with which they advocate for their cause. And there are few who advocate with as much conviction and determination as you have in your life—prior to being in this place, throughout your time in this place, and, I am sure, in the time hereafter. Yours, as you acknowledged, was a remarkable journey to this place. I think it was just yesterday, in condolence motions, that I reflected upon a Labor senator from the west who had a very similar history and also some similar lines about Scottish accents.

I particularly recall time spent with you, Doug, on the Senate environment and communications committee, and seeing your chairmanship of that committee, to which you brought the work-to-rule instincts of your union background. We would always finish at the precise time, and, if we didn't finish at the precise time, the lunchbreak would still be 60 minutes long to make sure that everybody had appropriate downtime. But I also know that there was a little bit of workplace flexibility that you brought to bear on it. I can remember conspiring with you one day to make sure that we ordered the proceedings of the committee in such a way that I could catch a plane to get home and see my kids. It is that human touch that many wouldn't have seen from the way in which you fiercely advocate for your issues and causes. But I know that it's there, and we've seen that reflected in your comments about your family and, indeed, in the care for the lives of other people that your conviction is driven by.

Politics can be fierce and tough, and it's fair to say that Doug has never shied away from a political scrum, from speaking his mind, and we heard that tonight. This place, of course, will miss his very distinguishable voice. Whilst Claire's jingles and rattles may have caught Hansard's attention occasionally, everybody knew who was speaking the moment Doug Cameron rose to speak.

Whatever the difference that exists across the political divide, our democracy is stronger thanks to the robust advocacy we see from Doug and from all of those who depart this chamber tonight. I want to commend each and every one for their service. I wish each and everyone's families—Elaine, in your case, Doug, and your children and your grandchildren, everybody—every success. May you enjoy getting your loved ones back from the service. Thank you for lending those loved ones to our nation. Congratulations to each and every one of you on your service. We wish you well and thank you.

I rise to make some valedictory remarks for Senators Scullion, Moore and Cameron. I'll just note at the outset that a couple of senators leaving, as they indicated in their speeches, are from the class of 2001 in which I entered the parliament. I don't know whether that's just a reminder or whether somebody might be saying something! Anyway, first to Senator Scullion.

It's a certain type of personality that goes from professional fisherman to Australian senator, but Nigel is quite a unique individual. Some might be surprised that we have a few things in common. We both spent our early years in Malaysia. We were both on early episodes of Kitchen Cabinet. But I reckon that whilst my lunch with Annabel Crabb was pretty sedate, Senator Scullion took her on a boat and told her a tale of how he once shot a mud crab off his thumb with a gun, so I think his was a much more interesting episode.

Senator Scullion brings his own larrikin style, his somewhat laconic style at times, to the Senate. He's also a survivor—he's managed to be a minister, as he mentioned today, in the Howard government and in the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments since day one in the same portfolio. I think you're probably the only one! There's Senator Cormann too—that's right. Senator Scullion and Labor may have disagreed quite vehemently at times with this government's policy approach in his portfolio, and sometimes those debates have been strident, but I do say this: I recognise, and I think we all on this side recognise, that Senator Scullion cares passionately about this policy area. I think his pride at being the first minister responsible for Indigenous Affairs in the standalone portfolio was manifest today in his remarks. Whatever differing opinions we may have about government initiatives, Labor recognises Senator Scullion's determination to work with our First Australians and to further his personal knowledge of country and culture, and we respect that. In announcing he wouldn't recontest his seat in the Senate, Senator Scullion had some words of warning for the game animals of the Top End: 'If I were a wild pig, a duck or a mud crab, I'd be starting to get nervous.' I hope he's right.

I also turn tonight to two of my colleagues, two Labor senators who I think demonstrate the richness of the Labor tradition and the breadth of progressive politics. I'll start with Senator Moore. As Senator Moore indicated, we came to the Senate on the same day—elected in 2001, commencing on 1 July 2002. Claire has always shown great empathy for and solidarity with the vulnerable and the marginalised. In her first speech, Senator Moore said:

Any choice to be involved in a political system must be based on a personal commitment as well as a real sense of support and purpose.

Some people do not always succeed in keeping their principles and personal integrity intact in politics, but that is a challenge that Claire Moore has well and truly met. Her personal commitment has never wavered, especially in areas including the advancement of women and the protection of human rights as well as the importance of community services.

Senator Moore's list of committee appointments and inquiries is quite a rap sheet—actually it's not, because she would never do anything wrong, so it's probably more a very lengthy CV! It demonstrates the depth of her care and commitment to those Australians and others beyond our shores who would otherwise be pushed to the margins and have not had a voice at the table of national decision-making.

Her service on committees also underlines her belief, as she reiterated today, in the merit and power of the Senate committee system as a valued aspect of the Australian democracy. I note her membership of the landmark Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library—as she spoke about tonight—and, of course, her service as the member on the councils of the National Library and National Archives. Claire has a keen sense of history, the importance of history and knowing who we are and where we have come from. Senator Moore's many years of service on the Senate Community Affairs Committee have included some nationally significant inquiries, such as the children in institutional care inquiry, which produced the Forgotten Australians and Protecting vulnerable children reports and which led to the national apology and the royal commission.

Senator Moore has also been a leader on many issues in relation to women's rights. One particularly important contribution was Senator Moore's role in the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005. As Claire said at the time:

It is not a national referendum on the rights or wrongs, legality or morality of a woman's right to choose to abort. In fact, it seeks to clearly identify for all our community where the appropriate assessment process for the safety, efficiency and quality of a medication should be.

We all know the contentious nature of this topic and how difficult at times it is for parliaments to deal with it. Senator Moore was key to the discussions which brought this bill forward and achieved its passage in the Senate. It was an extraordinary cross-party effort led by women, for women. In the debate, Senator Moore noted:

… it showed that people can work together if they have a common aim and can share their knowledge and experience to ensure that we can work to achieve results for the community.

This has been the approach that Senator Claire Moore has taken across her career, building partnerships for positive change. I have valued her partnership in the Foreign Affairs portfolio, and we have done a couple of tours of the Pacific together.

Senator Claire Moore has always remained true to her social justice conscience and has put her beliefs into practice. In her first speech, she told the story of suffragette Emma Miller and her sisters, and finished with this quote:

The world will be what we make it, and a fuller, happier and more abundant world is possible for all of us if we are united in efforts.

Senator Moore, Labor feminist and internationalist, has brought her principles to this Senate. I honour her contribution, and I thank her.

I turn to Senator Doug Cameron. Senator Cameron came to us after an extraordinarily distinguished career fighting for the rights of workers in the trade union movement. Working class, Scotsman and Glaswegian—he is a bloke who never forgets who he is, where he came from and who he fights for. There is nobody better at calling out the rabble on the other side. He has a capacity for the pithy takedown. For example, today he said, 'The government's budget didn't last from Lateline to lunch.' There you go!

Senator Cameron has led the fight on many fronts over 5½ years in opposition. He has been relentless in his pursuit of the Liberals and Nationals, and some ministers have earnt a special place in his heart. I know that Senator Cash will miss him! Dougie understands discipline, solidarity and loyalty—all attributes of our movement. He exemplifies them. I want to personally thank him for that contribution. He eventually does what I say! It usually takes some work. But more important, and what I value most, is that whenever he is asked to step up for the group, for the team, his courage is second to none. I respect that, I value that and I thank him for it.

Doug Cameron has weathered many personal, partisan attacks in this place for his role as a trade union leader, for his relentless pursuit of the interests of workers and for asking legitimate questions about this. He has been accused in this chamber of aiding and abetting criminal behaviour. I do want, in this final valedictory, to make this point: there is nobody in this Senate who has done more to stamp out corruption and criminal elements in the trade union movement than Doug Cameron. His efforts as a union leader have come, at times, at a personal cost. I want to record that not only because it is a significant legacy but because his position, career and contribution have been so contrary to some of the personal insults that have been hurled by some of those opposite—not you, Wacka.

We often focus on Senator Cameron's passion and courage in the chamber or committee hearings, but it is important to underline that he pairs this passion with diligence and hard work. Having served briefly as Parliamentary Secretary for Housing and Homelessness in 2013, in opposition he has made substantial inroads in areas of policy too often neglected by the coalition. His contributions in the areas of vocational education, housing and homelessness not only speak to his commitment to opportunity and fairness but also will stand a future Labor government in good stead.

Senator Cameron is, like many of his comrades, living proof that being part of the labour movement is about wages and conditions but it is about much more. It is membership of a movement that stands with the most vulnerable in society, that reaches out to lift people up and that looks to a more just and more equal Australia. We will miss him in the Senate, but we wish him well and we wish his family well. I hope he and Elaine have a wonderful time in this next phase in their lives—and I say to Tasmania: look out!

I'm proud to call Senator Nigel Scullion a colleague, our leader and a great friend. He is a one-of-a-kind person, not someone you'd usually find around Parliament House. He's the sort of bloke you'd more likely find at Shady Camp boat ramp or at the bar at the Borroloola Hotel, but that is why he has been so successful in this place as a senator for the Northern Territory. He understands the pressures, the challenges, the real desires and the motives of the average, normal or, as Dougie said, ordinary Australian. He listens to people. He has his own code. He genuinely cares about what he can do to make their life a little better and give them more opportunity to take advantage of this wonderful nation. If you undertook an examination of the background of the representatives here in the Senate, you would not find one that had a similar one to Nige. No doubt there'll be many stories tonight and ongoing about his role here, but I think that is why he has been able to make such a unique contribution to this place. It's because of his character; it's because of where he's come from and what he's been through.

He was born in London and raised in Malaysia and Malawi, a varied background by anyone's standards, I'd suggest, that has played a part in the political career that followed. I certainly recall, way before the recent foreign citizenship challenges faced by politicians, that he undertook what might be called the midnight dash back from London to renounce his British citizenship just hours before the close of nominations. He flew across the world to ensure that he was eligible to sit in the Australian Senate. That's an example of his true dedication to the Australian parliamentary democracy.

It's well known that Senator Scullion is a keen fishermen. In 1985, he moved to the Territory to pursue his professional piscatorial interests. For over six years, he lived with his family on a boat off the coast of Arnhem Land in the NT as a professional fisherman. His love of the land and the Territory is renowned. He represents the true values of the Country Liberal Party, but he's always a bit of a conundrum to try and work out, and I think we saw some of that tonight in his valedictory remarks. In his maiden speech, he spoke of being both a conservationist and a proud professional fisherman. This demonstrates, I think, that it's not incompatible for those two sometimes seemingly opposing views to exist in the same human. But he has always proudly used science and reason to determine and argue his position from, and I think that is a great example for all of us. He has experienced some of the toughest country in the Territory and I believe truly represents the frontier concept that many Australians understand so well.

He is an enthusiastic natural history observer and collector and would always regale us with some special insect or grass specimen that he'd found somewhere that was quite incredible. He was always astounded and curious and respectful of nature and its wonders. His effort and work as a skipper on the vessel Reliance in the Northern Territory who transported herbarium staff into many isolated coastal localities have seen him have a plant named after him: the Eriocaulon scullionitrue story. This example, to me, sums up just what a—

Senator Williams interjecting—

Yes. Thank you. There's another scientist in the Senate. Senator Siewert is nodding profusely. That shows what a unique character Senator Scullion is. We can all imagine him, as a professional fisherman, swearing and cursing at the weather or complaining about not catching the fish on any given day, but he's also a very proud, passionate and practical conservationist.

Not wanting to confine himself to the life of a fisherman, Senator Scullion was previously a mango farmer. In support of the mango farming industry, he proudly brings them down here, and we ended up with mango daiquiri night at Parliament House, which then morphed into the coalition Christmas party, where many unsuspecting rookie coalition staffers were subjected to the delicious flavour of these mango daiquiris, only to find it a bit hard to get up the next morning! It will be a huge loss to the Christmas party this year.

I know Senator Wong mentioned his chilli crabs, made famous on Annabel Crabb's show. Recently he has initiated the National Party seafood barbecue in support of our seafood industry. The chilli crab dish is served loudly and proudly to all who come along. He did that in partnership with former Senator Ron Boswell to promote our seafood industry. It's so popular that we now have to limit who gets tickets to it, but that's testament to Nigel's passion for that industry and the success of his advocacy.

He also had a long and proud career representing the seafood industry, going on to chair the International Coalition of Fisheries Association in 1999. Senator Scullion was elected to the Senate in 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016. That is a lot of elections for a senator, but the two NT senators face the voters every single election. They don't have the luxury of six years. I might be so bold as to say that he is probably one of the most successfully elected senators, especially when senators are unfairly, I think, sometimes labelled as having a resistance to facing electors. He was appointed the Minister for Community Services in the Howard government. He became the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in 2013 and, at the same time, became a member of cabinet. He has also been the National Party whip—I think it's hard to find a National Party senator who hasn't been the National Party whip, but, as Senator Birmingham alluded to, it's not an easy role to be the National Party Senate whip.

Tell me about it!

There you go, Wacka. When I came to this place he was the Deputy Leader of the Nationals. He served magnificently in that capacity, bringing people together and exercising a particular style of leadership, which I think worked very, very well within the National Party. He has been the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate for a very, very long time. I think his ability to be very calm in a crisis, his wisdom and his creative thinking are much needed for all of these roles. For those of us in this chamber who've seen him ferociously fight, it's something that, as a Nat, you have to have. It's respected within the party, and absolutely Nigel has that in spades.

He's been a passionate advocate for the NT and calls a spade a spade, but it was really in the role of Minister for Indigenous Affairs where his advocacy to improve the health, education and living standards of our First Australians is his greatest political legacy. He has really changed the dial in a way that we've been wanting to see and that so many prior to him have failed to do, because of his determination and his focus to fight for resources and funding, to actually change structures and systems and to bring people together. He's fearless in his determination to see our First Australians economically empowered, and he has been incredibly successful at that.

He is also a fierce champion and is outspoken on his views, particularly on the Northern Territory cattlemen's interests, around the live cattle trade. He has been fearless around marine parks. Law-abiding firearm owners can actually be very proud of his contributions in this place, both publicly and privately.

On a personal note, Nigel and I have enjoyed our question times together and he has provided me a great source of humour, advice, irreverence and some lessons in life.

