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

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

I move:

That general business order of the day No. 24, Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019, be considered today at the time for private senators' bills.

Question agreed to.

In continuing my remarks in respect of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019, I'm reminded of some comments I made in my maiden speech to this place about how we were being thrust into a realm of competing rights, where we had to choose, in a new industry based rights policy, whose rights would prevail over traditional freedoms or traditional rights. Essentially the rights business is a zero-sum game. If you grant rights to an individual, they generally take from someone else's, because one has to prevail over the other. I regretted that that was the case when I made my maiden speech, but I notice it has become increasingly evident in the 13 or 14 years since then. It's a regret that we have to spell out and codify what we regard as our innate and unalienable freedoms in this country.

This bill has chosen a number of rights or freedoms that I believe the parliament should consider in the passage of every piece of legislation or regulation in this country. When I look at the speakers list, I know that the sympathy of many in this place will be with me, but a number of the speakers, I suspect, will be a bit pernickety and try and pick holes in the bill—about whether they should be called 'Australian freedoms' or 'unalienable freedoms' or we should find some other means of justifying opposition. But, in its essence, this bill merely asks the parliamentary resources to assess every piece of legislation through the prism of how it will impact what I consider to be unalienable rights in this country. They should really pass without too much demur.

Freedom of opinion is something that I would hope everyone in this chamber would support. Freedom of speech is a right that has hitherto always been taken for granted but has now been made subject to limitations by the weaponisation of well-meaning legislation such as the Racial Discrimination Act and section 18C. The right to life is probably the most contentious of these rights. We may all have differences of opinion about where life actually begins, but, ultimately, the right to life in this country is a support against the state taking the lives of its citizens. There is the right to protection of the family. The family is the great cradle from which our civilisation extends, so we're right to protect the family. Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are particularly pertinent today, as we are discussing and the government has proposed legislation in regard to protecting religious freedoms. That is not without inherent problems, because when you codify particular freedoms you also limit them. This bill will provide an elegant solution. When legislation comes forward it will be examined through the lens of how it will impact peoples' freedom of religion in this country. Will that legislation limit their ability to have peaceful observance of their thought or their conscience or their religious belief?

The right to protection from torture is something one might think is hardly necessary in this country, but that's because we take it for granted. What we've learned in the last decade or so is that what we have previously taken for granted has been under assault. That is true of nothing more than freedom of speech, as I mentioned before, and of freedom of opinion, which is subject to the thought police, as we like to call them. The prohibition of retrospective criminal law is another freedom, a freedom which I always took for granted in this place, and yet I've seen increasing amounts of legislation in which retrospectivity takes place. That includes cases where a government makes an announcement and says, 'From this date, such and such will be taking place,' before legislation has even passed the parliament or where it tries to backdate legislative penalties to cover up some omission that was overlooked, or some loophole that was missed, during the legislative process.

The only thing I'm seeking to do is make this parliament, the media and the public aware of the consequences, the potential infringements and the legislative process of the bills that are proposed by any government and of how they will impact upon their inalienable freedoms. Those freedoms—freedom of opinion; freedom of speech; the right to life; the right to protection of the family; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the prohibition of torture; and the prohibition of retrospective criminal laws—shouldn't be the cause of massive debate. There may be some freedom lovers in this chamber who are looking for a fig leaf to oppose this and will say it's going to increase bureaucracy or maybe add an additional cost to the legislative process. I would counter those arguments by saying that what we're proposing is a part of the legislative process which is already undertaken in respect of ensuring our legislation and our processes here comply with our international obligations under human rights law. We go through exactly the same scenario, where a group of individuals are tasked with informing the parliament about how a piece of legislation complies with our human rights obligations. So why can't we do that with the sorts of things that we have previously taken for granted, but I believe are under assault in this country: our unalienable freedoms? It's a reminder to lawmakers. It is an in-built discipline to say: 'Before we pass this, this is how it is going to impact upon your freedom of opinion, your freedom of speech, your right to life or your freedom from torture or retrospective criminal actions and so forth.' It is just a consideration. It will not cost a great deal of money. It won't make any substantive difference to a piece of legislation, unless it piques the conscience of the members of this place to say, 'Hang on a second, why would we pass this in its current form when it's going to impact someone's unalienable freedoms? Is the cost of doing this worth it, or can we improve it in some way to make sure that these freedoms are protected?'

I truly wish that a bill such as this was not necessary, but I believe it is more necessary now than ever before in our history. We are seeing this continuing battle about competing rights. There is an industry of rights: it is my right to do this, but that right should trump or transgress someone else's right not to. That is the realm in which we are thrust today. Rights have been weaponised. They have been used, misused and abused.

Let us look at what rights all Australians should share. I've tried to encapsulate them. Some of you may indeed say there should be additional rights attached to this. That's your business; I'm happy to accept your amendments. There may be some of you who say, 'These are not Australian freedoms; these are international freedoms, and we should embrace them.' I will take that amendment too, if that's what you want to do. But we have to take more seriously our responsibilities about protecting our way of life, about protecting the freedoms of individuals. The best way we can do that is to inform ourselves about how well-meaning legislation—or perhaps even not well-meaning legislation but any legislation—will impact upon the very principles and the fabric of our society that I've encapsulated in this bill.

I look forward to the contributions from other senators. I hope that this bill will meet with broad consensus and an agreement, and that the opposition to what I've proposed will not be too pernickety and merely an opportunity to dismantle what is well intentioned for the sake of political expediency. It is important that we recognise and we understand exactly how the passage, or the decisions, in this place are affecting individuals right across Australia and will continue to do so for many generations to come. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to rise this morning to speak on Senator Bernardi's Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019. The government will not be supporting Senator Bernardi's bill, in part because it will duplicate existing processes for assessing the compatibility of legislation with human rights and also because it arbitrarily selects some human rights over others as worthy of additional scrutiny and protection.

However, in speaking against Senator Bernardi's bill, I want to pay tribute to him for identifying a very serious problem, particularly in our human rights industry in recent years in this country, which is that many traditional rights and freedoms that we have valued and sought to protect for hundreds of years in Western societies have been overlooked and diminished in importance and, particularly in resolving the conflicts between those traditional rights and freedoms and other newer more fashionable human rights, it seems that traditional rights and freedoms have come at the expense of that, been diminished and not valued as they should be. I've personally experienced this in the last parliament. I was a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and it very clearly demonstrated the flaw of the parliamentary scrutiny process for human rights. What typically happens is that every bill considered by this parliament has to go to this committee to have its compatibility assessed against a range of international treaties that the Australian government has signed over the years. In theory that sounds like a good idea, but, due to the nature of some of the agreements we've signed over the years and the interpretation of those agreements, this committee has found itself in the bizarre situation of finding that very uncontroversial bills to modestly curtail the entitlement to some welfare payment are in contravention of the international human right to welfare—and other such examples.

No-one has said it better than my colleague from the other place Mr Julian Leeser, who gave a speech in 2018 after having been through this experience, which I'd also been through, as a member of this committee. Those who know Mr Leeser will know he's a very measured, considered, thoughtful member of parliament, who didn't come to the judgement that he ultimately came to about the human rights committee lightly but rather after the painful experience of being a member of that committee for a couple of years and seeing its flaws up close. He gave the speech in July last year, and I apologise to the Senate because I'm going to extensively quote from it because I think it captures very powerfully the flaws with the current arrangements. His proposed solution, in fact, goes much further than Senator Bernardi's proposed solution to this problem. When his speech was released publicly last year, I was only too happy to publicly support him and his call, ultimately, for the human rights committee of the parliament to be abolished.

Mr Leeser and I have disagreed from time to time on questions of human rights, particularly on the question of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and the way in which it impinges on free speech. We had a very robust debate within our coalition party room about that issue. Mr Leeser and I ultimately came to different conclusions on that. But, on this issue, we could not agree any more. He mostly focuses his critique on the human rights committee, but he doesn't spare the Human Rights Commission criticism either, and I think it is worthy criticism of that commission, particularly under its previous leadership, under President Gillian Triggs. Mr Leeser says:

The Human Rights Commission – an organisation designed to be one of our most compelling moral voices is under sustained attack because it is, and has pretty much always been, adventurous and partisan.

That couldn't be more true. In discussing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, he says:

I have served on this committee throughout my two years in this parliament. It is the single most unsatisfying aspect of my work as a parliamentarian.

That's a sentiment I endorse wholeheartedly. He goes on to say:

My critique is not of the individuals—

he also says it is not of the professional secretariat who serve the committee—

but of the structure and functions of this unusual committee.

He says:

For instance, Australians are probably unaware that while these treaties have no protections for freedom of contract or property rights - the rights on which our entire Australian legal system is based, these treaties do protect the right to 'enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications' the right to holiday pay, paid maternity leave; free education; the right to social security; and the right to an 'adequate standard of living'.

These things might be nice to have but really would most Australians consider them to be human rights? And more so than the right to property and freedom of contract?

I wholeheartedly endorse that. This committee focused so much of its time on entitlement to welfare—as an example—and so little time on entitlement to protection of property or freedom of speech or freedom of religion or freedom of conscience or freedom of association. I think it really shows in the work of the committee and the way in which it's been discredited. He goes on to say:

And the assessments—

of the bills—

are not made by Parliamentarians – they have been outsourced to bureaucrats in the name of the Parliament – and here lies the crux of the failure of this committee.

He notes:

… the Human Rights Committee operates differently to every other committee in the Parliament.

In fact, I do not believe it is truly a committee of the Parliament.

I believe it is a bureaucracy that has appropriated the name of the Parliament.

The Committee is about bureaucrats judging Parliament, rather than the Parliament judging human rights.

Often the committee's reports provide merely a collateral attack on the government's legislative agenda in the form of rehashed talking points from left wing and social justice groups that have no connection to 'real' human rights.

Every report finds fault with government legislation and even when you agree with the legislation and do not think the scrutiny report is fair you are told 'this is not about the rights or wrongs of the legislation this is merely a technical assessment of the human rights implications of the law.'

He goes on to say:

Dissent is discouraged and dissenters are ridiculed. Instead committee members just show up to rubber stamp a report prepared by unelected human rights lawyers.

He gives two specific examples of the way in which this committee has failed in its duty to balance rights appropriately:

Recently the committee did a human rights assessment of legislation relating to cashless welfare cards.

…   …   …

According to the Committee's report, the cashless welfare card trial 'limits the rights of social security, the right of privacy and family and the right to equality and non-discrimination'.

As Mr Leeser says:

This committee always puts the rights of the offender over the rights of the community.

To give another example the Government introduced legislation to require a minister to deny travel documents for a child sex offender who is on the register of child sex offenders with reporting obligations. The offender on such a registry cannot travel overseas without permission. The legislation is designed to protect the rights of children in foreign countries from abuse by child sex tourists.

But the committee report was more concerned with the offender's right to freedom of movement, the offender's right not to be separated from their own family members, and whether the prohibition of the offender’s travel amounts to a "criminal" punishment.

This particular piece of legislation and the human rights committee's assessment of it is probably the most damning indictment of the whole process of assessing bills for compatibility with human rights. It placed virtually no appropriate thought on the impact that this bill was designed to have in protecting innocent children from sexual abuse and instead concerned itself with the frankly much less important freedoms of perpetrators of these very heinous crimes. It perfectly encapsulates that failure of balance.