So I just want to say: thanks, Nige. We'll miss you a lot, but I know you're very, very much looking forward to this next chapter of your life with Carol and the kids and doing some cool stuff while you still can. But thank you for always applying your code consistently; for your common sense; for stating the truth regardless of its popularity; for always being prepared to break the glass when necessary; for always standing up and fighting for what is right, not what is expedient; and for always seeking to protect your family, your party, your people, the children and the community. Enjoy it. Thank you very much for your service and for your example to us all. We wish you well.

On behalf of the Greens, I'd like to say a few words about each of the people who have given their valedictories tonight. Nigel has always been sincere in any dealings that I have had with him. Having said that, I strongly disagree and have disagreed—and he knows that—with a lot of his policy positions. But I have never doubted his sincerity. I will also add that whenever I have taken a problem to Nigel, he has responded, if not always in the way I would have liked. In fact, he did so today on another issue I took to him just yesterday: he came back and responded today. Despite our political differences over policy, which are in many ways very, very significant, he has always been responsive when I have raised issues or perhaps pointed out a mistake that has been made. So I thank him very sincerely for that.

I have campaigned with him on several issues, particularly around supporting some specific individuals. That's where I have also seen his doggedness, his determination to get an outcome, and his determination to take it up to his own in trying to get an outcome. I'm also aware he does a lot behind the scenes to make sure that things get done and to help in a specific way. I thank him and recognise him very sincerely for that.

I will recount one very short anecdote—I could probably recount a lot! A number of years ago, we were on committees together. Senator Judith Adams, who many in this place will remember, and I and a number of other people were on this particular inquiry. Claire remembers it as well—I wasn't there for this particular event because I was in Darwin. But I heard about it straight after it happened, because Senator Adams retold it several times. They were travelling up from Katherine to Darwin. There was an assault that was, fortunately, interrupted and the people involved waved down the car that Senator Scullion and Senator Adams were in. The way Judith told it was that Nigel climbed up on top of the car, jumped down off the car, and chased the particular person involved. We all then had to talk to the police and recount that. For me, that was Nigel—when Nigel sees something wrong, he takes action.

I will now turn to Senator Moore, who I have spent many, many hours in committee with. I thoroughly endorse the comments that she made about the committee system. She and I share very similar thoughts on the work of the committee system. Her work is unparalleled. Her commitment is unparalleled in terms of working particularly for the most vulnerable people. I've seen the friendships that she has made with witnesses and with community organisations.

I've worked with Claire on many committee inquiries. Claire mentioned the forced adoption inquiry. At a Senate hearing in Alice Springs, I remember former senator Sue Boyce, Claire and I sitting down around a table during the lunch break. Do you remember that, Claire, when we were working on the forced adoption inquiry? We were all coming from the same perspective; we were striving for a consensus report, because that's one thing the community affairs committee has strived to do over the years—get a consensus report. Claire was an amazing contributor to that inquiry, and many, many other inquiries.

I think the first inquiry I participated in with Senator Moore was the petrol sniffing inquiry of the community affairs committee. Claire was chairing the committee. Again, I think the outcomes of that inquiry significantly contributed to the additional resources and funding that then went into addressing petrol sniffing in the Northern Territory. I am particularly in awe of the work that Claire's doing on development issues in the Pacific. She has, again, consistently pursued those issues and made an extremely significant contribution.

I was here when Claire was called Purple. Do you remember, Claire?

With George.

Yes, with George. When George was whip, when I was up there counting and George was counting, we were on opposite sides, and I'd hear George just say 'purple'. For those of you who are listening, the whips have to read out names when we're counting, and George would read out 'purple'. Claire, I will always, always remember you as being associated with purple, and that is because of the amazing work that you have done on women's issues, in particular. You've done an amazing job and you were always there at whatever was going on for women's issues. I've said this so many times: I think this place was at its best when we were working cross-party, when we were working on RU486 and on the stem cell debate, when the women really took control of this place and drove those outcomes. So, thank you, Claire, for all the work you have done.

Dougie Cameron! I will always remember 'rabble'; I love yelling that word across that chamber whenever you start talking about the rabble. Again, you've brought a fierceness and a commitment to this place. No-one can ever doubt your commitment to socialism! And I loved seeing the government senators on the opposite side of the chamber when you used that term here. Your commitment to social issues, in particular, and workers' rights is outstanding. The contribution you have made is outstanding. I've sometimes been on the end of your quite—

Diplomacy.

Okay, I'll use that word—your quiet diplomacy, yes! But I've never doubted the commitment that you have shown to issues, to promoting those issues for the most vulnerable members of our community. Sometimes we disagree on approaches, but I've never doubted your commitment to the most vulnerable members of our community, and I'm sure that you'll continue to work, somehow, on those issues. I hope that you have a really wonderful time—I've seen the photos of where you're going to be living in Tasmania, of your house, and I really hope that you have a very good time down there. I'm not going to say 'retirement', because I'm sure that you'll be very active in your community in Tasmania. Thank you for all the years of your work.

I would like to make a short contribution on two colleagues that are leaving the chamber today, two colleagues that will I miss immensely. I'd like to start with my friend Senator Claire Moore. Her contribution today was what we would expect of Claire—it was warm, it was inclusive and it was insightful. There are so many contributions that Claire has made over the years that she's been here that have contributed to lasting change. Senator Siewert and Senator Wong have named a few. The forced adoption inquiry was emotionally exacting, but there were thanks and gratitude from those people that came forward and gave evidence towards its outcomes and recommendations. We should remember that that inquiry elicited an apology from every state and territory and the Commonwealth. The committee system works well and the forced adoption inquiry showed that.

Claire was also instrumental in the Senate inquiry whose No. 1 recommendation was that there be a royal commission into violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability, and at last we've seen that happen. Claire was also instrumental in another inquiry which people don't talk about very often: the inquiry into the living standards of people on pensions, which delivered the biggest-ever increase to pensions—delivered by the Rudd government but put forward and advocated for by Senator Claire Moore.

When I came here to the Senate, I was a former Senate staffer, so I kind of knew my way around—anyone who knows me knows that I don't really know north from south, or east from west—but it was very daunting. And the friends that I made the very first day I came here were former Senators Webber and Campbell, and Senators Marshall and Moore. They were sort of the Breakfast Club—I was more the Brunch Club—I don't do breakfast very well. But they have always been steadfast in their support of me. This is the thing about Claire: she doesn't just talk about mentoring, friendship and support; that's exactly what she gives.

It was evident in her speech tonight, where she took the opportunity to thank all the people that make this parliament and the Senate work, all the people that put together those wonderful reports that come to parliament and enact change. That change happens only if you push it. It's tabled, then you have to go and advocate and push for that change to be implemented by government. That is what Senator Claire Moore does.

She has always been a friend and mentor. I've always been able to go to Claire in confidence and talk about the issues that I need advice on. But, also, with all of us, we just want to know we're on the right track. We want to talk about it. There was her work in overseas development and with disability and carers. The RU486, if you weren't here, was an extremely stressful time. I think, Claire, we might have got it up by only one vote?

One in the Senate.

I think former senator Stephen Conroy might have helped us with that one.

Yes.

We've had some great wins. Claire has had some great wins. She's had great victories that have changed the face of our parliament and also the direction of the nation. She's been so supportive of women in parliament. She's been so supportive of EMILY's List. She's never taken a backward step in support of women into parliament. She's a Labor warrior—a quiet one. I'm a bit like that myself; I don't mind. But she is a Labor warrior. On the outside, we're all Labor warriors. We just do it in our own way.

I really don't know what I'm going to do when she goes—I don't want to be presumptuous, but I'm hoping that I might be returned. But I don't know what I'm going to do without my friend. There have been so many contributions that Claire has made, and they've been acknowledged across the chamber. Those who are leaving acknowledge Claire Moore's contributions as being thoughtful and incisive. That, basically, sums up Claire Moore. She has a love for the Labor Party, she has a love for this parliament, and she has a love for her family and friends. I'm going to miss her and I wish her well.

I will also take a few minutes to talk about our other colleague, a more fiery colleague: the wonderful Senator Doug Cameron. The Senate's loss, the parliament's loss, is, obviously, Tasmania's gain. We are looking forward to welcoming Doug to the Tasmanian family, whether he likes it or not, or whether Elaine likes it or not. From the very first time that I met Doug, it was obvious that he was here to make a difference. He was here to put forward the words of workers—what workers need. He was here to hold the government to account. He didn't take a backward step on that, and neither should he. I expect he would say that as well.

His contributions and his ability to articulate an argument are second to none. He has been a stalwart in the labour movement and also in ensuring that working class people are at the foremost of Labor Party policy and thinking. Doug has a special way about him. He doesn't take that backward step, but he has an extraordinary friendship across the aisle. We heard today in his contribution about his friendship with Senator Wacka Williams, as everyone who knows Wacka calls him. I think John is his real name. I actually think Wacka has mellowed in the years since Doug has been here. A couple more years and I reckon he would have crossed over to the Labor side—that's the sort of influence you had on him.

But Doug's love for the Labor Party, his love for the trade union movement, and his ability to always stand up for what he believes in and to stand up for the working people of Australia have been wonderful contributions to this Senate and to this parliament. Again, what's going to happen after 1 July when there's nobody here with that beautiful voice of his—that beautiful voice that cuts through everything that's going on? It's a sad day here today when we're saying goodbye to two loved senators who have made such an extraordinary contribution to the Senate, to the parliament and, more importantly, to the Labor Party policy direction. I know, knowing both of them, that that's not going to stop—and heaven help Tasmania! But I wish you well, Doug, and I wish Elaine well. I'm looking forward to the house-warming party. You will do estimates, of course—we won't let you get out of that—but I just hope that everything that you wish for into the future is yours.

I rise to make a few brief remarks and, given the hour, I will keep them brief—and I hope that my brevity isn't mistaken for a lack of interest or care, because there's actually a lot to say about the people who are giving valedictory speeches this evening. I will be very brief about Nigel, because Senator Scullion and I have had very significant political differences. But he has approached that task of responding to the aspirations and hopes of First Nations people with integrity and sincerity, and that has always been obvious. I also want to thank him for something very particular, which is that, just recently, I took to him a problem which was the problem of the Charities Commissioner, Gary Johns, repudiating the welcome to country as a practice in that institution. I thought that was disgraceful and, unfortunately, consistent with that commissioner's other repugnant views. Nigel was straight on it, repudiated it, and took him on, because he wasn't willing to allow those ideas to stand uncontested on his watch as Minister for Indigenous Affairs.

Senator Claire Moore came here after she had been a leader in her own union and a national leader in the Labor Party. She then served in our national parliament. The speech she gave this evening reflects all that she brought to this parliament. She determined always to play the ball and not the man or the woman—and the cricket pun is intended, even though I know nothing about cricket beyond those core facts. She has brought a passion for justice, she has advocated always for feminism and for women's interests, and she is totally committed to the practice of democracy—deep practice—not just once every three years at election time but through meaningful engagement with the communities that we serve. Claire, the women of the Labor Party in particular observe your quiet leadership style and thank you for the example that you've provided here.

Finally, I want to talk about my fellow New South Wales senator, Doug. He has made no secret over time that he comes from the left tradition in the New South Wales party, and so do I. He mentioned some of the members of that tradition here in the Senate, Senators Murphy, Childs, Gietzelt, Faulkner and Campbell. Doug has totally lived up to the example set by those senators—a tradition of speaking truth even when it is uncomfortable, of consistency in advocating for values. Doug has been all of those things and more.

I want to talk briefly this evening about what he's meant for the progressive people in that tradition, in New South Wales and nationally, because Doug has pursued many causes, but none is dearer to Doug's heart than the cause of working people. In his political engagement he's been so important in articulating what that means for Labor. He has articulated at an intellectual level the political significance of solidarity and working-class politics and representation. He has made the policy case for action in so many domains to support working-class people. At some deep and personal level, he has articulated and communicated the inherent dignity of every working person and, even more importantly, the significance and meaning of collective action in realising that dignity.

I will really miss Doug. The branch members and trade unionists of New South Wales will really miss him. We have been so proud to have him represent us, and we wish him and Elaine the very best in Tasmania.

I too will be brief, but I wanted to place on record some comments about my great mate Senator Nigel Scullion. As we've heard tonight, Nigel's been a fisherman, a shooter, an industry representative, a mango farmer, a senator, and a family man. In my view, in many respects, tonight we are losing more than just a senator; we're losing a number of people all at once, rolled into one, because he brings such diversity to this place. He brings something that no one person can replace. He has been a fantastic leader of the National Party in the Senate here. He is one of only three Country Liberal Party senators in the Senate's history. According to my research—I must admit done on Wikipedia while I've been sitting here—he is the third longest serving Indigenous Affairs minister in our nation's history as well. In fact, it's a bit of a dead heat: Ms Jenny Macklin beats him by about a hundred days, and Robert Tickner was Indigenous Affairs minister for a couple of hundred extra days. So he's in quite a pantheon there and he leaves a large legacy.

I want to focus on two things that I've seen Nigel do and achieve as a senator. One focuses on that portfolio that he has led ably for the last five years, with a great passion to help and advance the interests of First Australians. He will leave a legacy, in my view, after those 5½ years—a legacy of the focus he has put on delivering practical results for First Australians in school attendances, in employment participation, in training. Something that perhaps doesn't get focused on enough but I think is a real future task for future Indigenous Affairs ministers in this country is to support and develop the business capability and capacity of Indigenous communities. Nigel, in the last couple of years, has revolutionised government procurement in respect of Indigenous affairs, taking the Commonwealth government's procurement with Indigenous affairs companies from only a few million dollars a year to hundreds of millions of dollars a year. I think that is something that future governments can ably build on. I also hope that in my space, the resources space, it's something that businesses can take more seriously as well. While I often comment that the resources sector is by far the greatest employer of Indigenous Australians and has certainly contributed greatly to their advancement in the last 15 years, it could, of course, always do better. One area in which to do better is to engage more Indigenous businesses. I also want to see more Indigenous Australians in executive positions in mining companies. In the future it would be great to have Indigenous Australians run one of the major mining companies which operate in their communities. If that is achieved, I think a lot of what Nigel has started will be the reason for it.

The other thing I want to focus on is how Nigel has stood up for the little guy. He is a fighter, a natural fighter. He doesn't walk away from a fight. It doesn't matter who it is with. I have had great fun with Nigel fighting and defending the interests of fishermen and of the live cattle industry. Within our coalition, there's some tension sometimes, and Nigel's always willing to be there on the front line. It's been a pleasure to be there with him. I just want to relay one quick story, one of my favourite little battles—it's a small one in the whole scheme of things—that shows how we in the National Party will take up a fight, however much of a lost cause it is, because it is the right cause.

Nigel was very worked up about the impending ban on the importation of lion head trophies into Australia. Again, most people would think: 'That shouldn't happen. Why should we allow that?' Without going through all the details, those trophies are an incredibly important revenue source for poor African countries. Nigel cogently put the case that they are, in fact, also very important in helping with the breeding of lions, when well regulated. He only supported the well-regulated hunting of lions. In Australia, only about a dozen come in every year, but he was fighting for them. We didn't win that battle, but we did have some fun and achieved some other things through the battle. So we lost the war, but we won a few battles along the way.

It was particularly brutal. It was over a small thing. It wasn't a big issue. It didn't hit the headlines or anything like that. But I suppose that, sometimes, when the stakes are smaller the passions gets higher and people get more worked up, so it was quite an emotional couple of weeks. At end of one of the weeks, we were having a beer down at the Kingston Hotel, and I think it was Barry—Senator O'Sullivan—who suggested we should get Minister Hunt, who was the relevant minister, some kind of peace offering to get over the previous fractious couple of weeks of discussions. He, I think, suggested a stuffed lion toy. I thought that was a great idea, a smashing idea, so I said: 'Let's go one step better. Let's chop the stuffed lion's head off, mount it and present it to Minister Hunt.' So we now have Cecil in our office as a tribute, a trophy, to the fights that Nigel took up. The trophy artist did a fantastic job.

I will miss fighting along with Senator Scullion on behalf of people who wouldn't otherwise get a voice in this place. He's been a great contributor to the history of the National Party in this place. He will, I'm sure, have a fantastic retirement with his family, pursuing his interests and not being told what to do, which is what he likes. I didn't think I'd live to see the day where I saw Senator Nigel Scullion break down in the Senate, but it showed where his heart really lies and where he can now find time and solace.

Tonight, it is a great honour to pay tribute to two wonderful colleagues in Senator Claire Moore and Senator Doug Cameron. Senator Moore, you have given visibility to so many issues in this place and through committees and have been a role model for not only me but a great many other people in the labour movement and in the community. Yours is an enormous legacy that I and many others will never forget. I've seen the way you have been guided by the solid principles that belong in our party of social inclusion. But you are also, importantly, about community empowerment and empowering those whose voices aren't heard.

Underneath all of that is a framework deeply embedded in feminism, and you are a great custodian of that banner in our party. It is a banner that is passed on intergenerationally within our movement. When you spoke of suffragettes in your first speech, I not only thought of great women in the labour movement; I very much think of you as a modern day suffragette, Claire. One can see that in your experience in navigating pro-choice debates in this place as part of a feminist vanguard, when all the rules on how this place normally conducts its business get broken. You are as sharp as a tack and have your eye on the ball on that every time.

You've been a key part of creating a force and culture of sisterhood in the Labor Party, starting with Emily's List and permeating feminist communities right around Australia. It's impossible to do justice to your legacy in these very short remarks tonight, but I really want to say thank you for that custodianship and the values that I and so many others hold dear not only in the Labor Party but in feminist movements right around Australia and globally.

It seems strange to me that Doug won't be here after the election. His vigour and talent have been a real driving force in this place. I noticed him in the formation of my affiliation and attachment to the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, where both Jock Ferguson and Doug Cameron had unintelligible Scottish accents, but I learnt from them about what it means to show courage and solidarity in the face of adversity. It was terrific to be on the same side as Doug in debates—sometimes when you had your back against the wall. Even at those times, whether it was the ABCC or other things where we lost internal votes, the influence and the reliability of the positions that Doug took always had a lasting impact on the ultimate outcomes that were achieved in our movement. His stamp on the vocational education and training and housing policies that we're taking to the election is very clear. I want to say to both Claire and Doug: you both embody so much of what we are fighting for on this side of the chamber and at the next election. You will be a motivating force in the weeks to come and always into the future.

I too would like to respond to the valedictory speeches by the three senators here this evening, beginning with my colleagues Senator Moore and Senator Cameron. I'd like to just reflect that I first had the opportunity of meeting Claire with my son—at the time, he was about three years of age—when I attended an Emily's List conference in Brisbane. It might have been out of Brisbane. I can't quite recall.

It was.

It was certainly a long way from home for me and my little boy. At that time, I was introduced to Claire through a previous senator, Senator Trish Crossin, who represented the Northern Territory for 15 years here in the Senate. I just want to place on the public record the fine example, Claire, that you've provided to women coming into the parliament and particularly into the Labor Party—to woman who were unsure about taking that political step, who were asking questions as young mums about whether it was something that they could do and who were wondering if they could make a difference on such a large scale. At that time, I was standing for the Northern Territory parliament. My son is just about to celebrate his 21st year, so I would have to say that I look at that time with fond memories. When reflecting on someone who has influenced your life at different moments, I would have to say that you've certainly been one of those people. So to then come into the Senate and work beside you on Senate committees and see the diligence that you bring to the Senate in the thoroughness of your committee work and examination of issues and questions is an enormous credit to the Australian parliament.

I just want to say thank you for the work that you have done, even prior to my arrival here, on First Nations issues, for always bringing them to the fore at the Australian Labor Party caucus and also here in the Senate. Whilst we may now have a First Nations caucus, I know that we don't get to these places without having had people before us pave that path. I just want to say on behalf of First Nations people: thank you. Thank you for them.

To Senator Doug Cameron—what can I say about Dougie? He's an absolute legend. To know that you're coming into the Senate to work beside people of Doug's calibre is extraordinarily humbling, really. I've certainly grown up in a different kind of place with different experiences, in the north, and value greatly learning and listening to people like Senator Doug Cameron. That passion and, yes—I think as Senator Birmingham said—the warrior in Senator Cameron is something that has inspired so many of us coming into political office, not just here in the Senate but right around the country as Australian Labor Party members. His fight for workers and for fairness, and for a fair go in the trade unions and for ordinary Australians has been an enormous credit not only to this parliament but to the Australian families right across this country who've benefited from the powerful passion of this man who made Australia home. I think we are enormously blessed to have people who travel across the seas to make this country home, to then find that they stand in the highest offices in this country, thinking of others and other families.

Doug, to you and Elaine—lovely Elaine, who I also had the pleasure of getting to know over the last couple of years and, with my son one Saturday morning here in Canberra, having breakfast and catching up with you guys—hopefully, I'll see your new home in Tassie.

I come now to my colleague from the Northern Territory, Senator Nigel Scullion. I was thinking that he came here in 2001. At the time, I was working for the ABC and I remember being one of the many reporters doing the stories in relation to then Nigel Scullion the fisherman, who had put his hand up for the Senate. It's interesting what you remember, isn't it, when you reflect on things? I remember that mad dash this fisherman had to make across the seas to the UK. I remember in the newsrooms we all thought, 'Gee, what's going on?' That was the introduction, I guess, to understanding the importance of making sure we all know our backgrounds before we come into the Senate. It's interesting to see that, over the last few years in particular of this term, that has been one of the major issues of our parliament.

I certainly feel as though my time working with Senator Scullion here in the Senate, combative though it has been, based on ideology, has always largely remained respectful. I just want to point out that it is tough in this country to try to think you have the answers to dealing with the issues of First Nations people. Listening to Nigel tonight, and certainly to others, but knowing him through the different processes that we've had—in particular, the estimates process—there is no doubting whatsoever the passion of this man in wanting to stand up for First Nations people in this country and there is no doubting the commitment of this man to the people of the Northern Territory.

It is for the people of the Northern Territory that we stand here together, over these three years—and it's only my first three years in the Senate. I recall a time when Nigel sat with me on the other side of the house. He looked across over here and saw most of his colleagues sitting on this side. What was that vote that he sat with me on? It was on Territory rights. I said to him, 'How are you feeling?' He said, 'Oh, this wasn't a tough one to do.' That was in terms of knowing where he had to sit, but it obviously had other ramifications as well. But, again, that's a testament to the man. He knew that he had to stand or sit on that side, in terms of supporting Territory rights, for the people of the Northern Territory. We do battle it out. We are combative, but that is over policies and ideology on how we get there. But I never doubt, and still have never doubted, the passionate commitment that he has towards the people of the Northern Territory.

You only have to look at his maiden speech—and I have looked at Nige's speech—and you can see the journey that he's come on, his views and interpretations of First Nations people and what has moulded and shaped him. They're not my views, but I can respect and see where he has tried to come from to make a difference for First Nations people. There are major policy separations and differences that we have. I have no doubt that, over the next couple of weeks, we are going to go out there and be combative again.

I just want to say all the best to Nigel and to his wife, Carol, in particular. Carol actually worked for me when I was a minister in the Northern Territory government. She worked as my legal adviser at different moments when I was a minister in the Northern Territory. We go back a long way, Nige. To you and Carol, I sincerely wish you every happiness beyond the election and every blessing to you and your family.

On behalf of the people of the Northern Territory, it's a real commitment to travel on that plane and get down here. You travelled the thousands of kilometres not just from the Northern Territory to Canberra but right across the country in your role as minister. You have been right across the country. You won't have to make those trips anymore. This Senate doesn't understand that two senators have to cover such a vast area of coastline and of country. Hopefully, one day we can become the seventh state in the federation. Nigel, I hope you can come back from your pig hunting, your shooting out there and your fishing and maybe join us to make sure—there's still unfinished business for the Territory—that we do become the seventh state in the federation and that we do have more senators who can represent the people of the Northern Territory so that we have the numbers in here to make the very real democratic difference that we know we need to make for equality for the people of the north. Carol and Nigel, all the best to you and your families. Nige, I'll see you out on the hustings.

I will be brief. I just rise to say a few words of thanks in the order of the speeches tonight. On Senator Nigel Scullion, my leader in the Senate, my mate and my good friend, Senator McCarthy said it well: you can never question his commitment, his passion and his loyalty to our First Australians. That's probably the greatest legacy he'll leave here.

I will tell a little story. About six years ago, we had a National Party function in Tamworth. Nigel was a guest speaker. He flew into Tamworth, and a taxi picked him up at the Tamworth Regional Airport. They were driving off. Typical Nige, he said, 'How are you going, mate?' The taxi driver said, 'Good, thanks. Where are you from?' Nige said, 'Darwin, mate.' The taxi driver said, 'Darwin? Oh, Darwin. I was up there about 15 years ago, fishing in the gulf in our boat. We ran out of petrol. The sun was going down. We were drifting towards the rocks. We were in real trouble. I got on the radio and said, "Can anyone hear me?" This bloke came back and said, "I can hear you." I said, "We're in trouble. We're in a spot here. We've run out of petrol. We're drifting towards the rocks." Then this mad young fella come out in a 12-foot tinnie, going flat out with a drum of petrol. He poured it in and got us going. We were so grateful.' Nigel said, 'I only had a pair of shorts on. I was freezing cold too, what's more.' Here they were, 20 years later. It was one of the blokes that Nigel saved when he got the radio message, took the petrol out and got them going. He was the taxi driver in Tamworth, and they met again. How coincidental. You have been a great friend, Nigel. You've been a great leader. To you, Carol and the kids, we wish you all the best in your retirement. Thanks for your contribution to our nation.

To Senator Claire Moore, I haven't had a lot to do with you on committee work, although we did some committee work together. But where we teamed up together was in defence of our friends from Iran, Mohammed and Shayesteh—lovely people—when they fled Iran and their friends and relatives were trapped there in Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty and we teamed up to say, 'Give them a go; get them out of there.' Finally they got out of there safe and well—not all of them. Some were bombed, killed, shot or punished. It was a terrible situation. I was glad to have both Mohammed and Shayesteh here at my valedictory. They are lovely people. Claire, I was glad to team up with you in defence of the rights and the treatment of so many Iranians, and I hope that changes in the future.

Well done, Claire. You're a thorough lady—that is the way I sum you up. Enjoy the trip to Fiji. I was with you on one of the tours over there, and my wife, Nancy, was with you as well. We went to mass and enjoyed the singing so much. Those Pacific islanders are so good as singers. You'd pay money to hear them sing. It was just wonderful.

Now to my mate Senator Cameron. He told a few things tonight, but he didn't tell one job he used to do: he was a pump salesman. But I can't go into that, because it's a secret. Perhaps a journalist might ask you one day. Dougie and I came in together in the 2008 class, political opposites. You can't get two more political opposites than Doug Cameron and me, I can assure you. We became good mates. We worked together. The ASIC inquiry was Dougie's idea. We brought out so much wrongdoing in financial planning et cetera. Hopefully, those days are behind us and the right thing will be done in the future.

I worked with Dougie when we put the workers memorial up for those people killed at work. Sadly, there was a young fellow yesterday, 18 years old. Scaffolding collapsed and he lost his life. That was one of Dougie's passions, and I was glad to work with him as we picked the design of the memorial. That's one of Dougie's legacies.

He's a ruthless attacker. Even in his valedictory speech, he was still playing politics and attacking us, something I didn't do. I just said thanks to everyone else, but Dougie can't help himself: he's got to go for the jugular vein all the time. The most important thing to say as I say goodbye—probably my last words in this place—is that it's like a game of football: play it hard on the field but, when you get off the field, go and have a beer with your mates. That's how the Senate should always be: play your hard game in here but, when you walk out, we work together in committees and we're friends.

So could I just say to Nigel, Carol and Claire: all the best to you. Claire, thank you for your wonderful, long contribution. You're a very much respected lady in this place. To Dougie and Elaine: all the best to you in your retirement. I hope you have a good time down in Tasmania. Look out, Tasmania. Trouble's coming your way, not with Elaine but with Dougie. But he's a good bloke. You know where he stands all the time, even though he stands way opposite me in politics. But I think the good thing in the Senate is that we can work together. As you highlighted today, Claire, the committee work here achieves so much for our country. I hope it works together in the future parliaments ahead. I wish you all well.