Mr Leeser goes on to call for the abolition of the joint committee. He says:

In abolishing the Parliamentary Joint Committee the Parliament would not be turning its back on human rights but it would be turning its back on the bureaucratisation of human rights.

I turn to Senator Bernardi's bill. Mr Leeser evidently very thoughtfully anticipated Senator Bernardi and others who might try to reform the parliamentary process on human rights. Mr Leeser said:

Some might say: "Why abolish the committee? Why not reform it?" The committee is beyond reform for three reasons first because it elevates treaties (and their interpretation by dubious bodies like the UN Human Rights Council) which have received little public debate such that every law is assessed against them. Australians have never agreed that the right to holiday pay or to the benefit of scientific progress are such important rights that they need to be elevated and given effectively such quasi-constitutional status.

It is one thing for Australia to report on its progress in implementing these treaties it is another thing to assess every piece of legislation against them. When we signed these treaties no one would have expected them to be used for this purpose.

Second equating real human rights abuses like massacres in Syria with asking a drunken sailor in Jervis Bay to take a random breath test, and calling the latter a breach of human rights cheapens the real abuses.

And third other committees are actually doing detailed work considering real human issues through orthodox committee processes weighing up evidence and submissions with committee members exercising discretion and making recommendations to improve legislation such that this committee's very existence makes a mockery of the Parliament's consideration of human rights.

As I said at the outset, Mr Leeser and I have disagreed from time to time on how we should protect human rights and the relative importance of human rights, but I think he's one of most thoughtful members of the parliament, and he didn't come to the conclusion lightly that a committee of the parliament should be abolished because it is so dysfunctional. So I appreciate very much where Senator Bernardi is coming from.

Organisations like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have not put emphasis on the traditional rights and freedoms. They have not stood up for freedom of speech, conscience, property, association or religious liberty and, whenever those rights come into conflict with other rights, they always seem to come off poorer. Those in the human rights industry are very fond of saying that no right is absolute. All rights are limited and, when rights clash, they have to be balanced against each other. But that balancing always seems to come in favour of newer rights like the right to nondiscrimination and at the expense of traditional rights and freedoms. So, when the right to freedom of speech conflicts with the right to nondiscrimination, the right to nondiscrimination always prevails. When the right to freedom of association comes into conflict with the right to nondiscrimination, the right to nondiscrimination always prevails. It's true for conscience, for religious liberty and for many other things.

But I want to end on a optimistic note. There is good news on this front, and that is that this government under Prime Minister Scott Morrison and particularly under the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, is not favouring the traditional human rights industry approach of always allowing new rights to prevail over traditional rights, and the best evidence of that is the proposed religious discrimination act, which the government has released for public consultation and which the Attorney-General has done an excellent job stewarding through to this point. I look forward to further improvements in that bill to better protect religious liberty and its closely related freedoms.

This is a bill which says that an ancient freedom like religious liberty is worth protecting, it is inadequately protected and it needs to be better protected in Australia. It's a bill which recognises that freedom of speech is an indispensable part of religious liberty, that you cannot enjoy religious liberty if you don't at the same time also enjoy freedom of speech and have the opportunity to share your beliefs about faith in the public square. It's a bill that recognises that people like me who have no faith at all—I'm personally agnostic—also benefit from the protection of religious liberty, because religious liberty is a freedom for all Australians; it's the freedom to hold belief, it's the freedom to have no belief at all, it's the freedom to change your beliefs throughout your life or to reaffirm your beliefs if you so choose and it's a freedom that we all benefit from having safeguarded and protected but which has been inadequately protected in recent years.

And I'm sorry to say that organisations like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I served, did very little to advance the cause of rights like this. When considering questions relating to religious liberty, freedom of speech or freedom of association, too often the committee overlooked or downplayed their importance and instead pursued other human rights. The truth is that the human rights debate globally has got off track from the real and serious human rights abuses that are still occurring in this world and that trouble all of us in this chamber equally, instead spending its time on the new frontiers of human rights, such as the international human right to broadband, when we have really substantive and systemic human rights abuses taking place.

Senator Bernardi is well within his rights and on solid ground when he draws attention to the flaws of our current framework for assessing compatibility of human rights. I think that has been a point well made by Mr Leeser and others. But I don't agree with the proposed solution, because essentially it duplicates the flawed processes that are already in place and makes an arbitrary assessment of the human rights that are worth protecting and those not worth protecting. For example, one omission is that it does not mention the prohibition against slavery. I'm sure it's just an oversight. But it's one among many in Senator Bernardi's proposed bill. For these reasons, the government will not be supporting Senator Bernardi's bill.

This private senator's bill, the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019, was introduced by Senator Bernardi on 23 July 2019. Labor always welcomes debate on important questions about how to better protect human rights in our nation and in the global community, and that's why we have a Human Rights Committee that scrutinises bills that come to the parliament. I have a different view to Senator Paterson on this matter, being a current member of that committee, and I find the work of that committee to be quite constructive and positive for our democracy. However, Labor will not be supporting this bill, for a number of reasons that I'll briefly outline this morning.

This bill proposes an amendment to the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 by elevating a series of particular rights, defined in the bill as Australian freedoms, and these 'Australian freedoms' would be enshrined as paramount over other human rights. In his second reading speech, Senator Bernardi declared:

As intended by our liberal-democratic predecessors, these prescribed, unalienable freedoms will be given priority over other human rights. Where competition or conflict occurs, these Australian freedoms will take priority …

Senator Bernardi appears to have taken it upon himself to use this bill to define, for all Australians, which human rights are important and which ones can be relegated to a secondary tier. This determination of the value of fundamental rights for all Australians is from a senator who led, until it was deregistered in June this year, a political party with one representative in parliament out of 227 members. I should add that the one MP representing Senator Bernardi's Australian Conservatives political party—Senator Bernardi himself—was elected to this place as a member of the Liberal Party. To be fair, his Australian Conservatives party did field candidates to increase their federal representation at the election in May. The fact that the Australian people chose not to elect a single member of the Australian Conservatives to either house of the Australian parliament is something that I think must be taken into account in assessing the extent to which the radical proposals in this bill can be seen as representative of the will of the Australian people.

Senator Bernardi's second reading speech on his bill is instructive. In that speech the senator spoke at some length about his usual fears and objections and loathing, including section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which for over 20 years has protected Australians and Australia from the divisive effects of racial hate speech. Yet, despite the support for section 18C from across the Australian community and the mere fact that two previous attempts to gut this provision failed, the federal protections against racial hate speech in section 18 are precisely the kinds of protections that would be undermined should this bill pass. The Australian freedoms which Senator Bernardi claims are being threatened by human rights and by protections against racial hate speech like section 18C and which would be enshrined as paramount in this bill are an eclectic collection. While Senator Bernardi cites the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a source of these Australian freedoms, some do not appear in that treaty. Rather, some of the paramount freedoms Senator Bernardi is seeking to import to Australia and elevate above existing rights appear to be inspired by rights associated with the hard Right of politics in the United States. Given that Australia has its own values, and that those values are not the same as those of the conservatives and religious Right of the United States, it isn't too hard to see why the Australian Conservatives political party established by Senator Bernardi was so comprehensively rejected by the Australian people at the ballot box just this year.

For example, one of the paramount Australian freedoms this bill would protect is the right to protect the family. This sounds like an important right, but it isn't clear that he is referring to the right of respect for the family, contained in articles 17 and 23 of the covenant. If he is, then I wonder if he is aware of the extensive jurisprudence around the right, some of which relates directly to family law and the need for laws to operate in the best interests of the child. But I expect the use of the word 'protection' in place of the word 'respect' is not an accident on Senator Bernardi's part. Perhaps he is seeking to import to Australia, through this bill, US-style rights to bear arms or perhaps he's seeking to import, through this bill, the US-style 'stand your ground' legal defence for killing intruders even when the taking of life isn't in any way necessary. If that's the case, how would that sit with the right to life, which is also included as a paramount Australian freedom in this bill? It simply isn't clear.

I would also add that the highly idiosyncratic approach to the protection of human rights that would be created by this bill includes a blanket protection of freedom of religion. If enacted, this would appear to cut across the work now being done by the government and the opposition regarding new laws in relation to religious discrimination in this country. Labor believes that the issue of religious discrimination is a very important topic. More generally Labor holds that all Australians should be free to go about their lives free from discrimination. Laws that prohibit discrimination are fundamentally laws about fairness, and the Labor Party is the architect of the antidiscrimination law framework in this country. I note that a number of concerns have been expressed about the government's exposure draft bill on religious discrimination, by religious and non-religious Australians alike. Labor believes it is incumbent on members of this place to listen to those concerns. Labor is continuing to consult widely with the Australian community about these concerns and we will carefully review the government's bill on religious discrimination in light of our consultations when the bill is introduced. If passed, this bill from Senator Bernardi would cut across this very important consultation with the Australian people about religious discrimination. For this, and a host of other reasons, Labor will not support this bill.

Just as the Labor Party won't support this bill, neither will the Australian Greens. Senator Bernardi, in framing this legislation, has simply cherrypicked his favourite rights—the ones he thinks should be prioritised against and over other rights—and he's stuck them into this piece of legislation in what can only be described as a thought bubble. So, newsflash for Senator Bernardi: balancing various rights, particularly those which may from time to time fall into conflict with each other, is an extremely complex task and that is why in Australia we need a charter of rights.

Ultimately, the rights of Australians ought be embedded in the Constitution but, as an interim step, the Australian Greens are suggesting legislating a charter of rights because we remain the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have some form of legislated or constitutionally enshrined charter or bill of rights. And of course what that means is that parliaments, driven by governments, can continue to erode the fundamental rights of citizens in Australia, and that is exactly what is happening.

Before I explain how that has happened in recent times, let's go back a couple of decades and think about the over 200 pieces of legislation that have passed through state, territory and Commonwealth parliaments in that time which erode fundamental rights and freedoms in Australia. The overwhelming majority of those pieces of legislation that erode those rights and freedoms that Australians have in the past fought and died to protect and enhance have been delivered by both major political parties because there is a bipartisanship on national security matters that is driving this erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms. We are walking down a dark and dangerous path to a police state and a surveillance state in this country, and we are being taken there by the collusion between the ALP and the LNP.

More recently, in fact within the last month, this chamber has passed draconian ag-gag laws. They were again passed with the support of both major parties in this place—in the case of the Labor Party, in direct contravention of the platform they took to this year's election, which made it very clear that Labor were promising not to support ag-gag laws. And yet, within a few short months after polling day, the Labor Party came back into this place and supported extremely draconian ag-gag legislation.

This is important because we are seeing on our streets a significant rise, a blooming, of civil disobedience as more and more Australians take to the streets and demand real climate action from their leaders, from their governments and from their parliaments. And good on them for doing so, because the major parties have had their fingers in their ears for far too long on this issue of climate change and on the issue of protecting nature. We are in an emergency situation. We are facing calamity within a few short decades—potentially, sooner—unless we act to reduce emissions radically.

That's what the people on the streets are telling us. They are telling us to be honest about the emergency. They are telling us to put in place policies that bring our emissions down on a radical downward trajectory. And they are asking us to make sure that the transition—and there has to be a transition—is a just transition, that we do everything we can to look after people along the way.