I will keep this brief because the accolades for Claire Moore have been well and truly shared with the chamber this evening, but I'm sure I speak for many of those coalition senators who are not here this evening. Sunday marked the seventh anniversary of the passing of the former Senator Judith Adams, and I remember sitting on the other side of the chamber, shortly after I was sworn in—you were sitting on this side of the chamber—hearing your contributions about Judith's contributions. In that very early instant, I got a sense of the deep interest, compassion and genuine desire you have for improving the livelihoods of many, many people. I know that, if former Senator Sue Boyce were here, she would also be applauding the contribution that you have made.

The Senate is probably one of the most poorly understood institutions in our country. In it, the committee system is very poorly understood, most particularly amongst our House of Representatives colleagues sometimes. You and I have participated in inquiries not just on the community affairs committee but also on the joint human rights committee when I was the chairman, testing the boundaries of joint parliamentary committees and their work and pushing the boundaries against executive government. On behalf of all coalition senators that have worked with you and joined in the contributions that you have made, I extend our deepest appreciation. Your contribution has already reverberated through this building and through this country, and I'm sure it will continue to do so in decades to come. Thank you.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I seek leave to make a very short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Thank you very much. We all know why former Governor-General Peter Hollingworth was forced to resign in 2003. His repeated misconduct in handling allegations of sexual abuse is well documented and was again brought to light during the royal commission. It is just common sense that a government-appointed—not elected—official who is forced to resign due to serious misconduct should not then go on to receive a pension in retirement worth millions of dollars at the taxpayer's expense. My amendment enables the parliament to consider such cases and, if appropriate, put a stop to them.

The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 8677 circulated by Derryn Hinch's Justice Party be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment on sheet 8675 circulated by Derryn Hinch's Justice Party be agreed to.

The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and that the bill now be passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and that the bill be passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

The question now is that the amendments on sheets 8673 and 8674 circulated by Senator Storer be agreed to.

Senator Storer's circulated amendments—

Amdt – 8673 Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 14), after the definition of Australian benefit, insert:

Climate Change Conventions means:

(a) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, done at New York on 9 May 1992, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time; and

(b) the Paris Agreement, done at Paris on 12 December 2015, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time; and

(c) an international agreement, signed on behalf of Australia, that:

(i) relates to climate change; and

(ii) is specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister for the purposes of this definition.

Note: The Convention and the Agreement are in Australian Treaty Series 1994 No. 2 ([1994] ATS 2) and 2016 No. 24 ([2016] ATS 24), respectively. In 2019 they could be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 10), after item 4, insert:

4A At the end of subsection 8 ( 2 )

Insert:

and; (c) perform its functions in a manner consistent with achieving the aims and objectives of the Climate Change Conventions, including Australia's obligations under those Conventions.

Amdt – 8674 Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 20 and 23), omit the definition of overseas infrastructure financing, substitute:

overseas infrastructure financing means lending money to support overseas infrastructure development, if EFIC reasonably believes that:

(a) lending the money is likely to result in an Australian benefit; and

(b) the legal, administrative and policy framework that would apply to the overseas infrastructure development is suitable.

Note: Lending money includes providing finance, or providing a financial accommodation, in any form: see subsection (2).

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (lines 11 to 18), omit the item, substitute:

5 At the end of section 8

Add:

EFIC ' s overseas infrastructure financing functions

(4) Subsection (1) and subparagraph (2)(b)(i) do not apply in relation to EFIC's overseas infrastructure financing functions.

Question negatived.

by leave—Madam Acting Deputy President, I put on the record that the Australian Greens support Senator Storer's amendments.

The question now is that the amendments on sheets 8653, 8676 and 8678 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.

Australian Greens ' circulated amendments—

Amdt – 8653 - Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 10), after item 4, insert:

4A At the end of section 7

  Add:

  (4) EFIC must not perform a function, or exercise a power, to the extent that the performance of the function or the exercise of the power relates to a project that involves, or would facilitate, the mining and export of thermal coal on a commercial scale.

  (5) Without limiting subsection (4), EFIC must not perform a function, or exercise a power, to the extent that the performance of the function or the exercise of the power relates to:

(a) providing insurance or financial services or products in relation to a project that involves, or would facilitate, the mining and export of thermal coal on a commercial scale; or

(b) encouraging banks, or other financial institutions, carrying on business in Australia to finance, or assist in financing, export contracts or eligible export transactions in relation to a project that involves, or would facilitate, the mining and export of thermal coal on a commercial scale; or

(c) providing information or advice to any person regarding insurance or financial arrangements available to support the export of thermal coal on a commercial scale.

Amdt – 8676 - Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (lines 11 to 18), omit the item, substitute:

5 At the end of section 8

Add:

EFIC ' s overseas infrastructure financing functions

(4) In performing its overseas infrastructure financing functions, EFIC must consider whether the overseas infrastructure development being supported by overseas infrastructure financing is likely to have an overall beneficial impact on overseas communities that are affected, or likely to be affected, by that development.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), an overseas community includes a country, or a part of a country (such as a city, town or village).

(6) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether overseas infrastructure development has an overall beneficial impact on overseas communities, EFIC must have regard to any social, cultural, environmental or economic impact that the development supported by the overseas infrastructure financing will have on those communities.

(7) Subsection (1) and subparagraph (2) (b) (i) do not apply in relation to EFIC's overseas infrastructure financing functions.

5A After section 8

Insert:

8A Policy framework

(1) EFIC must perform its functions, and exercise its powers, in a manner consistent with the policy framework.

(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, establish a framework (the policy framework) setting out any matters in relation to the performance and exercise of EFIC's functions and powers.

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the policy framework may make provision for and in relation to the following matters:

(a) what EFIC must do before performing or exercising its functions or powers;

(b) what EFIC must do to in order to act in a manner consistent with Australia's obligations under the Climate Change Conventions (within the meaning of the Product Emissions Standards Act 2007).

Consultation requirements for policy framework

(4) Before making the policy framework, the Minister must:

(a) publish a draft of the policy framework and invite people to make submissions on the draft; and

(b) consider any submissions that are received within 2 months after publishing the draft.

Amdt – 8678 - Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019

(1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Amendment of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991".

(2) Page 7 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Amendment of the Freedom of Information Act 1982

Freedom of Information Act 1982

1 Division 1 of Part II of Schedule 2

Omit:

Question negatived.

by leave—I wish to put on record my support of the Greens amendments.

The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and the bill now be passed.

by leave—I wish to put on the record that Centre Alliance was in support of the Greens amendment on sheet 8678.

The question now is that the amendment on sheet 8586 revised and circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 16 (line 32), omit "1 July 2026", substitute "1 July 2022".

Question negatived.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and these bills be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

The question is that the amendments on sheet SH1008 circulated by the government be agreed to.

Government 's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 11 (after line 15), after paragraph 596AF(1)(c), insert:

  (ca) subject to subsection (1A)—an organisation registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more employees of the company;

(2) Schedule 1, item 16, page 11 (after line 18), after subsection 596AF(1), insert:

  (1A) An organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(ca) may begin proceedings under section 596ACA for compensation to be paid under subsection 596ACA(4) in relation to one or more employees of the company:

  (a) who are members of the organisation; or

     (b) whose industrial interests the organisation is entitled to represent, and who consent to the proceedings being begun;

and may not otherwise begin proceedings under section 596ACA.

(3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 12 (line 26), after "company that is being wound up", insert ", or an organisation mentioned in paragraph 596AF(1)(ca),".

(4) Schedule 1, item 16, page 12 (line 29), after "or (c)", insert ", or an organisation mentioned in paragraph 596AF(1)(ca),".

(5) Schedule 1, item 16, page 13 (after line 3), after paragraph 596AH(1)(c), insert:

  (ca) an organisation registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more employees of the company;

(6) Schedule 1, item 16, page 13 (line 5), after "or (c)", insert ", or an organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(ca),".

(7) Schedule 1, item 16, page 13 (after line 9), after paragraph 596AH(2)(a), insert:

  (aa) another organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(ca);

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The question now is that the remaining stages of these bills be agreed to and these bills be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

What bill?

The one that I just read out, Senator Spender—the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 2019, the one that the minister just spoke upon.

Bill read a first time.

I know you're frustrated, but we're more frustrated than you are, Madam Acting Deputy President.

I understand.

It's thanks to your party that we're being asked to ram through this legislation at a rate of knots. So, if you're going to express your frustration, express it at your colleagues, not at us.

Senator Di Natale, are you seeking leave?

I am seeking leave to move a motion to refer—

Leave not granted.

The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and that this bill be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question now is that the amendments on sheet 8666 circulated by the opposition be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), after item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 124PD ( 1 )

  Insert:

  health or community worker means a person who carries on, and is entitled to carry on, an occupation that involves the provision of care for the physical or mental health of people or for their wellbeing.

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 9), at the end of the Schedule, add:

3 After paragraph 124PG ( 1 ) (h)

  Insert:

  (ha) section 124PHA does not apply to the person; and

4 After paragraph 124PGA ( 1 ) (h)

  Insert:

  (ha) section 124PHA does not apply to the person; and

5 After paragraph 124PGB ( 1 ) (h)

  Insert:

  (ha) section 124PHA does not apply to the person; and

6 After paragraph 124PGC ( 1 ) (g)

  Insert:

  (ga) section 124PHA does not apply to the person; and

7 At the end of Division 2 of Part 3D

  Add:

Subdivision C—Exiting cashless welfare arrangements

124PHA Participants who responsibly manage their financial affairs

Application of this section

  (1) This section applies to a person if:

(a) all of the following apply:

     (i) the person's usual place of residence is within a trial area where the Minister has authorised a body as a community body;

     (ii) the person applies to their local community body to exit the trial of cashless welfare arrangements;

     (iii) the person's local community body is satisfied that the person satisfies the criteria mentioned in subsection (2);

     (iv) the community body notifies the Secretary in writing that it is so satisfied; or

(b) all of the following apply:

     (i) the person's usual place of residence is not within a trial area where the Minister has authorised a body as a community body;

     (ii) the person applies to the Secretary to exit the trial of cashless welfare arrangements;

     (iii) the Secretary is satisfied that the person satisfies the criteria mentioned in subsection (2).

Note: Subsection (4) sets out when this section ceases to apply to a person.

Criteria

  (2) The criteria for the purposes of subparagraphs (1)(a)(iii) and (b)(iii) are:

(a) that the person can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of their financial affairs, taking in to account all of the following:

     (i) the interest of any children for whom the person is responsible;

     (ii) whether the person has a likelihood of engaging in any unlawful activity;

     (iii) risks of homelessness;

     (iv) the health and safety of the person and the community;

     (v) the responsibilities and circumstances of the person;

     (vi) the person's engagement in the community, including the person's employment or efforts to obtain work; and

(b) any further criteria that the Minister determines, by legislative instrument, for the purposes of this subsection.

  (3) Before the Minister makes a determination under paragraph (2)(b), the Minister must:

(a) consult with local communities and trial participants; and

(b) have regard to any feedback received as a result of those consultations.

When this section ceases to apply

  (4) This section ceases to apply to a person if a health or community worker notifies the Secretary in writing that he or she has determined that it is necessary for a person to be a trial participant for medical or safety reasons.

  (5) To avoid doubt, the fact that this section ceases to apply to a person following a notification under subsection (4) does not prevent that person from again applying to exit the trial of cashless welfare arrangements.

I seek leave to move the amendments to opposition amendments on sheet 8682 as circulated in the chamber.

Leave granted.

I move the amendments:

(1) Amendment (2), item 7, subparagraph 124PHA(1) (a) (ii), after "local community body", insert "on or after 1 July 2019".

[exiting cashless welfare arrangements]

(2) Amendment (2), item 7, subparagraph 124PHA(1) (b) (ii), after "the Secretary", insert "on or after 1 July 2019".

[exiting cashless welfare arrangements]

As far as I'm aware, I just heard Senator Fifield—I'm sorry if I've missed it—move that this be read a first time. It has not been read a second time. You didn't put the second reading question.

Senator Siewert, a second reading is not required, because the bill is under a guillotine. It wasn't required, because debate is guillotined. The question is that the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the amendments, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and that the bill be now passed.

I move:

That this bill be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question now is that amendment (1) on sheet 8571 revised, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to:

Australian Greens circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 8 (after line 21), after paragraph 994B(3)(a), insert:

  (aa) a basic banking product (within the meaning of section 961F); or

We haven't had the second reading. Why are we moving an amendment?

As the Clerk advised Senator Hume when she was previously in the chair, because these bills are under a guillotine, we proceed straight to the substantive matters. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question now is that the amendment on sheet 8665, circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation, be agreed to:

Pauline Hanson's One Nation circulated amendment—

(1) Page 32 (after line 4), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3—Taxation transparency reporting

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006

1 After subsection 136(22)

  Insert:

Reporting

  (23) A petroleum retention lease is subject to a condition that the lessee must give the Commissioner of Taxation a taxation transparency report within:

  (a) 30 days after the day on which the lease is granted; and

  (b) in relation to each year of the term of the lease, 30 days after the day on which the year of the term ends.

  (24) In this section taxation transparency report means a report that includes the following information:

  (a) an estimate of the quantity of recoverable petroleum in all petroleum pools situated in the lease area;

  (b) an estimate of the value of the recoverable petroleum mentioned in paragraph (a);

(c) the data upon which the estimates in paragraphs (a) and (b) are based; and

  (d) all payments to the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory related to liabilities arising from the petroleum retention lease, including:

     (i) relevant lease fees;

     (ii) royalties; and

     (iii) any tax (however described) payable under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.

  (25) The Commissioner of Taxation must, as soon as practicable after receipt, make publicly available each taxation transparency report.

2 After subsection 162(21)

  Insert:

Reporting

  (22) A petroleum production licence is subject to a condition that the licence holder must give the Commissioner of Taxation a taxation transparency report within:

  (a) 30 days after the day on which the licence is granted; and

  (b) in relation to each year of the term of the licence, 30 days after the day on which the year of the term ends.

  (23) In this section taxation transparency report means a report that includes the following information:

(a) an estimate of the quantity of recoverable petroleum in all petroleum pools situated in the licence area;

(b) an estimate of the value of the recoverable petroleum mentioned in paragraph (a);

(c) the data upon which the estimates in paragraphs (a) and (b) are based; and

(d) all payments to the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory related to liabilities arising from the petroleum production licence, including:

     (i) relevant licence fees;

     (ii) royalties; and

     (iii) any tax (however described) payable under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.