So we're seeing the environment movement growing, the climate movement growing and the movement to defend wilderness and protect nature growing, and yet major parties in this place are doing everything they can to make protests illegal. We see it in Queensland: absolutely draconian anti-assembly legislation, straight out of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen handbook. This was brought in by a Labor government. We've seen in Tasmania draconian anti-protest laws that were actually knocked down, in part, by the High Court last year, after former senator Bob Brown took an action in the High Court to challenge those laws. And we've seen the ag-gag legislation passed through this place within the last month that criminalises the use of an internet site or a phone service in order to encourage peaceful protest on private land or on public land leased to the private sector.

So the Labor and Liberal parties know very well that they've lost the popular battle over their climate policies. People do not want to see new coalmines built, yet the two major parties both support the Adani mine. People don't want to see the 356,000 hectares of high-conservation-value Tasmanian forests that the Tasmanian parliament agreed in 2013 should be put into national parks and reserves logged. But the Labor and Liberal parties both support the industrial strip mining of those forests—a crime against the climate supported by both major parties.

So free speech and free assembly, and the right to peaceful and nonviolent protest, are under significant threat in this country. In state and territory parliaments and in this parliament we are seeing laws passed which would make it more difficult for people to exercise their democratic right to have a say and their democratic right to peacefully protest. And as the movement grows, as the climate movement blooms and as the movement to protect nature swells in number, we will see these laws more and more regularly come into conflict with the actions of ordinary Australians. That's whether they be elderly people who are saying, 'We helped to make the mess, now we've got to be part of cleaning it up,' or whether it's younger people who are saying, 'We are not prepared to sit by and let you steal our future without a fight.' All of those people and their actions—their good actions, their selfless actions—are being placed at risk by collusion between the LNP and the ALP to continue to remove fundamental rights and freedoms in this country.

I say to the major parties: you can pass all the laws you like in this parliament but you're not going to stop the civil disobedience that is growing exponentially in Australia, where people stand up and say, 'Enough is enough!' They stand up and say, 'No new coal, no new gas and no new oil extraction.' They are standing up and saying, 'No more strip mining of our native forests for woodchips.' They are standing up and saying, 'We're in a climate emergency. We're in a biodiversity crisis, and we demand action.' The number of people participating in those actions on our streets will grow and grow and grow until the major parties in this place start to pay attention.

But I'm sorry to say, the major parties are a long, long way from paying attention on these issues, and that's why the movement will keep growing. That's why you will see more and more people getting arrested. And I support them in what they're doing, because they are taking these actions not because they think it will benefit them but because they understand that we're in an emergency and they want to see policies put in place that look after future generations, whether it be looking after nature, protecting wilderness, keeping the carbon in the forests, keeping the coal, oil, and gas in the ground, telling the truth and being honest about the calamity that we are facing unless we take strong action. Those are the messages that are driving this increased civil disobedience. And no matter what draconian laws you pass, ultimately the people are going to win this one. The vested interests, the corporate donors that buy so many outcomes in this place through their dirty money and their dirty donations, are going to lose ultimately, because when enough people take to the streets, the major parties will have to listen. And I look forward to that day.

I say again for Senator Bernardi to cherry-pick these rights and try to insert them into this bill is an insult. It's an insult, for example, to the refugees who are still exiled on Nauru and in PNG. It's an insult to those people who, for 6½ years, have had their liberties removed, their freedoms denied and their human rights trampled. We've broken people. We've seen people murdered. We've seen sexual abuse and rape, including sexual abuse of children. We've seen a terrible, dark, bloody chapter in Australia's history supported by both the major parties in this place, where people's rights have just been ignored and walked all over. Yet Senator Bernardi, who supported those policies every step of the way, wants to come into this place and set himself up as some kind of champion of rights. The Greens are not going to have a bar of Senator Bernardi's attempt to set himself up as some kind of rights champion. This bill doesn't do that. It might try, but it fails. What it does do is show clearly the kind of rights that people like Senator Bernardi want prioritised above other rights in this place. While we do need to have a discussion about how we prioritise rights in Australia, importantly, that discussion should happen while we are considering a charter of rights. The way to have the conversation about rights in Australia is in a respectful, calm and considered way, as we determine what rights should be enshrined and protected in a charter and how we should enshrine and protect those rights. So we won't be supporting this legislation, and I now move the following second reading amendment:

Leave out all words after "that", insert:

"The bill be withdrawn and redrafted to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms as outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

Australians for generations have been willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of the virtues of freedoms and the benefits freedoms bring to individuals, families and communities and, indeed, to the wellbeing of our nation. It's not by accident or coincidence that those countries that honour freedom are the envy of the world and the sought-after go-to destinations. One of our great freedoms is that if you don't like us you can leave us. That foundational freedom is denied to many. Senator McKim chuckles in the background. Do people have that freedom in Cuba? Do they have that freedom in North Korea? It is a most fundamental freedom, yet whenever it comes to a discussion of freedoms the Australian Greens can never bring themselves to criticise communist dictatorships. But I'm distracted. Let me repeat this: it's not by accident or coincidence that those countries that honour freedom are the envy of the world and the sought-after go-to destinations.

Not many people leave Australia and, if so, it's for reasons other than our body politic and it's not to live permanently in places such as North Korea or Cuba. It is, therefore, the duty of all of us in this place to honour, defend and advocate for the freedoms for which our forebears so selflessly sacrificed. I detect that this is in fact the motivation behind the bill brought to us by Senator Bernardi. It is a worthy, noble and much-needed commitment, to which this bill seeks to give expression—something to which we've got to recommit ourselves day after day to ensure that these freedoms are protected. So, in principle, I commend the bill and its intended purpose.

The party of which I have the privilege of being a member resolutely commits itself to what are described as the 'great human freedoms' in article 13 of our foundational document, which we believe Robert Menzies wrote. The document states:

WE BELIEVE IN THE GREAT HUMAN FREEDOMS: to worship, to think, to speak, to choose, to be ambitious, to be independent, to be industrious, to acquire skill, to seek and earn reward.

These are fundamental freedoms that were expressed some 75 years ago. In this, the 75th, anniversary of the formation of the Liberal Party of Australia, it is a statement which has withstood the test of time because it is so fundamentally important to our wellbeing. It is, indeed, in our every fibre as Liberals to support those freedoms that I just enunciated out of the Our Beliefs statement. They are freedoms which, yes, are Australian, but I would say to my good friend Senator Bernardi that, irrespective of us being Australians, they are of an even greater authority, being innate, universal and God given. So I say to Senator Bernardi: I know what you're trying to encapsulate, I know what you're trying to defend and advocate for, but freedoms are things which are innate. They are not Australian; they are, in fact, universal. They are God given; they cannot be given by government, because if they can be given by a government they can also be taken away by government. That is why we always have to keep in mind that these freedoms are not things to be played around with by governments or, indeed, for that matter, on occasion, by international bodies.

I can understand Senator Bernardi wanting an Australian discussion about freedoms, because on the international scene it has become somewhat sullied. Indeed, the currency has been demeaned. Have a look at some of the conclusions, so-called, of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations. How often do they condemn the only democracy in the Middle East—Israel—and yet stay stonily silent about Cuba or North Korea or some of the other countries in the world which we know oppress their people?

Indeed, how often do they have the courage to condemn China? And, when I say 'China', let's be very clear: I do not condemn the Chinese people, but I do condemn the communist government in China, a dictatorship which as we speak has about one million Uygurs in so-called re-education camps. Christian churches are being destroyed and Christian pastors impressed. Falun Gong followers are being imprisoned and, according to a most recent report, subjected to having their organs sold—just an absolutely shocking abuse of human rights.

And yet I say to those that contribute to this debate that I would have preferred commentary on those aspects rather than whether you've got a right to superglue yourself to a street in Brisbane because you're concerned about climate. Really, let's try to get some of these things in perspective—keeping in mind, of course, that, if you do use superglue, you're using a petrochemical product, which, of course, they wouldn't want for us to be producing in any event, so one wonders how they would be demonstrating without the superglue. But once again I move on.

I simply say in relation to China that, if you have a look at the current membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council, you see that, yes, China is a member, as is Cuba, as is Somalia. You can go through the list. So I share what I detect to be the concern of Senator Bernardi: that we have within the United Nations framework a group of countries that have got themselves or their representatives onto human rights bodies when they do not practice the most basic of human rights. And isn't it a great contrast? I thank Senator McKim for his contribution, because the right to superglue yourself to a street in Brisbane, can I say, really is a First World problem. It's a real problem, isn't it, in comparison to people who are facing torture, being killed, being put into re-education camps?

What, Nauru? The people you put there.

So let's try to get these things into perspective—and the silliness of the interjection about Nauru, which I will take. The people have freedom of movement. They are given, should they wish it, 30 years permanent residency in Nauru should they wish to take it. Indeed, they can even go to the United States, but do you know why some of these people don't want to go to the United States? It is because the welfare system in Australia is deemed to be better than that of the United States. Is that a real human rights issue? If the United States is good enough for, what, about 250 million people in the world, people that are genuinely concerned about body, life and limb might find it an appropriate place to live as well—not the forum shopping which is dressed up so often and, might I add, so cruelly in the terms of human rights.

When we talk human rights, we shouldn't be seeking to advocate the cause of those that seek to put the better welfare system between the United States and Australia as somehow the determinant of human rights. I would prefer to have a discussion about the death penalty, about the rule of law, about democracy, about religious freedom. They are the issues on which we should be concentrating, and I congratulate Senator Bernardi for bringing such an issue to us to debate and discuss.

I say to my friends in the Greens that, when you talk about increased civil disobedience and hoping there will be increased civil disobedience, you are, in fact, undermining the very fabric of civil society and a democracy, because civil disobedience in the case to which Senator McKim has been referring—namely, Extinction Rebellion, which some of us call 'extreme rabble'—is doing just that. By supergluing themselves to roads and by interrupting people, what they are saying is that their point of view is so important, so right, that they have a supervening right to disrupt people from picking up their children from school or dropping them off at child care and making them late for work—that somehow, they have the right to inconvenience everybody else within the community.

In a civil society, you can demonstrate and put your point of view. The great thing about Australia is that every three years our fellow Australians can pass judgement on the government of the day on whether or not they want them to be re-elected or they want a change of personnel and policy. Indeed, before 18 May the Australian Greens, along with Labor, were trumpeting that this would be the climate change election. They put it front and centre to the Australian people, saying that is what the election was going to be about. What did the Australian people decide? That a more moderate, considered approach was the appropriate one. Indeed, the Australian people made a choice between pain and gain. They asked: 'If we were to follow the Labor-Green approach to climate change, what would the economic pain be?' Of course, that was the question that Mr Shorten and the Greens could never answer and in fact refused to answer. You then move on to: 'Even if we were to implement those policies, what would be the actual gain for the environment?' We know what our Chief Scientist said. He said that, even if Australia were to close down all its CO2 emissions, the impact on the world environment would be 'virtually nil'.

Let's remember this about these people of civil disobedience that Senator McKim seeks to champion. Back in the early eighties there was civil disobedience in the streets of my home state of Tasmania against the construction of a renewable energy plant. When the people asked the question, 'Where are we going to get our energy and electricity from?' the great doyen of the Green movement, on the front page of his local paper, said, 'Easy: a coal-fired power station.' Can you believe that? Dr Bob Brown, head of the Wilderness Society, in opposing a hydroelectricity scheme, said the better alternative would be a coal-fired power station. Fast forward 30 years and where is Bob Brown? Campaigning against coalmining in Queensland. These people are not so committed to the environment as they are to disruption of our community and good commonsense policy.

I say, with the greatest of respect, that in this debate I am more than willing to discuss the issue of environmental policy and the way we should go. But, when people are being imprisoned in China by the hundreds of thousands—the estimate is a million—when Falun Gong followers are being killed and their organs are sold and when Christian churches are being pulled down and pastors are imprisoned, the Greens say the big ticket item for discussion is the civil disobedience on Australia's streets. Talk about privilege; talk about First World problems; talk about a disconnect with genuine reality! In Australia, these people have the genuine opportunity to advocate, to talk, to discuss and to put their point of view. All we ask is: be civil to your fellow Australians, be civil to society at large and allow them to go about their business. What right do you have to deliberately delay a mum from picking up her child from a childcare centre or a dad from taking his kids to school on his way to work?

There is, I suggest, a complete disconnect with the fundamentals here, and I would simply encourage those that seek to take part in this debate to consider the real, fundamental issues that we are discussing. When we are asked by the honourable senator opposite about the need to tell the truth, I would encourage him to consider some of the facts, some of the assertions, some of the hyperbole that is used in the climate change debate and not encourage people to disrupt their fellow citizens. I would encourage him and his fellow Greens senators to consider their position in this regard. With that said, I also remind him, when he seeks to cast aspersions on donations to political parties, which party was the beneficiary of the biggest corporate donation in Australian history. It was the Australian Greens—funny that! It was $1.6 million, if I recall, from one Graeme Wood, and that donation was personally negotiated by the leader of the Greens and Mr Wood, not through an intermediary, and then the leader of the Australian Greens at the time had the audacity to say to the Australian people that he would be forever indebted for that donation. Mr Wood, who made the donation, thought it was a good investment. Just imagine if the leader of the Labor Party or the Liberal Party were to have negotiated personally such a donation and then said, 'I am forever indebted,' and the donor saying, 'It was a great investment.' Can you imagine the outrage? That is where we get the hypocrisy, the duplicity and the double standards, day after day, from the Australian Greens. I think the Australian people are starting to wake up to it, and that is why, when the convoy led by Bob Brown went to Queensland, this convoy of southern superiority was so rightly rejected by the Queensland people, because they saw through the duplicity and they saw through the hypocrisy.

Returning to the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019, the sentiment is great, the sentiment is good, the sentiment is important. Human rights and those freedoms which we enjoy today are not as a result of parliamentarians sitting around in places like this; these freedoms were bought for us by the sacrifice of those that we commemorate across the avenue from this place, in the Australian War Memorial and its cenotaphs in nearly every single town and city around our nation. It was bought with blood, and we have a duty and an obligation to defend those freedoms, advocate for those freedoms and remember that those men and women who have sacrificed did so to give us the fundamental freedoms that I was able to read out, and I read them out again because they are so worth repeating. As Robert Menzies said in 'We believe':

The real freedoms are to worship, to think, to speak, to choose, to be ambitious, to be independent, to be industrious, to acquire skill, to seek reward.

With great respect I don't think the right to superglue yourself to a street in Brisbane, inconveniencing your fellow Australians, falls into any of those categories. It is a matter of regret that this debate has been subverted in this way and that our concentration has been taken away from the fundamentals. As a Liberal I stand very firmly behind paragraph 13 of 'We believe', which supports those fundamental human freedoms, the great human freedoms that we have enshrined in this country now for many years, and long may they continue.

Fundamental freedoms aren't given to us by governments, they are core to who we are, core to our status as human beings. For people of faith, they are not given to us by our fellow man, they are given to us by God. But the same is true whether one is a person of religion or not. Natural rights inform the development of the common law. The common law evolved slowly and cautiously, aware of the many human failings and frailties we bear, guarding against them and, in doing so, protecting us from a descent into a tyranny that has characterised places like Russia where, without the bulwark of the common law, it was all too easy to, in swift revolution, throw away years of history and implement a system that, while it might have had a bill of rights that promised to protect all kinds of things—things that on paper all sound great—in practice did not protect those things at all.

The common law has done a wonderful job of protecting us against that kind of tyranny. Under the common law, rights were protected. That's not to suggest it was perfect or that no person ever received a hard time—of course there are examples where things went wrong—but, for the most part, the common law has done an excellent job of protecting the rights of individuals against the imposition of the state. It's a really important distinction to make. Let's think about what was possible under the common law. Under the common law slavery was abolished, under the common law child labour was abolished and under the common law universal education was implemented. I could keep going with many more examples. No human rights instruments at international level were required in order to achieve those important protections. Indeed, the implementation of instruments at an international level has not better protected those rights since.

So it's important for us to think about what precisely we want done here. No bill of rights was needed for the Western tradition, stemming as it does from the United Kingdom, to secure the fundamental freedoms of the individual against the state. I notice that Senator Bernardi's explanatory statement for this bill says that it does not intend to establish an Australian bill of rights. No doubt that is Senator Bernardi's intention, and I know he cares deeply about individual freedoms—and rightly so; they are extraordinarily important. But I can't help but think, as I look at this bill, that it inevitably invites a bill of rights, with all of the problems that carries. It invites the expansion of the list of freedoms that he regards as important to include other things that might not have been included on his list, and it invites the expansion of the framework he has established to go beyond merely turning one's mind to these freedoms as laws are formulated and to include many of the other mechanisms that accompany a bill of rights, whether in the states of our country or in the governments of nations overseas.

Though it is well-intentioned and has its heart in the right place, this bill will, I submit, inevitably lead to a bill of rights. So we need to think very carefully about the implications of that. Why should we oppose a bill of rights? Why should we be cautious about implementing instruments that have at their heart these internationally derived agreements rather than the protection of fundamental freedoms in a way that reflects our legal development, our legal history and, indeed, our cultural history?

To understand that, I think it's helpful to go to a speech that the Prime Minister gave only about a week ago to the Lowy Institute. In it he talked about the relationship between Australia and its sovereignty and the international order—our bilateral, multilateral and United Nations-style relationships. He considered the way that there is a tension between the desire to act in Australia's sovereign interests at all times and the desire to seek the approval from international bodies who seek to monitor and approve and offer report cards on whether or not one is sufficiently meeting the standards set by these international bodies. The Prime Minister said:

Knowing who we are and what we stand for is as true today as it ever was.

We will continue to bring clear objectives and enduring values to our international engagement.

Freedom of thought and expression … of spirit and faith … of our humanity, including inalienable human rights.

Freedom of exchange, free and open markets, free flow of capital and ideas.

Freedom from oppression and coercion, freedom of choice,

These have never been more important.

And they are under threat, not just from the direct challenge of competing worldviews, but the complacency of western liberal democratic societies that owe their liberty and prosperity to these values.

Australia does and must always seek to have a responsible and participative international agency in addressing global issues. This is positive and practical globalism. Our interests are not served by isolationism and protectionism.

But it also does not serve our national interests when international institutions demand conformity rather than independent cooperation on global issues.

The world works best when the character and distinctiveness of independent nations is preserved within a framework of mutual respect. This includes respecting electoral mandates of their constituencies.

We should avoid any reflex towards a negative globalism that coercively seeks to impose a mandate from an often ill defined borderless global community. And worse still, an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy.

That is put so well, and it encapsulates the way we should approach these issues. We need to take care of the fundamental human rights of Australians—absolutely—but we shouldn't be doing it through the framework of that 'negative globalism that coercively seeks to impose a mandate from an often ill-defined borderless global community'. The language of the human rights industry, if I can call it that, indulges that error. After all, human rights sound fabulous. Who could possibly be against the idea of human rights? Everybody likes rights. Everybody lines up to collect their rights. What the common law does is understand that rights are balanced with responsibilities. We give to our communities as much as we take. So we need to think much more critically about how we're going to approach these issues.

I'll give you an example that comes from the international human rights field. There are international human rights instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that attempt to protect the kinds of fundamental freedoms that Senator Bernardi had in mind when he put forward this bill—ideas like freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. They are all noble, sensible and worth protecting. The idea that we should be free from arbitrary action by governments or free from torture are all most worthy, but they have in common the idea that they are protections from government action against the individual. Compare and contrast that to many of the other international human rights instruments that have followed. They cover matters as broad as rights to education, rights to health, rights to aged care, rights to child care, rights to all kinds of things. And while they are worthy things to have—education is worthwhile and health care is, of course, worthwhile; they are very well intentioned—they are very different in their character. They are demands for the provision of services by the state to the individual for a cost, which necessitates the redistribution of wealth; it necessitates the taxation of some people and the spending on others.

Those things might be worth doing in many circumstances—no-one would argue that Australia's healthcare system isn't worth investing in—but they've got a very different character to a fundamental freedom. Demands for services are not the same as fundamental freedoms, and yet in bills of rights we always find the conflation of these two types of conceptions of rights. They are really very different, but bills of rights jumble the two together. They confuse, I think in the minds of all of us, the role that is to be played by governments, and they, really quite importantly, necessitate the ranking of all of these different types of rights into some sort of an order. Whenever we say that there is going to be a bill of rights, someone—inevitably our judiciary—has to decide which of those rights prevail in circumstances where they clash, as they often do, and we go about ranking them

The overseas experience and the experience from the states of Australia that have legislative bills of rights show that the values that Senator Bernardi so deeply seeks to protect are almost inevitably ranked right down the bottom of the list when it comes time to order those rights in the hierarchy. And that should trouble us—it really should. But that's just one of the many reasons why we should be reluctant to go down the path of a bill of rights, which I suggest this bill, though it is well intentioned and doesn't look like a bill of rights now, inevitably invites.

Compare the constitutional structures of Canada and Australia. Both are federal systems; both share the English common law tradition, the Westminster parliamentary form of elected government—although Australia might be a little more Washminster—and a great deal of history, and yet there is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was brought into force in 1982 in Canada. It's a significant constitutional difference. Australia, pretty much uniquely in the Western world, doesn't have a constitutional or national statutory bill of rights. We should see that as a strength for Australia because a jurisdiction like Canada is, in my humble view, far worse for having it. And I'd suggest Britain is too with its Human Rights Act of 1998.

The case against bills of rights in a successful liberal democracy comes on many fronts, but at its core is that these instruments undercut citizens' participation in social decision-making. They transfer too much power to our judges, who, while they do a wonderful job, aren't elected and aren't accountable in the same way that our politicians are. The rights set out in these bills, even like the right to freedom of expression, the right of religion or the right to equality, annunciate very general standards about the place of the individual within society more broadly, and bills of rights offer us all an emotionally attractive statement of entitlements and protections in what are really vague and broad terms.

Up in the abstract sense of abstract rights guarantees, nearly all of us can and do support them. I mean, what sensible person would say they are against free speech or freedom of association or religious liberty? But the problem is that the effects of these bills aren't felt up in the heights of the abstract; they are felt down in the quagmire of detail, of where to draw the line when it comes to something like the limits of speech or defamation law or how speech should manifest in campaign finance rules, for instance.

Repeating the mantra that we have a right to free speech doesn't change the fact that, once we get down into the detail of drawing these lines, there is rarely consensus. Tough calls have to be made about where to draw these lines. Those who happen to disagree on where to draw the lines will disagree about and dispute how this and other rights should play out. And when those who happen to disagree with you can't be easily dismissed as unreasonable or morally blind or evil or in need of re-education—and they shouldn't—despite the sanctimonious sermonising of some people who bandy the term 'human rights' around so often and who most enthusiastically ask for a bill of rights, then the reality is that these things are not simple value judgements about who is morally good and who is morally bad.