  (24) The Commissioner of Taxation must, as soon as practicable after receipt, make publicly available each taxation transparency report.

3 Subsection 470 ( 2 ) (after table item 2)

  Insert:

Mr President, are there any One Nation senators to move that?

I just asked the Clerk whether someone needed to be present to move it and I was told that is not the case because we're operating under the guillotine. If amendments have been circulated, they're deemed to have been moved, I've been informed. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that item 14 of schedule 1 and schedule 2 stand as printed.

Point of order: that's 323, 996,781,000—

You know full well that that is an inappropriate use of a prop. These are Australian Greens amendments (1) on sheet 8669 and (1) on sheet 8664.

The Greens opposed schedule 1 and schedule 2 in the following terms—

(1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (lines 23 to 24), to be opposed.

(1) Schedule 2, page 18 (line 1) to page 32 (line 4), to be opposed.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the remaining amendments on sheets 8669 and 8664 and the amendments on sheets 8662 and 8663, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

The Greens' circulated amendments—

(2) Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 13), before item 21, insert:

20D Subparagraphs 35D ( 3 ) (a)(iii) and (v) and ( 4 ) (a)(iii) and (v)

Omit "class 2 augmented bond rate", substitute "class 2 uplifted".

(3) Page 32 (after line 4), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5—Order of deductible expenditures

Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987

1 Subsection 33 ( 3 )

Omit "where the class 1 augmented bond rate general expenditure", substitute "if the sum of the class 2 uplifted exploration expenditure and the class 1 augmented bond rate general expenditure".

2 Subsection 34 ( 3 )

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) or (2), if the sum of:

(a) the class 2 uplifted exploration expenditure; and

(b) the class 1 augmented bond rate general expenditure; and

(c) the class 1 augmented bond rate exploration expenditure;

incurred by a person in a financial year in relation to a petroleum project exceeds the assessable receipts derived by the person in the financial year in relation to the project, an amount ascertained in accordance with the formula , where:

A is so much of the excess as does not exceed the amount of the class 1 augmented bond rate exploration expenditure; and

B is the long-term bond rate in relation to the financial year;

shall be taken to be class 1 augmented bond rate exploration expenditure incurred by the person in relation to the project on the first day of the next succeeding financial year.

3 Before paragraph 34A ( 4 ) (a)

Insert:

(aa) the class 2 uplifted exploration expenditure; and

4 Paragraphs 35 ( 3 ) (a) to (d)

Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:

(a) the class 2 uplifted exploration expenditure; and

(b) the class 1 augmented bond rate general expenditure; and

(c) the class 1 augmented bond rate exploration expenditure; and

(d) the class 2 uplifted general expenditure; and

(e) the resource tax expenditure; and

(f) the acquired exploration expenditure; and

(g) the starting base expenditure; and

(h) the class 2 GDP factor expenditure; and

(i) the class 1 GDP factor expenditure; and

5 Paragraphs 35C ( 5 ) (d) and (f)

     Repeal the paragraphs.

6 Subparagraphs 35D ( 3 ) (a)(iv) and (vi) and ( 4 ) (a)(iv) and (vi)

     Repeal the subparagraphs.

7 Paragraphs 35E ( 3 ) (d) and (f)

     Repeal the paragraphs.

(2) Page 32 (after line 4), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4—Ending transferability of exploration expenditure

Part 1—Amendment of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987

Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987

1 Section 2

  Repeal the following definitions:

(a) the definition of annual transfer;

(b) the definition of instalment transfer;

(c) the definition of instalment transfer charge period;

(d) the definition of instalment transfer excess;

(e) the definition of instalment transfer interest charge.

2 Section 2 (definition of related charge)

  Repeal the definition, substitute:

  related charge means shortfall interest charge, or general interest charge, in relation to tax.

3 Section 2 (definition of transferable exploration expenditure )

  Repeal the definition.

4 Subsections 10 ( 5 ) and ( 6 )

  Repeal the subsections.

5 Subsection 22 ( 1 )

  Repeal the subsection, substitute:

  (1) Where, in relation to a petroleum project and a year of tax, the assessable receipts derived by a person exceed the sum of the deductible expenditure incurred by the person, the person is taken for the purposes of this Act to have a taxable profit in relation to the project and the year of tax of an amount equal to the excess.

6 Paragraphs 32(e) and (f)

  Repeal the paragraphs.

7 Sections 35A and 35B

  Repeal the sections.

8 Paragraphs 35C ( 5 ) (e) and (f)

  Repeal the paragraphs.

9 Subparagraphs 35D ( 3 ) (a)(v) and (vi) and ( 4 ) (a)(v) and (vi)

  Repeal the subparagraphs.

10 Paragraphs 35E ( 3 ) (e) and (f)

  Repeal the paragraphs.

11 Sections 36A and 36B (notes)

  Omit "(before the GDP factor or the augmented bond rate is applied to the amount under Schedule 1)".

12 Division 3A of Part V

  Repeal the Division.

13 Subparagraph 48 ( 1 ) (a)(i)

  Omit "(other than class 2 augmented bond rate exploration expenditure or class 2 GDP factor expenditure)".

14 Subparagraph 48 ( 1 ) (a)(ia)

  Repeal the subparagraph.

15 Subsection 48 ( 2 )

  Repeal the subsection.

16 Paragraph 48A ( 5 ) (b)

  Omit "(other than class 2 augmented bond rate exploration expenditure or class 2 GDP factor expenditure)".

17 Paragraph 48A ( 5 ) (c)

  Repeal the paragraph.

18 Sections 58G and 58H

  Repeal the sections.

19 Subsection 58K ( 1 ) (heading)

  Repeal the heading.

20 Subsection 58K ( 1 )

  Omit "(1)".

21 Subsection 58K ( 2 )

  Repeal the subsection.

22 Subsection 58M ( 1 ) (heading)

  Repeal the heading.

23 Subsection 58M ( 1 )

  Omit "(1)".

24 Subsection 58M ( 2 )

  Repeal the subsection.

25 Section 58N (note)

  Repeal the note.

26 Sections 58Q, 58R, 58RA and 58S

  Repeal the sections.

27 Section 64

  Omit ", deductible expenditure or transferable exploration expenditure", substitute "or deductible expenditure".

28 Paragraph 67 ( 2 ) (e)

  Omit "subsection 5(4), 20(8), 45A(3), 45B(3) or 45C(6)", substitute "subsection 5(4) or 20(8)".

29 Paragraph 85 ( 1 ) (b)

  Omit "tax;", substitute "tax.".

30 Paragraph 85 ( 1 ) (c)

  Repeal the paragraph.

31 Paragraph 85 ( 2 ) (a)

  Omit ", shortfall interest charge or instalment transfer interest charge", substitute "or shortfall interest charge".

32 Subparagraphs 85 ( 2 ) (b)(i) and (ii)

  Omit ", shortfall interest charge or instalment transfer interest charge", substitute "or shortfall interest charge".

33 Paragraph 97(1A)(aa)

  Repeal the paragraph.

34 Paragraph 97(1A)(b)

  Omit "amounts; and", substitute "amounts.".

35 Paragraph 97(1A)(c)

  Repeal the paragraph.

36 Subsection 97(1A) (note)

  Repeal the note.

37 Sections 98A to 98D

  Repeal the section.

38 Schedule 1

  Repeal the Schedule.

39 Subclauses 23(5A) and (5B) of Schedule 2

  Repeal the subclauses.

Part 2—Application, transition and savings provisions

Division 1—Application of amendments to deductible expenditure and assessable receipts

40 Application—deductible expenditure and assessable receipts

  (1) The object of this item is to provide for the transfer of exploration expenditure incurred by a person in relation to a petroleum project to cease as of 1 July 2019.

  (2) The amendments made by this Schedule apply to the following:

  (a) an amount of deductible expenditure incurred, or taken to be incurred, in the financial year starting on 1 July 2019 or any later financial year;

  (b) an amount of assessable receipts derived, or taken to be derived, in the financial year starting on 1 July 2019 or any later financial year.

Division 2—General application of amendments

41 Object

  The object of this Division is to ensure that, despite the repeals and amendments made by this Schedule, the full legal and administrative consequences of:

  (a) any act done or omitted to be done; or

  (b) any state of affairs existing; or

(c) any period ending;

  before 1 July 2019 can continue to arise and be carried out, directly or indirectly through an indefinite number of steps, even if some or all of those steps are taken on or after that day.

42 Making and amending assessments, and doing other things, in relation to past matters

  Even though an Act is amended by this Schedule, the amendment is disregarded for the purpose of doing any of the following under any Act or legislative instrument:

  (a) making or amending an assessment (including under a provision that is itself repealed or amended);

  (b) exercising any right or power, performing any obligation or duty or doing any other thing (including under a provision that is itself repealed or amended);

  in relation to any act done or omitted to be done, any state of affairs existing, or any period ending, before 1 July 2019.

43 Saving of provisions about effect of assessments

  If a provision or part of a provision that is repealed or amended by this Schedule deals with the effect of an assessment, the repeal or amendment is disregarded in relation to assessments made on, before or after 1 July 2019 in relation to any act done or omitted to be done, any state of affairs existing, or any period ending, before 1 July 2019.

(1) Schedule 1, items 4 and 5, page 3 (line 14) to page 4 (line 26), omit the items, substitute:

4 Subsection 34A ( 4 )

  Insert:

  uplift rate:

  (a) if the assessable year is 10 or more years after the first financial year in which such assessable petroleum receipts were derived—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1; or

  (b) otherwise—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1.05.

(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 4), after item 6, insert:

6A Subsection 33 ( 3 )

  Repeal the subsection, substitute:

  (3) For the purposes of subsection (1) or (2), if the class 1 augmented bond rate general expenditure incurred by a person in a financial year (the assessable year) in relation to a petroleum project exceeds the assessable receipts derived by the person in the assessable year in relation to the project, the person is taken to incur, in relation to the project and on the first day of the next financial year, an amount of class 1 augmented bond rate general expenditure worked out in accordance with the formula:

where:

  Available excess means the amount of the excess.

  uplift rate:

  (a) if the assessable year is 10 or more years after the first financial year in which such assessable petroleum receipts were derived—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1; or

  (b) otherwise—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1.05.

6B Subsection 34 ( 3 )

  Repeal the subsection, substitute:

  (3) For the purposes of subsection (1) or (2), if the sum of:

  (a) the class 1 augmented bond rate general expenditure; and

  (b) the class 1 augmented bond rate exploration expenditure;

incurred by a person in a financial year (the assessable year) in relation to a petroleum project exceeds the assessable receipts derived by the person in the assessable year in relation to the project, the person is taken to incur, in relation to the project and on the first day of the next financial year, an amount of class 1 augmented bond rate exploration expenditure worked out in accordance with the formula:

where:

  Available excess means so much of the excess as does not exceed the class 1 augmented bond rate exploration expenditure.

  uplift rate:

  (a) if the assessable year is 10 or more years after the first financial year in which such assessable petroleum receipts were derived—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1; or

  (b) otherwise—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1.05.

(3) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 12), after item 20, insert:

20A Subsection 35C ( 5 ) (formula)

  Repeal the formula, substitute:

20B Subsection 35C ( 5 ) (definition of Augmented bond rate )

  Repeal the definition.

20C Subsection 35C ( 5 )

  Insert:

  uplift rate:

  (a) if the assessable year is 10 or more years after the first financial year in which such assessable petroleum receipts were derived—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1; or

  (b) otherwise—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1.05.

(4) Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 13), before item 21, insert:

20D Subparagraphs 35D ( 3 ) (a)(iii) and (v) and ( 4 ) (a)(iii) and (v)

  Omit "class 2 augmented bond rate", substitute "class 2 uplifted".

20E Subsection 35D ( 4 ) (formula)

  Repeal the formula, substitute:

20F Subsection 35D ( 4 ) (definition of Augmented bond rate )

  Repeal the definition.

20G Subsection 35D ( 4 )

  Insert:

  uplift rate:

  (a) if the assessable year is 10 or more years after the first financial year in which such assessable petroleum receipts were derived—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1; or

  (b) otherwise—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1.05.

(5) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 14), after item 21, insert:

21A Subsection 35E ( 3 ) (formula)

  Repeal the formula, substitute:

21B Subsection 35E ( 3 ) (definition of Augmented bond rate )

  Repeal the definition.

21C Subsection 35E ( 3 )

  Insert:

  uplift rate:

  (a) if the assessable year is 10 or more years after the first financial year in which such assessable petroleum receipts were derived—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1; or

  (b) otherwise—the uplift rate is the long-term bond rate in relation to the assessable year plus 1.05.

(6) Schedule 1, item 44, page 8 (line 24) to page 9 (line 2), omit paragraph 8(3)(a) of Schedule 1, substitute:

  (a) if the standard uplift expenditure year is the financial year immediately before the assessable year—multiply the incurred exploration expenditure amount in relation to the standard uplift expenditure year by the long-term bond rate in relation to the standard uplift expenditure year plus 1.05;

(7) Schedule 1, item 44, page 9 (lines 22 to 34), omit subparagraphs (i) to (iv) of the definition of uplift rate in paragraph 8(3)(b) of Schedule 1, substitute:

     (i) if the calculation year is 10 or more years after the standard uplift expenditure year—the GDP factor for the calculation year; or

     (ii) otherwise—the long-term bond rate in relation to the calculation year plus 1.05;

(8) Schedule 1, item 73, page 13 (line 33), omit "1.15", substitute "1.05".

(9) Schedule 1, item 73, page 14 (lines 1 to 17), omit paragraph 37(3)(a) of Schedule 1, substitute:

  (a) work out, in relation to the expenditure year and each later financial year ending before the transfer year, an amount in accordance with the formula:

     where:

       transferred amount means:

     (i) in making the calculation in relation to the expenditure year—the amount of expenditure actually transferred; and

     (ii) in making the calculation in relation to a later financial year—the amount calculated under this paragraph in relation to the expenditure and the immediately preceding financial year.

     uplift rate, for the financial year in relation to which the calculation is being made (the calculation year), means:

     (i) if the calculation year is 10 or more years after the expenditure year—the GDP factor for the calculation year; and

     (ii) otherwise—the long-term bond rate in relation to the calculation year plus 1.05;

(1) Page 32 (after line 4), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3—Notification of deductible expenditure

Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987

1 After section 113

  Insert:

113A Notification of deductible expenditure to the Commissioner

     If a person in relation to a petroleum project incurs a deductible expenditure in a financial year, the person must give notice of the expenditure to the Commissioner in the approved form within 30 days after the end of the financial year.