It is quite difficult to draw the appropriate line for the limits of these really important freedoms. It is a fact that how rights should play out is debatable, contestable and not self-evident. But using a bill of rights means you transfer responsibility for drawing those lines from this place and the other chamber and take away responsibility from our accountable people who are engaging with those difficult questions of drawing these contentious lines, and the language of rights is used to shunt it off to our judiciary, where they are engaged thereafter in making political value judgements.

So, without a bill of rights in place these difficult, debatable social policy lines are drawn on the basis of elections, of voting, of letting the numbers count. With a bill of rights in place, judges decide. But they vote, too, don't forget. Four justices will beat the views of three. Victory doesn't go to the judge who writes the most movingly, who writes the most persuasively or who makes the most references to moral philosophy in their judgements. They form their own consensuses, their own voting structures, as they decide the limits of these very important rights.

What makes a bill of rights and its transfer of power to judges appear attractive is the unspoken assumption that the moral lines drawn by judges are somehow always the right lines, that a committee of ex-lawyers will somehow have a pipeline to wisdom and greater moral understanding than will people who are plumbers, secretaries, labourers or manufacturing workers. And that's not something I'm prepared to sign up to. Judges are good people, they have good experience, and I know they do their best in their job. But they don't have a monopoly on good morality, they don't have a monopoly on wisdom and they aren't accountable to the secretaries, the plumbers, the lawyers and the manufacturing workers of this country.

Australians should be very glad that we don't have a bill of rights at this point in time. To do so would inevitably politicise our judiciary as we ask them to make, day in, day out, political judgement calls about what the limits of the rights we have as individuals should be. So while I utterly respect the sentiment behind Senator Bernardi's bill and the sincerity with which he wants to protect these fundamental rights—which are, at their essence, matters of natural law, entirely worth respecting—I suggest that the risk it poses of taking us down a bill-of-rights path mean that we should in fact stand against this bill.

The government supports the desire to better protect the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Australians and understands that we need to remain vigilant in ensuring that it remains relevant this way. We recognise Senator Bernardi's longstanding credentials in this area, and in particular acknowledge his commitment to improving the protection of the freedoms that all Australians should enjoy as a matter of course. We understand the factors which drive Senator Bernardi's reform in this space.

As my colleague Senator Paterson said, there are some aspects of the human rights industry in Australia which push a perverse and out-of-touch agenda that is at odds with the expectations of ordinary Australians. However, the government does not consider the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019 to be an appropriate legislative reform mechanism. The bill introduces a new concept in Australian law, the concept of Australian freedoms. This appears to be a mix of some human rights, which it says exist under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, together with what are called constitutional and common law protection of property rights. It's not clear what the constitutional and common law protection of property rights include. Further, there's no clear explanation as to why some rights in the ICCPR have been selected to be Australian freedoms and others have been left out. For example, the bill says that the prohibition against torture is an Australian freedom but not the prohibition against slavery. The bill says that the prohibition against retrospective criminal laws is an Australian freedom but that the rights of liberty, equality before the law and the right to be held innocent until proven guilty are not. The bill includes the right to protection of the family as an Australian freedom, but leaves out the idea that men and women should have equal rights.

The government is not aware of any public consultation on this issue and, in the absence of that widespread debate, cannot accept that this list of Australian freedoms adequately represents or reflects the desires and interests of the Australian people. The government believes that the existing mechanisms for the parliamentary scrutiny of human rights are adequate. Under the existing law this scrutiny is done through the preparation of a statement of compatibility that considers whether any bill or legislative instrument that comes before parliament is compatible with human rights. What this bill would require is, in effect, for that scrutiny to occur twice. For any legislation put before the parliament, it would require a statement of compatibility to both whether the legislation is compatible with human rights and specifically to address whether the legislation is compatible with Australian freedoms. The government considers this approach to be unnecessary and duplicative. It introduces unnecessary red tape into the legislative process.

The most significant aspect of this bill is the idea that Australian freedoms should be prioritised over other human rights. The bill does this by requiring every statement of compatibility to explain how the protection of Australian freedoms is given priority over other human rights. In effect, this elevates some human rights above others. As a matter of principle, we can't accept that—for instance, that the right to freedom of speech should be protected over and above the prohibition against slavery. One of the government's key commitments is to ensure that all rights are treated equally. This position is consistent with international law, which says that human rights are indivisible and universal. This is why in part we have committed to introducing a religious discrimination bill.

As part of the Ruddock review, the government spent many months examining freedom of religion. This review was the most recent major expert consideration of human rights in Australian law and one which expressly took into consideration the principle that all human rights, including the freedom of religion, should be given equal weight. Notably, the report recommended that governments consider clarifying in antidiscrimination legislation the equal status of all human rights, including freedom of religion. The report even made a recommendation emphasising rights are equal and indivisible. Senator Bernardi's bill runs counter to this principle. That position was reflected in the submissions made by churches and other religious bodies on the exposure draft of the religious discrimination bill. Indeed, the equal status of human rights is something that has consistently been emphasised in our consultations on the religious discrimination bill and that we seek to achieve through the bill. For instance, in consultation on the religious discrimination bill the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and other churches called for explicit recognition of the equal status of human rights. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference said:

The 'universality' of human rights is well understood and the principle of freedom and equality in dignity and status of all is deeply entrenched in international human rights law, as well as Church teaching. 'Indivisibility' of human rights is perhaps less clearly understood, because there is a long tradition of debate about whether there is a hierarchy of human rights, in which it should be noted, freedom of religion is one of the core or fundamental rights. On the other hand, the World Conference on Human Rights convened by the United Nations in Vienna in 1993 declared that human rights are 'universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated'.

I'd also like to outline some sections from the Ruddock review, in which the equal status of human rights was emphasised and recommended. It read:

Commonwealth, State and Territory governments should consider the use of objects, purposes or other interpretive clauses in anti-discrimination legislation to reflect the equal status in international law of all human rights, including freedom of religion.

…   …   …

In the view of the Panel, human rights have the most work to do during times of change and uncertainty. While the Panel did not accept the argument, put by some, that religious freedom is in imminent peril, it did accept that the protection of difference with respect to belief or faith in a democratic, pluralist country such as Australia requires constant vigilance. Accordingly, it acknowledged the timeliness of the obligations under its Terms of Reference to look again at the protection of religious freedom and its relationship with other rights, which are of equal weight and significance.

…   …   …

Importantly, there is no hierarchy of rights: one right does not take precedence over another. Rights, in this sense, are indivisible. This understanding was absent from some of the submissions and representations the Panel received. Australia does not get to choose, for example, between protecting religious freedom and providing for equality before the law. It must do both under its international obligations. Sometimes this will mean one right will 'give way' to another, but this must occur within the framework provided by international law.

…   …   …

UN Charter–based mechanisms include the United Nations Human Rights Council, the subsidiary organ of the United Nations General Assembly responsible for 'promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner'. The Human Rights Council is required to undertake the Universal Periodic Review—a unique process that involves a periodic review of the human rights records of all UN member states, and which is conducted through an interactive discussion between the State under review and other UN member states. The Human Rights Council has also adopted resolutions on 'freedom of religion or belief' and on the 'elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief'.

In summary, prioritising the protection of Australian freedoms over other human rights may undermine some of the principles that underpin our democracy. Our extraordinary success in building a prosperous, multicultural and cohesive society rests in part on the idea that all human rights are equal in value and rests on our commitment to protecting them equally. This bill asks the Australian parliament to depart from that commitment. In the interest of all Australians, the government cannot put one human right above another. We have no doubt that Senator Bernardi's intentions are well meant, and we support the intent behind this legislation. Australians deserve to have their rights and freedoms protected, as he has sought to do. However, the mechanisms proposed by this bill cannot be supported.

I rise today to speak on the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019. This bill that we're discussing today seeks to amend the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act, which establishes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, so I am well across the important function that this committee has in scrutinising legislation that comes before this place and assessing it for human rights compatibility.

Within the original act from 2011 we have a list of what these human rights are. They are drawn from a number of international treaties to which Australia is a signatory, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the conventions on the rights of persons with disabilities.

What the bill that we're discussing here today seeks to do is insert a number of new rights into the remit, you might say, of what this committee would be examining. So, as per the bill tabled by Senator Bernardi, that would add in something that we will refer to today as Australian freedoms, being freedom of opinion; freedom of speech; the right to life; the right to protection of the family; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the prohibition against torture and the prohibition against retrospective criminal laws. I can't deny that the list that I just read out of Australian freedoms, that Senator Bernardi would like to insert into the parliamentary scrutiny act, sounds very sound to me. They are all things that we in this place debate, meditate on and reflect on when we are going about our work as senators. The government certainly supports the desire to better protect the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Australians, and we understand Senator Bernardi's drive for reform in this area.

As a government, we have demonstrated strong support for freedoms which are the focus of this bill today. Many members of the government have spoken publicly in support of these freedoms and rights. I count myself amongst that number, and in my maiden speech to the Senate I spoke about my concerns with the ongoing push to restrict freedom of speech in Australia in various different arenas.

There are many members of this parliament, both in this chamber and in the other place, who are concerned about attempts to reduce the ability of ordinary Australians, academics, religious leaders and anybody else to freely speak their minds and not to be punished or hauled before a tribunal or a commission for doing so. It's critical to the health of our democracy that Australians can, without inciting hatred or violence, have their say on the issues that're important to them, no matter how contentious these issues are. So I can perfectly understand why Senator Bernardi feels so passionately about the Australian freedoms, so to speak, that he wants us to be considering them in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act.

But the question that we have before us today fundamentally is how we should best protect these rights. And it's the view of the government that this private member's bill is not the best way to ensure that Australians have freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of religion. We can see in the contributions from senators on this bill exactly why attempting to legislate these freedoms might be problematic. We have Senator Bernardi today with this bill introducing it to protect Australian freedoms, including opinion, speech, thought, conscience, religion and protection of the family—all things that I fundamentally agree with. Then, on the other hand, we've had Senator McKim's contribution calling for a legislative charter of rights, and no doubt if the Greens and the Labor Party had their way then their legislative list of rights would look quite different to the ones that Senator Bernardi has proposed today. Although I may not agree with my colleagues on the opposition or on the crossbenches in that regard, I accept that a fundamental part of our democracy is that not everyone is going to agree on what should or shouldn't be considered as part of this bill. And that's why it's particularly problematic that we have this bill before us today, in essence attempting to bind us to certain types of human rights or certain freedoms above others.

As tempting as it may be for any particular senator or political party to legislate freedoms or rights which they believe are fundamental, we know that different rights and freedoms clash and that when making laws, as elected members, we are constantly having to balance one right against another and find an appropriate way forward. It's not an easy task but it is a fundamental part of our job.

Once you start legislating for more rights and freedoms, it's easy to end up having an opposite effect to what you intended. Rather than allowing parliamentarians to review legislation with an open mind and stand up for the values they believe are important, what we're really doing is further binding elected members to what we can and can't legislate for. While I absolutely agree that freedom of speech, to give one example, should be closely guarded and protected by this parliament, it's not hard to foresee that passing this bill could open the door for other members in future to add more and more freedoms and rights, depending on their own personal definitions which must be considered and prioritised, until we're at the point of spending our time navigating through a multitude of statements of compatibilities, more than we already do through the existing human rights process, rather than actually focusing on the things that matter to our constituents.