Note 1: Subdivision 388-B in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 contains rules about giving notices in the approved form. Subdivision 286-C in that Schedule provides for an administrative penalty for failure to give notice in the approved form on time.

Note 2: For the meaning of deductible expenditure, see section 32.

2 Application provision

  Section 113A of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to the financial year stating on 1 July 2019 and each later financial year.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

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.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

That item 4 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019, made under the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, be disallowed [F2019L00177].

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Farrell, relating to the disallowance of item 4 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019, be agreed to.

On the eve of this latest budget being handed down, Australia's Bureau of Meteorology confirmed that this has been the hottest quarter on record. We are all staring down the biggest threat humanity has ever faced, and this budget pretends it doesn't exist. No wonder people are angry and fed up with politics. They're crying out for leadership, for a clear plan to tackle the climate breakdown and to transition us to a renewable economy, one that exports clean energy to the world instead of climate-damaging coal. They want to know that we've got a plan to look after people—those people who work in the coal industry—because they understand this transition is inevitable. They want a plan for jobs right across the country that are at risk from the climate change caused by the mining, burning and exporting of coal. They want a plan for farmers, for tourism operators, for people working in construction, hospitality and emergency services. But this budget is not planning for their future. Instead, environment funding has hit rock bottom, as Australia's animal extinction crisis—the worst in the entire world—accelerates. The budget's electric vehicles offering is an embarrassment, and the handout to big polluters continues.

This budget was an opportunity to protect our climate, our jobs, our farmlands and all the precious places we love—to fight for the Murray-Darling and the Great Barrier Reef and all of those communities who rely upon them. But this budget does none of these things, because this is a government that is totally lacking in vision and leadership. Their only plan is for their re-election—a cynical attempt to buy a few votes with election bribes instead of planning for this nation's future. It is verging on the criminal that the Liberals have budgeted just $189 million over the next four years to deal with the climate crisis that the Bureau of Meteorology is telling us is already here.

Meanwhile, over the coming four years, the next Australian government, whether it be Liberal or Labor, will spend 174 times that amount to subsidise the burning of fossil fuels. A staggering $33 billion is set aside in the budget papers to underwrite the burning of our planet. Money is going from people's hard-earned wages into the offshore accounts of polluting corporations set up in elaborate tax havens. This is nothing short of a betrayal of future generations. It's a betrayal because there is no economic strength, there is no hope for economic resilience, without a safe climate. We should have no expectation of continued economic prosperity if we continue to destroy the life system that sustains us.

Both the Reserve Bank and Australia's prudential regulator are telling us, very frankly, very clearly, that Australia's economy is dangerously exposed. They have made it clear that we've two big problems ahead. First, our economy is skewed towards carbon-intensive investments. We're an emissions-intensive economy and global capital is already moving to lower-emissions countries because they have less carbon risk. Across our economy, investments are exposed to dramatic price re-evaluations and stranded assets as the world moves on without us. Secondly, our agricultural and tourism exports are on the front line of climate change impacts. These crucially important industries have the most to lose from the breakdown of our climate system, destroying the crops and livelihoods and ruining those beautiful places that bring millions of visitors to our shores each year. From our temperate rainforests in Tasmania to our world-famous wine regions in South Australia, to the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland, every one of these crucial national assets is at risk if we remain on our current path. Senator Hanson-Young reminds me of the impact on the Great Australian Bight—indeed, another one of those magnificent wild places that is under threat. Our country and our economy is hopelessly exposed but our leaders are more stubborn than ever. The tragedy is that the longer we delay serious action, the worse these problems become and the harder it is to get these multiplying risks under control.

There are more jobs in new industries devoted to protecting our environment, improving agriculture and cleaning up our energy system, heavy industry and transport than there are jobs in yesterday's dying, dirty industries. Yes, it's true that around 45,000 people are employed in the mining, burning and exporting of coal. But the Greens' alternative plan, the independently costed Renew Australia plan, would create four times the number of jobs every year over the decade. That is hundreds of thousands of new jobs—jobs in engineering, construction, planning, IT, research and development; jobs for designers, farmers, public servants, land managers; jobs in entirely new retail industries; jobs for our regions; and jobs for our cities. The science is crystal clear. A clean, modern jobs-rich economy is ours to make if we can embrace progress and invest in the technological solutions that are already available to us—but, no; instead, the Liberal government is standing in the way of progress, standing in the way of this transition. The Labor government-to-be aren't campaigning for change at the scale or the speed that is required—hardly a surprise. Dirty donations from the polluting coal, oil and gas industries are making sure of that.

One thing this budget does make clear is that our government doesn't lack the financial resources to solve the problems we face as a nation. What they lack is the political vision. Our collective wealth is being squandered with the $302 billion tax splash—a giveaway paid for by cutting public services over decades. Let me tell you what the Greens would do. The Greens would use this money to make TAFE and university free again. We would get dental care into Medicare. We would increase Newstart. We would build half a million new affordable homes, we would invest in a clean energy system and guess what? We would have billions to spare. But all the Liberals have are tax cuts. This is the full breadth and depth of what they think this country needs. Albert Einstein characterised this as insanity—trying to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

These tax cuts will expand economic inequality. These tax cuts will hamstring future parliaments from investing in quality schools and hospitals. These tax cuts will prevent us from creating the jobs that society needs but that a private market will never create. Of course, we know that the wealthiest Australians, those who rely least on the public services that have been cut, are the ones who will benefit most from these tax cuts. Middle- and low-income earners will pay for these tax cuts in crowded GP rooms and in hospital waiting rooms. They'll pay for them in overcrowded classrooms and with burnt-out teachers. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the infrastructure funding in this budget will go into military hardware—in other words, we are spending twice as much on machines of war as we are on public services.

We didn't get to this place out of nowhere. It's been through the long, slow and meticulous cultivation of political influence. This budget, like all budgets before it, is the product of a political system that can be bought and sold. Our political donation system is legal corruption. It is state-sanctioned bribery. Nowhere has the sale of our democracy been more damaging than in its impact on this government's pathetic climate and energy policies, as we saw in yesterday's budget. The coal, oil and gas industries have given $8 million to both parties. They have created a giant merry-go-round of money and favours in which cash goes in as private donations and comes back out in many multiples of public funding.

Let me give you an example. The gas industry is the fastest growing source of pollution in Australia but neither party will make it pay for its damage by reinstating the carbon price. Why? Because it makes big donations to both sides of politics year in, year out. Australia's now the world's biggest exporter of gas, and the Commonwealth isn't collecting a cent in royalties or superprofit taxes. It is hard to conceive of a public policy that is more broken than that. If this budget makes one thing clear, it is how much a strong Greens voice in the Senate is needed to push back against the tide of political donations and hold the next government to account on a whole range of issues, but climate change chief among them.

Now the Liberal Party is a lost cause. The National Party are a lost cause. We hope their days are numbered. But Labor's climate policy isn't based on the science of what needs to be done to keep our oceans from rising and our land from burning. It's based on neutralising a tricky political issue and keeping vested interests onside. Labor are more afraid of political damage than of the damage facing our forests and farms. They have proposed a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target by 2030, when experts tell us that we'll exceed 80 per cent by doing nothing. Labor's climate policy actually reduces the amount of renewables rolling out rather than increases it. On coal, the situation is even more dire. Coal is the single biggest contributor to climate change and, given that 80 per cent of the coal that's mined in Australia is shipped off overseas, if you don't have a plan to phase out coal exports, you don't have a climate plan. It's as simple as that.

Of course, we know the Liberals are addicted to coal; they bring it into parliament and they cuddle it. They kiss it. They share it amongst themselves like a precious stone. But what is the Labor Party's plan on coal? Well, they don't have one. For them, it's just business as usual. Only a strong Greens voice in the Senate will push Labor hard to take real action. You know what? The good news is that we've done it before. Because of the Greens working constructively in a balance-of-power parliament with Labor in 2010, we got the world's best climate package and we drove the sharpest reduction in Australia's emissions on record. We've done it before, and we can do it again. Just consider what the alternative is: without the Greens in the Senate, the next government will be beholden to climate deniers like Pauline Hanson's One Nation. It's only the Greens who will help create a new, clean and resilient economy by getting the lobbyists and the donations out of politics and bringing the people in. Only then will we create a future for all of us.

People have had a gutful of politics as usual. We've had a gutful of it too. It doesn't have to be that way. Politics should give people something to believe in. At this election, the Greens are putting up big, bold evidence-based ideas that set Australia up for the future. We can tackle the big challenges we face as a nation. We can do it in a way that creates hundreds of thousands of new jobs, protects our environment and helps those people who have been left behind.

Of course, the Liberals don't want you to believe that an alternative is possible. They want you to think that the pressures and the problems that you're experiencing are all the fault of the people who have chosen to make Australia their home. But we know where the blame lies: it lies squarely at the feet of the Liberal and National parties, who have let big corporations rort the system for their own interests. Sadly, the Labor Party aren't much better. They want you to believe that the bare minimum is enough. We won't accept that. We will continue to use our influence in the Senate to ensure that we do more than the bare minimum.

Through our big, forward-looking ideas, the Greens have worked with the community already to set much of the agenda in our parliament: marriage equality, the banking royal commission, a bank levy, a royal commission into people with disabilities, a national anticorruption watchdog and a boost in funding for Landcare—I could go on and on. They are all the Greens' ideas, were all opposed by both major parties and are all now government policy. Our team will continue to set much of the agenda in the next parliament too, built on our clear, achievable, fully costed plan for our country.

Let me tell you a bit about that plan. It includes ending the billions of dollars in handouts to the mining industry and ending the $11 billion a year tax avoidance industry. We are doing that so that we can give every child a place in child care, so we can bring back free TAFE and university, and so we can lift Newstart and other government payments by $75 a week and return some dignity to the lives of those 838,000 Australians who depend on those payments, but are now committed to living a life of poverty. Our plan includes taxing capital gains like regular income and ending the tax breaks on investment properties so that we can build half a million sustainable and affordable community homes over the next decade. No-one in this country should be homeless. Everyone should be able to put a roof over their head. We would end the massive handouts to the private health insurance industry so that we can put those billions of dollars back into public hospitals, wipe out waiting lists and give everyone dental coverage under Medicare.

It is the Greens who have a concrete plan to create a publicly owned bank and energy retailer so that we can drive competition, lower the cost of essential services and bring an end to the toxic profit-at-all-costs mentality. It's the Greens' plan to ensure that the biggest polluters actually pay for the damage they are doing to our oceans and atmosphere. It's so we can fund the infrastructure we need to modernise our cities and regions and to get to 100 per cent clean energy by 2030 and so we can ensure a managed transition for coal-dependent communities.

With our evidence-based transition plan, we will phase out thermal coal exports over the next decade and build a clean energy export industry. It's an industry that will replace the dirty coal we currently ship overseas to our two biggest export markets—Japan and South Korea—with clean, hydrogen-based power. This is the vision that we Greens will bring to the next parliament. It's one that is based on science. It is one that is based on what is good for people. These are the values that we'll ensure are in future budget papers.

Getting rid of this rotten mob might feel good—I think it's going to feel bloody good, actually!—but it won't be good enough if the next Prime Minister is only marginally better, with a different coloured tie and an uninspiring and mediocre vision for the future. Our job is to make sure we do better than that. Our job is for us to be our best selves. The Greens are the only party that you can rely on to think about the future, to care for people and to fight for the environment. This is our commitment to all of you. We can't wait to get started when the 46th parliament returns!

Reports that I have delivered my final speech are an exaggeration! I'll take this opportunity to speak on the budget. Senator Leyonhjelm made it very easy to understand what happens in the budget, because, in his negotiations, he arranged for the government to provide, on the last page of the budget paper, data in real terms—that is, adjusted for inflation—in per capita terms. So I don't really need to read the budget; I can just look at the last page.

Here's the headline: this year, right now, tax, per capita, is the highest it has ever been in Australia. Did you hear that from Treasurer Frydenberg last night? I can't remember. Did he say, 'Tax per capita is the highest it has ever been in Australia'? I don't remember him saying that. I wonder why. It seems to me to be the highlight of the budget. Let's look at payments per capita. Maybe that's a better story for the government. Sorry! Again, payments per capita are the highest ever in the history of our Federation. What a shame! Two for two! This coalition government—a 'Liberal' government, I think it calls itself—has delivered the biggest government in Australia ever. In both tax and government spending, it's the biggest ever. It's not me. The government published it. It's on the last page. The numbers are right here. Just to make it clear: on average, this financial year, an Australian is taxed $15,465. No other number in the past has ever been as high. Isn't that something to be proud of, Liberal Party?

Let's look at payments, government spending per person. The government are spending $16,634 on your behalf. That's an even bigger number. Even though they're taxing you more than they ever have in the past—it doesn't matter what government you look at, be it Whitlam's, Rudd's or Gillard's—they're still spending more than that on your behalf. That means more debt. They cannot live within their means. We heard last night: 'We're not taxing you. We're living within our means.' It's just not true. The government said last night that they're doing things without increasing taxes, but it is clearly the case that they are increasing taxes. It is in their very own budget.

Another of my favourite pages in the budget, because I am a bit of an ex-Treasury wonk, is table 7 in the fiscal strategy. This is the one where the government of either persuasion, Labor or Liberal, try to pretend that they're not increasing spending. They often have tricky ways of saying, 'We're reducing overall spending,' or 'We've made decisions to reduce overall spending.' Most budgets have them. This is the first budget I remember reading—and I've been reading budgets for about 20 years—where they don't even pretend to be making policy decisions that reduce overall levels of government spending. Normally you have these promises that will offset all new spending. It doesn't exist. This might be the first budget ever where there's no promise to offset new spending. The coalition must have just realised: 'Hey, we've got no particular benefit in restraining government spending. There's no other party in this place that cares. The Labor Party don't care if we're increasing spending, so let's just do it.'