As an elected senator, I don't need this piece of legislation to tell me that a core part of my job is to stand up for freedoms in Australia and particularly freedom of speech. In being elected to this place, I know I have a responsibility to my constituents to legislate on their behalf. I'm sure the same goes for many of my colleagues on the government side and also on the crossbench. I have faith that the people of Australia will continue to hold elected members to account for standing up for these freedoms. I don't believe Australians want governments or political parties to erode their right to speak freely or censor the language they use or the values that they hold. That's why it's no surprise that on 18 May Australians again voted for the coalition government, which believes in the rights of the individual, in preference to the Labor Party, which has demonstrated throughout its campaign that it thinks it knows better than the average Australian. That's why the government doesn't consider the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019 necessary or appropriate. As I have mentioned, in raising some rights over another, you are in essence restricting our ability as parliamentarians to assess which rights we should be balancing and how that balance occurs.

I commend Senator Bernardi for standing up for freedom of speech and his intent to protect freedom of speech with this legislation. However, we can see that, with the right selected to be part of this bill as an Australian freedom, there is the impossibility of listing in legislation exactly what Australian freedoms are, and what one might consider as Australian freedoms today may not be considered as Australian freedoms in 10, 20, 30 or 100 years time. I certainly hope that freedom of speech will continue to be a fundamental freedom for all Australians, but rights evolve over time and rights change. For example, the bill says that the prohibition against torture is an Australian freedom, but not the prohibition against slavery. I'm sure we could all agree that freedom against slavery is an inalienable freedom that we enjoy in Australia, and the same goes for the rights of liberty, equality before the law and to be held innocent until proven guilty. But, as to whether this bill properly addresses all of those, it doesn't necessarily. Then the question is: should it? Should we be in the business of legislating what are and aren't human rights? As I have said, these rights can evolve over time.

Under the existing law, scrutiny of legislation from a rights perspective is done through the preparation of a statement of compatibility that considers whether any bill or legislative instrument that comes before parliament is compatible with human rights. Indeed, my role on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is to consider these reports as they come to us. What this bill will require, in effect, is for that scrutiny to occur twice. Any legislation put before the parliament would require a statement of compatibility to both whether the legislation is compatible with human rights and whether the legislation is compatible with Australian freedoms as defined in the bill before us.

We in the government don't believe that adding further layers and duplication to this process would necessarily achieve what Senator Bernardi is intending. While I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth, as I have said, it is certainly a noble pursuit to turn the parliament's mind to some of the freedoms that he's defined in the bill today, but one of the government's key commitments is to ensure that all rights are treated equally. The position of the government in this regard is consistent with international law, which says that human rights are indivisible and universal. This is why, in part, we've committed to introducing a religious discrimination bill that will put freedom of religion on the same footing as other human rights.

Prioritising the protection of selected freedoms and rights over others is a messy task and one which is likely over time to result in further adverse outcomes, no matter how good the intent may be. This is inevitably what happens when we try to raise some rights above others. All rights should be on an equal footing. While the government is sympathetic to Senator Bernardi's intent to ensure that Australians have their rights and freedoms protected, because that's what they deserve—and, as I have outlined today, I'm certainly sympathetic to what he is trying to do here—I cannot support the mechanisms in this bill to try and achieve that.

I too rise to speak on the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019. At the outset I'd like to commend Senator Bernardi for his contribution and for bringing these issues before the Senate. The rights and freedoms of all Australians are not self-evident nor self-sustaining. It's an important discussion that needs to be perpetuated in this place. On this side of the chamber we support the desire to better protect the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Australians. We also understand the drive behind this bill and the motivation to enshrine the protection of freedoms in the legislative process. How this can or should be done has been a debating point since before federation and probably in each and every parliament that has sat since 1901. However, we do not believe this bill is necessary for a number of reasons.

As members of this place, we've been elected to serve as representatives for all people of our states—to raise their issues, to stand up for their challenges and concerns, to aid them in their pursuits and to bring their voices to the nation's capital, which they feel at times is becoming increasingly distant. In my first speech I said that my role as a senator for Western Australia, as a representative of around 2.6 million people, is to provide equality of access to our democracy. It's our constituents which guide us in all our considerations in this place. They ground us. They remind us of the impact that the decisions we make here have on them, on their lives, on their families, on their own choices and on their freedoms and rights. They tell us when we get it right, and without hesitation they also tell us quite promptly when we get it wrong.

It's true that Australia has no bill of rights in the same way that the United States has. Despite much discussion at the federal conventions and conferences of the late 1890s, our founding fathers decided not to codify, with the exception of a few basic rights, a bill of rights in our Constitution. They left it up to us here in this place and to contemporary Australian society to reform and evolve over time. They recognised and understood that societal values, norms and opinions change over time—and so too the standards by which we assess, view and perceive freedoms and, in turn, how those freedoms should be reflected in legislation. They also understood that, if enshrined, it would be very difficult for them to mature over time, which would have left us with a situation, as we've seen in many other nations, where society moves on and the legislative and legal processes do not. It is our role as policymakers to ensure we maintain that balance. As a member in this place, I do not intend to abrogate that responsibility to another process. I intend to uphold my obligation to stand up when something isn't right and to ensure that legislation before this place reflects that balance, as I know each of us here on this side will.

With all of this, I also believe that this bill has a number of issues. Notwithstanding its noble intent—and I sympathise with and commend Senator Bernardi for bringing it forward—this bill introduces a completely new concept of Australian freedoms. It's a mix of human rights which exist under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights together with 'constitutional and common law protection of property rights'. I do not believe it is clear what 'constitutional and common law protection of property rights' means. Further, there is minimal explanation why some rights in the ICCPR have been selected to be Australian freedoms and others have been left out. For example, the bill says that 'the prohibition against torture' is an Australian freedom but the prohibition against slavery is not there. The bill says the 'prohibition against retrospective criminal laws' is an Australian freedom but that the rights of liberty, equality before the law and the right to be held innocent until proven guilty are not. The bill includes 'the right to protection of the family' as an Australian freedom but leaves out the idea that men and women should have equal rights. We're also not aware of any public consultation on this issue, and, in the absence of that widespread debate, we cannot accept that this list of Australian freedoms adequately reflects the desires and interests of all Australian people.

We believe that the existing mechanisms for the parliamentary scrutiny of human rights are adequate. Under existing law, this scrutiny is done through the preparation of a statement of compatibility, which considers whether any bill or legislative instrument that comes before parliament is compatible with human rights. What this bill would require is, in effect, for that scrutiny to occur twice. For any legislation put before the parliament, it would require a statement of compatibility to both whether the legislation is compatible with human rights and whether the legislation is compatible with Australian freedoms. This approach is unnecessary and duplicative. It's our role to take these matters into account through the legislative process, and we have ample opportunity to do that here in this place.

The most significant aspect of this bill is the idea that Australian freedoms should be prioritised over other human rights. This bill does this by requiring every statement of compatibility to explain how the protection of Australian freedoms is given priority over other human rights. As a matter of principle we cannot accept that, for instance, the right to free speech should be protected over and above the prohibition against slavery—a simple oversight I am sure. One of our key commitments is to ensure that all rights are treated equally. This position is consistent with and underpins international law, which says that human rights are indivisible and universal. This is a key reason why we've committed to introducing a religious discrimination bill, which will put the freedom of religion on the same footing as other human rights. We know that a bill such as the religious discrimination bill, which represents a significant change to how we've considered these matters in the past, requires significant consultation, robust discussion and debate over a period of time. Our extraordinary success in building a prosperous and cohesive society rests in part on the idea that all human rights are equal in value and our commitment to protecting them is equally. The bill asks the parliament to depart from that commitment. While we're sympathetic to Senator Bernardi's high-level intent—that Australians deserve to have their rights and freedoms protected; of course we are completely behind that—the mechanisms proposed by this bill cannot be supported.

It's the role of parliamentarians in a responsible parliament to balance human rights with our democratic freedoms, adjacent to community and societal expectations, and to ensure they are reflected in the work we do in this place on behalf of the Australian people. Let's not abrogate this responsibility. It is too significant to hand to another parliamentary process. Rather than a simple statement, the issues which this bill seeks to address must be the subject of perpetual and robust debate by all of us in this place.

I also rise this morning to make a contribution on Senator Bernardi's private senator's bill, the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019. In the short time that's available to me, I don't want to reprosecute what I think are the very compelling and comprehensive arguments that have been put by coalition senators in the debate this morning, but I do want to point to a couple of matters.

It's good to see that Senator McKim is in the chamber. I am someone who has served on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights with Senator McKim and, for a period, was the Chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. I don't want to recanvass the debate around the substance of Senator Bernardi's bill. To quote Senator O'Sullivan, 'The coalition supports its high intent but doesn't necessarily support the approach that Senator Bernardi has taken.'

That's not to say that it's a debate that we should end or shut down—not at all. I would argue that, if you look at Australian politics over the last few years, there's been a number of themes that are very, very consistent or top of mind in the attitudes of Australians. One is the pre-eminence of economic issues, and I don't think anyone would doubt that as a result of the federal election. The second I would talk to is the point that there is this increasing discussion, whether on the Centre Left or Centre Right of Australian politics, around human rights issues—or liberties, as some people like to call them.

This is an important debate, and some of us will remember that the last time we had a substantive debate on this matter was with regard to the section 18C debate with regard to how to rework or recalibrate discrimination laws in our country. Then, of course, an element of the marriage equality debate in this Senate chamber looked at how best to incorporate peoples' religious attitudes with regard to same-sex marriage, and I think that the parliament struck exactly the right balance by supporting that bill that was brought to this place in its original form.

I'd just like to focus my comments on a slightly different angle. I won't take up all of the Senate's time this morning, but I will come back to this point at a later juncture. I think there's a fundamental issue here with regard to the operation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. One of the functions of the Australian Senate that is universally poorly understood not only by senators when they first come to this place but also most definitely by members of the House of Representatives is the scrutiny function that the Australian Senate undertakes.

This parliament has three scrutiny committees. It has the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, it has the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and it has the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. What makes two of those committees markedly different from the third is that the first two of those committees are comprised solely of senators. The third committee is comprised of senators and members of the House of Representatives. Now, I don't want to be disparaging to members of the House of Representatives, and that's not how this next comment should be interpreted, but senators and members of the House of Representatives go about their duties in different ways, and they put different emphasis on certain elements of their responsibilities as members of the House of Representatives or members of the Senate. I think everyone would agree that senators conduct their scrutiny functions with a high degree of care and a high degree of diligence. I think, in addition to keeping top of mind the sentiment that Senator Bernardi has brought to the Senate on this bill, we should keep our mind open to the idea of making the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights a better scrutiny committee by having its composition made up only of senators.

Informally, when I was the chairman of the committee, I canvassed this idea with senators and members from other parties, and there's a reticence. They say, 'Senator Smith, we like the idea that it's got members of the House and senators because that means that these human rights issues are top of mind across the parliament.' Well, that might have been the intent, but I don't think that has been the outcome. Actually, it has not been the outcome.