This financial year, the very prudent government that we have says, 'We are going to make policy decisions to increase government spending by a mere $3 billion.' Isn't that nice of them? We could have nearly had a budget surplus this year if the government had just decided not to spend. And, over the coming four years, the government has decided to make policy decisions to spend an additional $8 billion. This is unheralded in budgeting, particularly from a coalition government, which normally at least tries to pretend that they're reducing government spending. They use smoke and mirrors. They move money into out years. They didn't even bother doing it this year. It's an absolute disgrace. No-one's watching. In an election year, they've made an assessment that no-one cares about the rising size of government. They've given up any semblance of being a Liberal government. Anyone who thinks that government should be restrained and who continues to vote for the coalition is absolutely crazy. Your only option is to vote for the Liberal Democrats.

Fairness is not a proposition that comes readily to the mind of ministers in this government, as this budget once again reminds us. The Treasurer's overnight backflip on the energy assistance payment is yet more evidence of this government's insensitivity to the need to enhance fairness and reverse inequality. That insensitivity comes at a time when many Australians on low and middle incomes are confronted with sluggish wages as they struggle with their food and power bills. I did, of course, vote for the energy assistance payment today. But I was appalled that, when the payment was unveiled in the lead-up to the budget yesterday, people on Newstart were explicitly excluded and—if that's not bad enough—that the value of Newstart and associated payments has not increased in real terms in a quarter of a century. Some of the poorest people in the community were to be denied help to keep themselves warm and cook their food. Overnight, the government thought better of its stinginess, not because it genuinely cares about the most unfortunate in our society but because there is an election around the corner.

Something is better than nothing, but a one-off payment of $75 is little more than a slap in the face to the less well-off in our community, who have been struggling with rises of much, much more in their energy bills in recent years. It is also a tacit acknowledgement that the price of energy is too high for comfort for most consumers. Despite that, this budget contains no measures to seriously address the issue.

Australians are paying a high price, literally, for the failure of this government to get its act together on energy and climate change. It shows how little the government cares for the future health of the environment or for the wellbeing and prosperity of the generation of Australians now voting for the first time. How else do you explain the fact that the government still won't rule out wasting taxpayers' money underwriting new coal-fired power generation? This is despite the fact that renewables are the cheapest form of new power generation in Australia. With our old, inefficient, increasingly unreliable and expensive coal-powered fleet set to retire in coming years, the government should be doing more to encourage new clean energy generation. On that score, the government should be using competitive market-based approaches and not picking winners, as it has shown a tendency to do.

My home state of South Australia has an incredible contribution to make in this field. But what we have in the wake of the budget is a one-off payment of $75, rather than long-term policies to encourage the development of cleaner and cheaper power into the future. Young voters in particular are understandably fed up with this appalling lack of leadership on climate and energy policy from this government—so don't be surprised if, when they come to vote in a few weeks time, younger voters take it out on the final remnants of the boomer generation who are still in charge of policy in Canberra.

But the story of the energy assistance payment is not the only indication that fairness has been far from top of mind for the government in the budget or elsewhere. In fact, last night's budget is a tacit admission from the government that last year's personal tax cut package offered too much to the well-off and did not do enough to assist low- and middle-income wage earners. The decision to give priority to the less well-off in the community in last night's tax program vindicates my decision to oppose stages 2 and 3 of the original package last June. On that score, I'm pleased the Prime Minister and Treasurer are seeing their way to double the maximum relief provided by the low- and middle-income tax offset which was part of stage 1 of the original tax package. It was a course I argued for last year, and I am pleased that in some measure the government accepted my conclusions. However, I am disappointed that the revamping of stages 2 and 3 now will see even more benefit for people on higher incomes but little for the less well off. We can get a sense of the government's long-term priorities by looking at their numbers: $19 billion through the forward estimates is the cost of tax relief for low- and middle-income earners. But to get an idea of just how much the overall tax package favours the well off we need only go to the 10-year figure: fully $300 million.

The time is long overdue for Australians to be rewarded with a government and parliament that put fairness right at the top of the agenda. In developing policy, fairness ought to be the first thought, not an afterthought. The government's initial apathy on energy assistance was bad enough, but I am even more disappointed that neither the government nor Labor is prepared to commit to an increase in the criminally low level of Newstart, which has not increased in real terms for fully a quarter of a century under any government, both sides included. In a nation as prosperous as Australia, this is simply a disgrace.

At its current level of just $40 a day, Newstart and associated payments condemn many jobseekers to a life of poverty without the means to seek work in a realistic fashion, which is, after all, their primary purpose. From my earliest days in the Senate last year, I have used every opportunity and avenue to advocate for an increase in Newstart and associated payments to a more humane, realistic level—not generous but realistic. More than once I have supported the push from ACOSS and others for an increase of $75 a week—just over $10 a day. That would hardly buy a sandwich and a milkshake, to use the Amanda Vanstone index. It's not just ACOSS leading the charge; to her credit, Jennifer Westacott from the Business Council of Australia has been advocating an increase for some years now. As she has repeatedly pointed out, at just $40 a day Newstart has itself become a barrier to effective jobseeking. What a bizarre and perverse contradiction: a payment supposed to get people back into work is actually making it harder because the level is so low that jobseekers cannot afford clothes to make themselves presentable or bus tickets to get to job interviews.

Then there's John Howard, who says that the Newstart freeze has gone on too long. I am not forgetting his former chief of staff, now Senator Arthur Sinodinos, who, in various capacities, has been at the centre of more fiscal reform and budget preparation than anyone else here. On Monday he told Q&A on the ABC that over time it should be higher—cautious, for sure, but we get the message and so should his coalition colleagues.

Modelling by respected economist Chris Richardson of Deloitte Access Economics last year estimated that an increase of $75 a week would cost the budget $3.3 billion but produce a prosperity dividend mainly through increased spending of $4 billion and also provide a significant fairness dividend—targeted at low-income earners, of course, and especially in regional areas. It sounds like a pretty sensible transaction, especially when the budget papers indicate consumption is sluggish. So it's appalling that neither major party is prepared to commit to a Newstart increase that would stop many people living in poverty as they try to get a job. Maybe there aren't enough votes among the jobseekers. If that is the calculation of the major parties, they ought to stand condemned.

The government is very pleased with itself that, if current economic trends continue, all debt will be paid off by 2030. Perhaps the Prime Minister and the Treasurer might take a moment to thank those crossbenchers in the Senate who braved their scorn last June for opposing the full suite of the government's proposed company tax cuts. Not only did we save the budget $35 billion in revenue forgone but the money saved is also making a massive contribution to the task of reducing debt. Calculations by the Australia Institute today estimate that fully $90 billion of the projected reduction from the current net debt level of $374 billion over the next 10 years comes from the fact that the tax cuts to the big end of town were defeated in the Senate last year. It's another reminder of the value of the crossbench to the Senate. The government seem to be slow learners, because this budget now bakes in tax cuts worth $300 billion for a decade, regardless of economic circumstances and their lack of fairness. The symbolism is stark, as is the absence of any real action in the budget to make Australia a cleaner and healthier place for the generations who will follow us, who will have to clean up the mess we have made of the environment. The generations who follow us will pay a heavy price for the government's years of inaction, opposition and internal conflict over real action on climate change, just as they may for rash commitments to tax cuts to the well-off two and three elections into the future.

I rise tonight to speak on the budget, and I'm only going to have a brief session on this. There are lots of good things in this budget, and I'm not surprised—it's an election budget. I guess what we need to do now is look at what Mr Shorten announces in the other place. Voters will get to have their choice in respect of who they wish to lead and who might better manage the economy and provide leadership in the building of this nation. Whilst there are many good things in the budget—and once again I have to concede that there are—there are some issues, including some issues for South Australia, that I just want to put on the record.

South Australia has a declining population when compared to other states, and that's indeed why we currently have 11 members in the other place but, after this election, we'll only have 10. That is because of the declining relative population of South Australia. In some sense that's because we've been constrained in terms of growth, and some of that has been because of poor immigration policies. I concede there's some light at the end of the tunnel. We are now looking at bringing skilled migrants into regional areas, which is a good thing.

I also note that this year we got quite a good percentage of the infrastructure spend. Last year we got less than our population share. This year we've got about 13 per cent of new funds being injected into South Australia. But there's a problem. This money seems to have been injected, in some sense, in a pork-barrelling, targeted fashion rather than in accordance with a plan.

Let me talk about a road trip I did last week around the northern part of South Australia and in the Eyre Peninsula. There are a number of projects around South Australia that could bring great wealth to South Australia and, indeed, to the nation. We have the Braemar province to the north-east of Adelaide, where there are quite significant deposits of iron ore. I was up in Roxby Downs at Olympic Dam last week, where BHP, with a predominantly copper mine, are trying to expand. They're exploring expanding their operations there. I went to Leigh Creek. Last week Leigh Creek Energy announced to the stock exchange that they have discovered gas with a quantity equivalent to that of the Cooper Basin, so it's a significant find and a significant opportunity for South Australia.

Coal—underground coal.

It's an ex-coalmine—I'll take that interjection. It was a coalmine and now we can get some gas from that mine. The GFG steelworks in Whyalla is also due for a significant upgrade, which is a fantastic thing. Also, at Wudinna we've got the Iron Road project, which is another substantial iron ore deposit where we could open up that region to a significant iron ore mining opportunity. People are working towards these things, but, when I look at the infrastructure that we have in those areas, there's very little in the way of rail to get these commodities to any ports and, indeed, no deep-sea ports in South Australia on the Eyre Peninsula, where we probably could be shipping these resources at relatively low cost. CU-River Mining have an iron ore mine that is very close to Coober Pedy. They're going to have to take their product down to Port Augusta and then load it onto barges to take it out to a ship, a Cape class vessel, that can export that iron ore. It's a rather inefficient way of doing things.

But there's a lack of a plan. There's no plan to look at rail. In fact, I probably mislead the chamber in some respects because one of the priority projects in our Infrastructure Priority List is the Iron Road project, which includes the iron ore mine at Wudinna and a rail line running down to Cape Hardy, where we could have a seaport. But instead of backing that, spending some money and actually seeding that project—a priority project, no less—the government has sat on its hands and done nothing at all to support that project moving ahead. There's a great opportunity for Cape Hardy to become a multi-user seaport where it services the iron ore mine, were it to go ahead at Wudinna. Indeed, grain growers all across the Eyre Peninsula and a number of other companies have indicated that they'd be most pleased to use that port. But, instead of backing that port, somehow we've now got a situation where additional port options have been thrown up. Now we've got options at Port Spencer; we've got options at Stony Point near Whyalla; we've got an option for a seaport at Lucky Bay; we've got an option for a seaport at Whyalla. Of course, all that does is just create confusion. Business doesn't know what to do. We're in this sort of vacuum of leadership, and this will cause a delay and perhaps even prevent some of these projects going ahead—and there's $10 billion worth of economic activity that could flow from these projects. But there is no plan from the government and no funding in the budget to assist in that economic activity.

When it comes to growing South Australia, one of the good things is that we may well get more migrants, but more migrants are no good unless they're well trained. We need skilled migrants. We also need skilled Australians. Leigh Creek will likely employ something like 3½ thousand people; the Whyalla steelworks, 2,500 people; Olympic Dam, probably around 3,000 people; the Iron Road project, somewhere around 3,000 people. This is getting close to 15,000 people when I include the people that will be required in Adelaide for the naval shipbuilding program. It's all good stuff, except that, with the skills package that's been announced in the budget, which I support to a certain extent—there are some problems there; I'll talk about them in a moment—there's no indication of where this training will be located.

I do have a problem. The budget talks about 80,000 apprentices, and most people think that's great. We're creating an opportunity for 80,000 young Australians to get a trade—except that the government has cancelled or hasn't funded the mentoring program that we've seen in South Australia to move completion rates from 50 per cent to 95 per cent. So it's no good creating 80,000 places; I mean, there is some good in that, but it's much, much better to have 80,000 apprentices finishing their trade. The mentoring program that was so successful in boosting the completion rates for apprentices is missing from this budget. That's a little bit disappointing, once again, because of the number of jobs that could be formed in these projects running all across regional South Australia.

I welcome the government's $100 million injection into regional airports. That's really good. We can have some upgrades to our airports—upgrades that would have otherwise ended up being funded by councils—by ratepayers. Air transport is the lifeblood of regional communities. People in regional communities want to connect to the cities. They want to be able to get access to medical services. They want to be able to get access to educational services. Businesses need to be able to get access to their headquarters in the capital cities. We need to be able to get locums to travel to these places. But right now we're facing a problem where we've got very expensive regional airfares. And what have the government done? In last year's budget, they announced that they were going to spend $51 billion on upgrading security at some of the regional airports. That's fine. That pays for the screening equipment, the X-ray equipment, that might be needed to upgrade security. But they failed to pay the somewhere between $530,000 and $760,000 per annum required to operate that security equipment. Councils are somehow going to have to find more than half a million dollars to run those security services at the airports. They can't just make that money. What they're going to have to do is pass that charge on to the airlines, who are going to pass it on to their customers, who are going to raise their prices.

The Senate committee that's looking into rural airfares heard evidence from Qantas, specifically in relation to Port Lincoln, Whyalla and Kangaroo Island—they were the examples given by Qantas—that those services may become unviable when those additional costs are passed on to the airlines. At a hearing we held in Old Parliament House on Monday, the department conceded they had never done any analysis on the effect of these security changes—on these costs to regional communities. That's a total lack of due diligence. They had only looked at things from a security perspective. So we needed something in the budget. If you're going to impose a security regime on regional airports—and, note, it's to deal with national security—then national security should be paid across the nation, not lumped onto local councils. It's a hugely problematic situation that we've got. I foreshadowed in the committee and I'll do so now here in the chamber that I will move to disallow the regulation which requires that additional security, until such time as we make sure that regional communities don't have to bear the cost and perhaps lose air services. That's certainly on my radar for when we come back.

I will go to energy prices: I know that we have the energy assistance package, which Senator Storer mentioned just before. As I mentioned in a speech earlier today, that idea came from Centre Alliance back in 2017, when we were negotiating the tax enterprise bill that gave tax cuts to businesses with a turnover of less than $50 million. So I find it interesting that the bill mentions one-off payments, because it's not a one-off payment; this is an ongoing payment, and it's an ongoing payment because of a failure of government policy. When we negotiated that particular payment with the government, we did so on the basis that people needed help with their electricity bills, their energy bills, whilst the government sorted out our energy problems.