The scrutiny function that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights provides is important. I am someone who believes that, if our country has signed up to international treaties, it has a moral and ethical obligation to uphold those treaties. That's why I would like to see perhaps the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties apply its consideration to these matters much more intensely—and perhaps we can modify the way that committee goes about its work. But my first point would be that if Australia has signed up to international treaties then it has an ethical obligation to uphold them. Secondly, I would say that the scrutiny function is not a function that every member of the Australian parliament understands, or understands well, and that that is a scrutiny function that properly falls wholly and solely on the plates of senators. Thirdly, it is important that the parliament's committee structure—whether they be Senate committees or joint parliamentary committees—does, where it is necessary, in very, very prudent ways hold executive government to account. That is exactly the reason why we have a bicameral parliament, which is exactly the reason why the Australian Senate has one of the most well-developed and well-regarded committee systems of any second chamber in the world. So this is an issue that deserves ongoing consideration.

Those senators who are interested in understanding how we got to a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights in the first place and how we got to this particular debate initiated by Senator Bernardi's private senator's bill might like to take themselves back to the Senate Hansard of 25 November 2011, when the Senate chamber first debated and agreed to legislate for the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010, which is effectively the legislation that gave rise to the joint committee. In that contribution, Senator George Brandis, who was at the time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—and I'm sure Senator Payne will correct me if I'm wrong there—talked very eloquently about why parliamentary scrutiny of human rights issues was important. My colleagues might be interested to learn that he actually supported the creation of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights. My final point—and this is why I think Senator Bernardi's matters deserve ongoing consideration—is that Senator Brandis suggested a wider definition of human rights matters when the proposition of a joint parliamentary committee was first brought to the Senate.

So there are a number of elements in the debate this morning. I agree absolutely with the comments of my coalition Senate colleagues that this is an issue that is worthy of development. The high intent of what Senator Bernardi is seeking to achieve does deserve further consideration; we are opposed to where we actually get to in the detail of his private senator's bill. I would encourage my Senate colleagues to think carefully about how they could add their voice to some of the ideas I have about how we could improve the scrutiny function of that joint committee. I believe it should be a committee of senators only. It is not an easy committee to serve and it is certainly not an easy committee to chair. But I think the attitude of all Australians would be that they like the idea of a committee of some type examining and reviewing how we uphold our international treaty considerations. With that, I'll reserve my comments for another time and seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Debate interrupted.

I move:

That consideration of government business order of the day no. 3, Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019 and a related bill, be postponed till after consideration of government business orders of the day nos 4 to 6.

Question agreed to.

I'd like to make clear at the outset that Labor senators support this bill. That's because there is currently a housing crisis in Australia. Today the percentage of Australians who own their own home has dropped to its lowest level since Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister back in the 1960s. Of course, it is young people, people in their 20s and 30s, who are finding it hardest to get their feet on the property ladder. In Sydney it takes more than 11 years to save for a standard 20 per cent housing deposit. In Melbourne it's more than 10. In Adelaide it's more than eight. In Brisbane and Perth it's more than seven, with similar high numbers in many regional centres around Australia. This is cutting generations of Australians out of the housing market. As research released by The University of Sydney last month revealed, whether someone owned property was the greatest indicator of someone's wealth. There are even specific ways to break up this system based on whether someone was an investor or a homeowner, a mortgage holder or an outright owner. The lowest, according to this research, was renters and the homeless.

It's not just first home buyers though who are doing it tough under this government. Today the number of people in Australia that are behind in their mortgage is at its highest level since the global financial crisis. This is extremely concerning given we are currently experiencing the lowest interest rates in decades. Yet when wages are flat and the cost of living continues to increase is it any wonder that Australians are struggling to meet their repayments?

Renters are doing it tough too. As a report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare showed just last week, in 2017-18 11.5 per cent of households spent 30 to 50 per cent of their gross income on housing costs, with another 5.5 per cent spending a staggering 50 per cent or more. Over one million low-income households were in financial housing stress in 2017-18. Today we have more homeless Australians than ever before. The last census recorded the number of homeless Australians as more than 116,000. This is just not good enough. There is no way to put a positive spin on this figure, as at least one member of the government has encouraged us to do.

The bill before us will enable the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, the NHFIC, to provide guarantees to improve housing outcomes and undertake research into housing affordability—what the government calls the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. The legislation does not address much of the detail and administration of the scheme and this will be handled through the investment mandate and developed by the corporation.

We know from the bill's explanatory memorandum and the government's other public commitments that the new scheme will allow first home buyers to purchase properties without the need to pay lenders mortgage insurance or meet the standard 20 per cent deposit requirement. Applicants will only have to provide a five per cent deposit. The scheme is to be capped at 10 per cent purchases per annum and eligible applicants must have earned less than $125,000 in the previous financial year as a single or $200,000 as a couple. The new scheme will be funded through the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As the explanatory memorandum makes clear, the scheme will require an update to the NHFIC's investment mandate and we understand that this will go through a process of public consultation.

This bill was considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Economics. Members of this committee supported the passage of the bill. Labor members of the committee provided additional comments to that report and highlighted some of the issues the government will need to overcome when implementing this scheme. The first was that this scheme may not increase the number of first home buyers and, instead, it will mean that first home buyers will buy properties sooner. This was supported by Mr O'Shaughnessy from the Australian Banking Association who said in oral testimony to the committee:

… I actually think there will initially be a slight bump in numbers—

Of first home buyers—

but, given the cap of 10,000, it will perhaps bring forward a number of potential borrowers who now qualify, where this product is suitable for them. That would be early in the first year of operation, and then I think it would very much settle. I don't think it will have a significant distortive impact on the market.

A similar view was put by Brendan Coates from the Grattan Institute:

It is unlikely to make much of a difference to homeownership rates for young Australians or house prices. Most of those taking up the scheme will probably have bought a house anyway.

As did Dr Fotheringham of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute:

As currently written, I think it will help accelerate people to homeownership rather than get to homeownership people who would not otherwise.

Let me state that increasing the speed at which first home buyers can buy a home is a good thing. Increasing the number of first home buyers would be an even better policy outcome. I don't think anyone in this place would disagree with that statement. Labor members look forward to assessing the scheme's development and implementation, paying particular attention to any evidence that there is an overall increase in the number of first home buyers as a result of this scheme.

The second point that is worth raising is that the bill in front of us does not have any real detail of the scheme. It does not include what the price caps will be. It does not provide any detail as to how this will change depending on the regional location. In fact, almost all of the detail of this scheme will be included in an updated investment mandate. The updated investment mandate was not provided to the committee as part of its work. What actually became clear through the hearing was that the government itself had not finalised the draft and all stakeholders were keenly awaiting its publication. While it's understandable that a lot of the detail of this scheme would be included in the investment mandate, it should not be beyond the ability of those opposite to provide the mandate for the committee and the parliament to examine together.

For these reasons, it's important that the scheme is properly scrutinised. In the next 12 months, the scheme could potentially be used to guarantee up to 20,000 purchases. The explanatory memorandum of the bill states that the scheme will be subject to a review in up to three years. We on this side think that this is too long, given the importance of housing for the economy and the struggles currently faced by first home buyers. That's why I have circulated an amendment in my name that will ensure this program is reviewed every 12 months. We on this side do not think this is unreasonable, and I hope the government and crossbench members will support it.

There's a simple rule about housing that was set down by Saul Eslake. He said, 'Anything that allows people to spend more on housing than they otherwise would has one effect and one effect only: people spend more money on housing than they otherwise would.' That's what the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2019 does. This bill will continue to inflate house prices beyond the reach of young Australians and add to the unearned pool of wealth for those who were fortunate enough to have already bought a property.

The answer to the problem of affordable housing is not to induce more demand, like this bill will do. The property bubble is reinflating now—despite a short hiatus—because, at the insistence of the Treasurer, credit rules have again been relaxed. That means there are more people at an auction with a bigger wad of debt approved standing ready to buy the same house. The property bubble is reinflating now because we continue with measures that give huge taxpayer funded handouts to developers and landlords at the expense of schools and hospitals—handouts like negative gearing and the capital gains tax concessions baked into our tax system, which make it easier to buy your third or fourth house rather than your first. So the big winners of this policy are the big banks and property owners. The losers are young people trying to get into the property market. And, of course, we all suffer when there's long-term financial instability.

What this bill will do is increase Australia's record-high personal debt of almost 130 per cent of GDP, which is one of the highest in the world. People can't save up for a deposit right now, because property is so overvalued in this country. The government covering the 15 per cent gap needed for a 20 per cent deposit will simply bring more people in to buy the same number of houses. That has one effect and one effect only, and you've guessed it: it means pushing up house prices even further. That means marginalising an even bigger group of young people than this policy would actively help to own their own home.

We keep hearing about it—we hear about it in this place too—that what we have to address is the issue of supply. Both sides of this chamber are holding out hope that the private sector will build so much supply that it will depress prices. Just think about that for a moment. You are hoping that developers will intentionally deflate prices and cut their own profits. Why on earth would they do that? They won't and they never will. Yes, part of the answer is supply, but it's supply driven by government investment. We need half a million new, publicly-built homes over the decade to meet the crisis—the lack of affordable housing. It's what the experts at the front line of the housing crisis are telling us. It's what many economists are telling us right now. Of course, that was the policy the Greens took to the last election.

We can afford to build these public assets. Don't for a moment be lied to by a government that refuses to invest in essential public infrastructure, because investing in public housing is a damn sight cheaper than the $325 billion of tax cuts that this government has passed, both before and since the election. And it would be a hell of a lot more productive as well. When you lower housing costs, people spend more in their economy. They spend more on productive assets rather than on property, which currently dominates their spending. Of course, we know that finance has never been cheaper for us to build a new, fairer, more decent society, an investment that will bring a financial and social return.

Creating this pipeline of crucial public infrastructure is what will help people on housing waiting lists. It will help the people who need community housing and, of course, the entire generation of young people who are currently locked out of the housing market. Let's not forget that over 100,000 people don't have somewhere to sleep tonight. Where is the government's action on the over 100,000 people who, on any given night, have nowhere to sleep? Of course we know that the people who are doing it toughest in this country aren't in the position to host a secret fundraising dinner for the major parties or offer post-ministerial employment, so they get forgotten. They're left to fend for themselves. We see a government creating a dog-eat-dog society where, if you're well-off, good for you, but if you need support, you're on your own. This bill doesn't even tinker at the edges of this crisis that stretches across society and across generations. It's a piece of legislation that is regressive and counterproductive. It's legislation that will push up prices further by artificially inducing demand, just like negative gearing and capital gains tax do for property investors.

I'll make this point again: we currently live in a nation that makes it easier for people to buy their third or fourth or fifth house than to buy their first. There are parallels with this government's approach to the climate crisis, where, rather than acknowledging that we have a problem and rather than understanding what the solutions to that problem look like, the government keeps finding new fuel to pour on the fire. We know that it'll be up to future governments and to future generations to put these fires out and to clean up the mess that's left behind.

We know why this policy is here. We know why we're debating it right now. In the heat of an election campaign, where a government refused to tackle the great challenges that face our country, we saw a spontaneous announcement thought up on the back of an envelope and dropped in the heat of an election campaign to put pressure on the opposition. Of course, in a rush to look just like the Liberal Party, the Labor Party supported it before the day was out, even though many of them, I know, because I've spoken to them, understood in their heart of hearts that this was bad public policy.

So my challenge to the Labor Party is to not take on the government by becoming like the government. Take a stand and make it clear that you stand for something different—something better, something fairer. Rather than supporting the billions of dollars in tax cuts, as you have been doing, and ensuring that one of the most regressive pieces of legislation passes this parliament, how about supporting the Greens' plan for massive investment in public housing to create half a million affordable homes and the investment that will flow from that as a result of the jobs that we can create in the construction industry? This will ensure that there is not one person in this country who's sleeping rough tonight and that a whole generation of young people benefit from the same opportunities that this generation has been able to enjoy.