Since that time, we've seen an EIS proposed, we've seen a clean energy target proposed by Professor Finkel, we've seen a NEG, we've seen a NEG plus and we've even seen a big stick waved around, but there have been no changes, which means we now have to make this payment. So I think that payment, that bill, is the most stark evidence that the Senate can possibly have that there has been a total failure in energy policy, in electricity policy, from this government.

And it's not that the Senate wouldn't have supported a NEG. I think we could have got there. There was some debate about whether or not the emissions would use the Paris targets or 35 per cent or 60 per cent—whatever the Greens were proposing. That could have been dealt with. The problem was the coalition couldn't get it past their own party room. In fact, I recall Prime Minister Turnbull did get it past the party room and then a week later, for some reason, just backflipped. Then a week later he was no longer the Prime Minister. So that's a signal in the budget that there's a real problem.

Finally, I'll just wrap up with concerns about GST. It appears that South Australia will lose out on $517 million of GST. We've got a hole in the South Australian budget—a punishment to the South Australians. I remember being in this chamber when we were talking about GST and trying to make it absolutely fair. Of course, we needed to appease the Western Australians. We needed to give them more GST.

How did that work out for them?

Well, I guess it worked out well for Western Australians. But it didn't work out well for South Australians, Senator Gallacher—I take your interjection. That's another big problem, and that's something that I undertake to address when we do come back, perhaps in the next parliament.

So, summing up, I think the budget has some goodies in there. I am keen to see what Mr Shorten will offer and what his plan is as well, as the electorate will be watching. I'm grateful for the infrastructure spend, but I don't think it's well targeted. We have to do better; we have to plan our infrastructure better around the projects that will get this country moving along and get South Australia moving in the right direction. We've got to make sure we promote our regions in South Australia—the Mount Gambiers, the Riverlands, the Whyallas, the Port Piries, the Cedunas, the Port Lincolns. In order to do that, we need to invest properly. We need to have a plan. So it's a reasonable job by the government for most of Australia, but I think South Australia has actually missed out here, and that's of major concern to me.

I present all committee reports listed at item 18 on today's Order of Business.

I present additional information received by committees relating to estimates.

I present additional reports from the Standing Committee on Appropriations, Staffing and Security and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

I present additional information from the Community Affairs References Committee.

I present, on behalf of the minister, five government responses to committee reports.

I move:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Monday, 13 May 2019 at 10 am, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets.

Question agreed to.

The federal seat of Petrie is home to many hardworking Queenslanders who want a hand up in life, not a handout. Petrie is represented in this parliament by one of the hardest-working Australians I've ever had the good fortune of knowing, my friend and colleague Luke Howarth MP.

During the six years that Luke Howarth has been a federal member, he's been fighting for locals and delivering for locals. The Bruce Highway has been upgraded. The Gateway Motorway has been upgraded. The Moreton Bay Rail Link has been built. The Rothwell Roundabout has been fixed. Boundary Road has been upgraded. The Dolphin Stadium has been built. Luke has fought for funding to install CCTV, keeping the community safer. There have been environmental projects, such as solar for local community groups. Of course, there is more funding for schools and hospitals. Luke Howarth is a hardworking, honest man who is delivering for his community. He is exactly the sort of person we need in parliament because he is exactly the type of person who fights for the people of Petrie.

Bill Shorten's candidate for Petrie, Corinne Mulholland, doesn't even come close. She has no real-world experience, having worked for politicians and now the council for her entire career. She was campaigning for a year whilst still employed by the council. She was campaigning for the Labor Party on a cushy, six-figure, taxpayer-funded council salary. Worse, as detailed by The Sydney Morning Heraldon 13 September last year and by the Brisbane Times on 7 November 2018, the Labor candidate is connected to allegations of cronyism and corruption within the council. As the Herald notes, Ms Mulholland controlled much of the mayor's diary and oversaw the council's events and marketing operations. This is the same council that is now under investigation by the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission. I call on Ms Mulholland to come forward and detail—

Order! Senator O'Neill, on a point of order?

I think it is a shame that at this time of the evening we're subjected to this tirade from Senator McGrath. He's making all sorts of allegations in an outrageous way. I think he should withdraw the allegations he has put.

Firstly, Senator O'Neill, unless you can correct me, I don't gather that anything unparliamentary has been said. I will say that it is not uncommon for adjournment speeches to deal with similar subject matter. I didn't hear anything unparliamentary. I'm happy to be corrected if there is something—

I agree that it really wasn't worth listening to, but I believe the senator accused somebody of being corrupt.

On the point of order: I said there were allegations.

That's low.

Senator O'Neill, it's not unparliamentary.

What we're seeing, for those listening at home, is a protection racket from the Labor senators opposite who want to cover this up. I call on Ms Mulholland to come forward and detail her involvement in this dodginess. The allegations are circulating about her. Come forward and detail—

Order! Senator Ketter, on a point of order?

I rise on a point of order. I just note the clock has been reset.

I think Senator McGrath had about three minutes to go.

I'm disappointed, Senator Ketter. I could speak for 20 minutes on the mystery behaviour of Labor candidates. This is in addition to the hypocrisy of Bill Shorten's Labor candidate for Petrie on saving the North Lakes Golf Club from being sold to developers. It's an issue which the North Lakes community and Luke Howarth have been passionately advocating against. Luke Howarth has been on the community's side on this issue from the start. It was only since Ms Mulholland saw that the community groundswell was starting to grow that she got onside. This is really suspicious, because Ms Mulholland was previously suspiciously silent on this important community issue. Many have said that it may be due to her close relationship with the council.

The choice for locals in Petrie is between two polar opposites. There's Luke Howarth, who has been working hard and delivering for his constituents. Luke Howarth was a tradie who grew up in Bracken Ridge, who taught at the local judo club and has run his own business. It's Luke Howarth who understands the hard work that goes into providing for and raising a family. He'll always be there for the people of Petrie, making sure it's easier for them to get ahead. Or there's Bill Shorten's Labor candidate. The Labor candidate's been taking advantage of ratepayer money and working for Labor on the clock. The Labor candidate who's never worked outside of the—

Senator O'Neill, on a point of order.

Senator McGrath's getting a little excited, and I'm pretty sure he just accused—he didn't say the word 'allegation'—the Labor candidate of taking something, taking money.

I said taking advantage.

Senator O'Neill, again, if something unparliamentary was said, I'm happy to have the record brought to me. I didn't detect anything unparliamentary at that point, so Senator McGrath to continue.

What we're seeing opposite here is a protection racket. Labor senators are coming in to try and protect this poorly performing Labor candidate up in Petrie because they know that Luke Howarth is a brilliant local member and Luke Howarth is going to hold Petrie like he did at the last election. The arrogance of Labor—they thought they were going to take Petrie in 2016, and they didn't. There was a swing to Luke Howarth. I guarantee you, Mr President, there'll be a swing to Luke Howarth at this coming election.

The choice is here: you can vote for a Labor candidate with all these allegations hanging over her or you can vote for one of the hardest-working members in parliament, Luke Howarth MP. You can send a message to the protection racket over there, send a message to the Labor Party, and say: are you going to stand up for the real serving members of the community, not these fake plastic Labor people who come in here and get their jobs in the Public Service? Stand up for people like Luke Howarth because they're going to stand up for you. Thank you.

That was a very entertaining dissertation from Senator McGrath. But I speak on a very important matter. As Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I've learnt a lot in the last five years. I've learnt an enormous amount about this sector, this community, the people in it, the people who provide services in it, and we were engaged in what truly was a bipartisan effort to dramatically change the lives of people with disability. We've seen people's lives turned around through acceptance into the scheme and funding of their needs and aspirations. We've seen ageing parents relieved of an enormous amount of stress and worry because there is something in place for their children as the parents move into more fragile circumstances.

There is no doubt that the agency had an enormous task in front of it, and has improved on its delivery. We need to thank the workers at the NDIA who have worked so hard to make the lives of participants so much better. We've had wonderful assistance from the secretariat, a wonderful team that has resourced the joint standing committee for a couple of parliaments now. They do really great work. As a senator for South Australia, the member and senator contact officers at the NDIA have helped enormously with representations from concerned NDIS participants and members of the public.

Still, there is frustration with the scheme. Families, carers, service providers and those people in the NDIS workforce are under stress. There is a lot of concern about service delivery. There are providers who are concerned about a whole range of areas—some would even be construed as additional red tape, which is quite contrary to the mantra of this government.

I listened very carefully to Minister Fifield's answers to questions today about the use of surplus funds and the use of NDIS appropriations in balancing, so to speak, the budget. Nobody in the sector is casting any aspersions. It's entirely reasonable for governments to be prudent with taxpayers' money. But if you look at what the deputy chief executive has been reported as saying:

"Governments, of course, year-on-year, will look at expenditure and I could never guarantee to you in any year what a government would do," she said. "It (scheme funds) used to be our appropriation but scheme funds are now a Department of Social Services appropriation." This technicality, which essentially makes the department the postbox for NDIA money currently worth about $18bn, makes it easier for a government to obscure how much money has not yet been spent.

It is this money that contributes to a predicted surplus …

Very clearly, this is an accounting shift, if you like, and there are people within the scheme who are not very happy about it. And I can understand why. There are people who require 24-hour, seven-day-a-week support. Through my office, as late as last week, one such person was advised that there are no funds available. For a 24-hour-a day, seven-day-a week service, there are no funds available. There is a crisis allocation—there is a crisis process—and it is unlikely that the person will be in this dire situation, but that's what they were advised. There are people who have an audiologist and a doctor verifying that their hearing aid does not suit their hearing requirements, and under the scheme the decision is that you have to wait until it depreciates a bit further before it gets replaced. It doesn't make a lot of sense to people who cannot see their plan until it's been approved and, when it doesn't contain the things they need, are told they will have to go through a review process or that the funds which were made under a state or territory allocation are not available under the NDIS. It makes no sense to these people. Actually, it looks cruel and hurtful. The government will do what the government will do to balance their books, but the money in this scheme, properly and prudently appropriated for people with disability, should remain in that sector and be expended prudently, carefully and in accordance with the scheme guidelines, not shifted.

In an era of fake news, the ABC stands out like a beacon in Australia's media landscape. A public opinion survey by the Roy Morgan organisation is but the latest to confirm that the ABC is by far the nation's most trusted media organisation. For example, the survey found that, while close to half of all Australians—47 per cent, to be precise—distrust social media, just nine per cent distrust the ABC. Eighty per cent of those polled trust the ABC, telling the Morgan organisation that their trust is driven by its lack of bias and by its impartiality, quality journalism and ethics.

Australians expect not only for their ABC to be independent but for the national broadcaster's management and board to protect that independence. The events of last August and September—the sacking of Michelle Guthrie and the subsequent resignation of Justin Milne—at the very least undermine the confidence of Australians that the board and the managing director were defending the ABC's independence. Indeed, Mr Milne has acknowledged that he saw himself as a conduit between the government and the ABC. By his own evidence to the Senate inquiry into allegations of political interference in the ABC, which I participated in, and in interviews, he acknowledged his concerns about the impact on ABC funding of the reporting of some of the corporation's most senior journalists and of triple j's decision to shift its Hottest 100 broadcast.

In 2012, parliament passed amendments to the ABC Act designed to enhance the independence, integrity and transparency in the process for appointing directors to the ABC Board. This government has had a habit of ignoring the spirit of that legislation. Three appointees to the board by this government were not recommended by the independent nomination panel. A fourth was highly rated by the panel but then withdrew from the process, but was subsequently appointed by the minister. As evidence to the inquiry indicated, the approach to appointments by this government may have directly led to the problem centring on Mr Milne and Ms Guthrie. Only one member of the board had direct media experience. None, apart from the staff-elected director, had experience in public broadcasting.

Despite all that and despite the impression of many Australians that the government did put pressure on the ABC on many occasions, the Prime Minister again ignored the spirit of the appointment process, with a captain's pick for the position of ABC Board chair. Ita Buttrose does appear to be better qualified than any other recent appointment. But, in the circumstances, I believe it would have been better if she had gone through the independent nomination process. The fact that she was not approached does not necessarily point to deficiencies in the appointment process. It may well have been a consequence of deficiencies in the approach taken by the executive search firm. This is one reason I readily endorse the inquiry's recommendation to enhance the transparency and accountability of the nomination panel. Equally, I also endorse the recommendation to require the Prime Minister to table a statement advising the parliament on the extent and outcome of consultations with the Leader of the Opposition on board appointments. No process will be perfect, but the more transparency the better, especially in light of the events surrounding Mr Milne and Ms Guthrie.

I would like to take note of the recommendation in this report acknowledging the benefit and desirability of stable funding as a guard in part against political interference. The ABC would like a five-year cycle rather than a three-year cycle, and they may well be right. However, I believe it is even more important to guard against out-of-cycle cuts to the ABC budget. Since this government came to office in 2013, the ABC has had its base funding cut by at least $340 million, according to the MEAA. No organisation can plan for its future on that basis. In my view, it would be wise for the national broadcasters, SBS as well as the ABC, to make public their funding requirements ahead of the budget cycle. The government should be required to then respond. That would be no guarantee of certainty, but at least, if there were out-of-cycle cuts, the responsibility and consequences could be well and truly sheeted home. The ABC is the nation's most trusted and valued cultural institution. I sincerely hope that we will never see its independence challenged again by a government in the way we have seen in recent years and that the inquiry we undertook, in which we delivered a majority committee report, will help ensure that this is the case.

I would like to take the opportunity to note that that was perhaps the last contribution that we might hear in this place from Senator Storer. I know it's just a little over a year that you've been in this place, Senator Storer, and perhaps you haven't grabbed as many headlines as other people who sit down at the end of the chamber. However, while I wish you had voted with the Labor Party on every occasion, I think it's really important to note that your contribution to this place has reflected an incredible work ethic and a genuine and professional manner of communicating with all of your colleagues. Your thoughtful contributions to debate have really added to the work that we have done here in the Senate. Your final speech, still doing the work, standing up for what you believe in and putting forward your thoughts as part of the national debate for the historical record of the nation, is worthy of comment. I think you have been an embellishment to the chamber in the time that you've been here, and I wanted that recorded and noted.

I remind senators that legislation committees are scheduled to meet to consider estimates commencing tomorrow morning at 9 am. Program details will be published on the Senate website.

Senate adjourned at 22 :47 until Monday, 13 May 2019 at 10:00