This is the generation of politicians that got cheap housing, free education, affordable health care and a safe and stable climate. The challenge for us in this parliament is to make life better, not harder, for those young people who follow us. Instead, what we have is a policy that continues to screw young people over and make life harder for those people who struggle to find secure housing. Of course, the tragedy of this bill is not just that it does not address the crisis in affordable housing in Australia; it's that it make it worse. It's inflationary. It will make it harder for young people to afford their own homes. It gives no-one who's sleeping rough tonight the support that they need. That's why the Greens will be opposing this poor piece of public policy, and we hope the Labor Party will change their minds and join with us in opposing more legislation that screws over young people.

I rise today to welcome and support the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2019. This bill will amend the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018 to implement the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and establish a research function within the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, the NHFIC. The bill expands the NHFIC's functions to enable it to provide guarantees to improve access to homeownership and undertake research into housing affordability, including supply and demand. The bill also establishes the funding mechanism for scheme claims, and a standing appropriation will provide the NHFIC with the funds it needs to meet claims made on the scheme's guarantees as they arise.

Over the years, we've seen that it has become increasingly hard for first home buyers to save a deposit in order to purchase their first home. This government, the Morrison coalition government, understands the importance of Australians buying and owning their first home and understands that that is a noble aspiration that many Australians seek out. However, in recent decades, it has become more challenging for first home buyers to break into the market. As a young person who, with my husband, has been fortunate enough to purchase my own home, I know just how difficult that can be. Based on the median household income and a 15 per cent saving rate on before-tax income, it takes approximately eight years to save a 20 per cent deposit on a median priced home. That's a long time for a couple or a household that is ready to move into home ownership—where they have secure work and the ability to service a mortgage—to wait to purchase their home, purely on the basis of requiring that 20 per cent deposit, which we know many banks require.

Research indicates that the ability for prospective homeowners to save a deposit is a greater constraint on homeownership for first home buyers than their actual ability to service a home loan. I know from speaking to many people my age that they see the need to have that 20 per cent deposit as a significant inhibitor, particularly when in many cases these young people are already paying a similar or comparable amount of money in rent to what they would be paying in mortgage repayments anyway. But for the need to have that significant deposit, these young people are already in a financial position to service a loan. As a result, young people have to stay in the rental market for longer, taking up a rental property, when in reality they would prefer to be able to purchase their own home and free up a rental property for another couple or family. That's why the Morrison government is backing the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme established through this bill.

I'm very supportive of the intention of this bill to assist young first home buyers, particularly because, as I've said, I've recently gone through that process myself and I understand how difficult it can be. The scheme is designed to help first home buyers enter the market earlier and realise the goal of so many Australians to own their own home. The scheme will provide up to 10,000 guarantees per year to help Australians into homeownership by enabling eligible first home buyers to purchase a modest home sooner. Instead of saving the 20 per cent deposit that I've been referencing, they will only need to save for a deposit of as little as five per cent. The scheme will provide a guarantee on eligible loans for the difference between the deposit paid by the prospective owner and 20 per cent of the property purchase price, provided the borrower has met a minimum deposit of five per cent. We are by no means handing out free mortgages. There is still a requirement that any first home buyers will need to save that five per cent deposit before they are eligible for the scheme.

While many prospective first home buyers have the ability to service a mortgage, it can take a considerable amount of time to save that 20 per cent deposit—as I said earlier, about eight years on a median income for a moderately priced home. Of course, the alternative is that first home buyers, if they don't have that 20 per cent deposit, are instead required by the bank or their lending institution to take out lenders mortgage insurance. Lenders mortgage insurance adds to the cost of borrowing in that the first home buyer would be required to save the five per cent deposit plus the lenders mortgage insurance for the difference. Alternatively, often banks will permit the first home buyer to add the LMI, the lenders mortgage insurance, onto the mortgage as a whole. It sounds good in principle, but in reality all that happens is that the first home buyer ends up paying considerable interest on the lenders mortgage insurance, which is again just increasing the cost of borrowing by adding on to their mortgage repayments. That's why the government is supporting first home buyers and is helping them get into the market sooner.

We know that we can't rely on the big banks to help Australians get a fair deal when it comes to housing. I'm very pleased to see that action has been announced today to direct the ACCC to undertake an inquiry into the pricing of residential mortgage products after the banks failed to pass on the RBA's recent interest rate cut in full. While to the fullest extent possible we should allow markets to function without interference, it's clear that this is a market that has flaws and challenges. I believe there is a role for government to play to support Australians who may otherwise be locked out of the housing market to get into their first home, and that is fundamentally what we're try to do with this bill.

The amendments in the bill will apply from the day after royal assent and are subject to timing of the passage of the bill, allowing for the issuing of guarantees from 1 January 2020, so it's not too far away. Not only will this scheme be good for first home buyers themselves, it will also take pressure off the rental market and will hopefully further stimulate the building of new homes, which, of course, is a key component in housing affordability and creates jobs and apprenticeships in the critical building and construction industry. The scheme builds on the government's comprehensive housing affordability packages announced in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 budgets. The majority of the 2017-18 measures have been successfully implemented and include, for example, establishing the First Home Super Saver Scheme in the NHFIC.

The Morrison government has made a priority of helping Australians into housing, whether it's their own home or a rental property. We're doing that through measures such as this bill, which directly supports first home buyers, but we as a government are also contributing heavily in the range of housing options available to assist with affordable housing. In my own home state of Tasmania, the government has acted to support the unique housing pressures caused by economic and population growth in my state by freeing up the state's historic housing debt, to enable more money to be put directly into building affordable housing in Tasmania. As well as this, through the Hobart City Deal, the government has made a $30 million investment for the supply of more affordable housing for the Greater Hobart area. This funding will facilitate more than 100 new social housing dwellings across Greater Hobart and was greatly welcomed by the sector to help address the issues of housing stress being felt, particularly, in the state's capital.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the bill also gives effect to the government's election commitment to establish a research capability within the NHFIC. The bill sets out the framework for the NHFIC's new functions with the core details of the scheme, including eligibility and conditions of the guarantee as well as a research function to be set out in the investment mandate made under the NHFIC Act and issued by the minister. The research function will examine housing demands, supply and affordability in Australia, complementing existing housing related research. I think this is a really important area of research for the NHFIC to be looking into, to ensure that the government is responsive to the challenges of the sector that I discussed earlier in my contribution and that we have the information to hand to enable us as a government to make appropriate decisions to correct any issues in the housing market.

This government, the Morrison coalition government, understands that it's important to Australians to buy their own home, and it's important, particularly for young people that are looking to get out of the rental market and into the homeownership market, for that process to be easy. Obviously, a home is a significant investment to save up for, and we're certainly not saying that first home buyers should be able to enter the market without any requirement to save a deposit, but we recognise that the need for young savers to come up with a 20 per cent deposit before purchasing their own home is a significant ask, one that is acting as an inhibitor to some young people entering the market. As I've said today, it can take eight years for a first home saver to save up the money to do that, and that's why we as a government are addressing this through the establishment of the scheme that we're discussing here in this bill today. On that, it's important for this government to recognise this issue, and we have recognised this issue and put in place a process that will address this. I'm very confident that this scheme will enable many Australians to enter the housing market and achieve the dream of owning their own home. So I commend this bill to the Senate.

At the outset, I'd just like to advise the Senate that the work of the secretariat in this space on the Senate Economics Legislation Committee team is first rate. I commend the report to anyone with an interest in this space. It is exhaustive, extremely comprehensive and ticks all the boxes. As always, the ever-efficient staff have combined submissions and evidence taken in a very cogent, concise report.

We are in support of this attempt to get more first home buyers into the market. We are also supportive of an amendment that we have a much shorter review period than what the government has proposed. We do that for this reason. When we took the evidence from the Treasury and other parties, Senator McAllister vigilantly took on the officials from the Treasury and asked:

… At the time of the announcement, when this proposal was announced, Treasury had not been involved in the preparation of the scheme. Is that correct?

And the answer was:

… This was announced during an election campaign, and we were in caretaker.

She asked:

… So Treasury was not involved in undertaking work relevant to this scheme prior to its announcement?

The answer came back:

… Treasury were in caretaker mode, and, in that mode, we are not able to provide advice to anyone.

She then asked:

Noting your explanation, could you, for the purposes of the record, just answer my question: was Treasury involved in any way in providing advice on this scheme prior to announcement?

'No' was the answer from Ms Wilkinson.

We then moved on to QBE, a very large LMI provider. Ms O'Loughlin said:

… We weren't aware of it at the time of announcement. We saw the announcement, like everyone else did—

Senator McAllister asked:

… So no consultation prior to announcement of this scheme?

Ms O'Loughlin replied:

… Not prior to the announcement, but once the announcement came out.

So, the industry wasn't consulted and the Treasury wasn't consulted.

We went on to do an assessment of the 10,000 first home buyers. A key component of this scheme is to cap the scheme at 10,000 first home buyers. Apparently there are about 100,000 first home buyers in Australia and there are about 205,000 per year who use the lender mortgage insurance process to get into their new household. When asked about the figure, Dr Fotheringham from AHURI, which is a research organisation, replied:

… The 10,000 number hasn't come from any AHURI evidence. I suspect it's more about a scheme funding threshold rather than a demand threshold.

I said:

So the actual figure of 10,000 is not an identified research need; it's just something we decided to do.

And he responded:

… That's right.

I asked the Treasury:

… Can someone point to me the evidence where we arrived at a need for 10,000 as a total number of first-home buyers to target?

Ms Wilkinson replied:

… It was an announcement by the government, during the election campaign, of this program, and 10,000 was announced at that stage.

I responded:

… I understand what was announced. I understand that we support it. I just want to know if there is any evidence or research in the marketplace which underpins a need for 10,000 places, 5,600 places or 12,200 places.

Ms Wilkinson replied:

… That is not something that Treasury has looked at.

So we had an announcement made in the heat of an election campaign. I think it was in the last week of an election campaign. And, look, the opposition said, 'We'll do it as well.' Why wouldn't you try and get more first home buyers into the marketplace? It's a great thing to do. But what we've got here is a piece of legislation—which I think will pass this place, hopefully with an amendment about reviewing it sooner rather than later—that is entirely unclear.

There is no evidence underpinning the 10,000 places. There is no evidence from the Treasury about the need for the scheme in its entirety. When pressed on that issue, the Treasury said, 'We think about 20 per cent of the people who are currently renting properties in Australia would like to buy one.' Well, I think the number is probably higher than 20 per cent. But the fact is that it is capped at $125,000 for a single and $200,000 for a couple. If you do the sums on that, a single person can borrow a tad over $410,000 and a couple can go to $680,000 or $690,000, which will probably buy them something in every capital city outside of Sydney. So it's not underpinned by clear evidence and research, and it's not underpinned by advice from the Treasury or from industry.

Were we to pass this legislation, which we probably will in this next short period of time, the investment mandate, which actually contains the operational mechanisms of the scheme, will not be there. We haven't seen it. The industry haven't seen it. The investment mandate is completely obscured. We don't know what's in it. There's been no draft provided to the committee. There's been no draft provided to the industry. The investment mandate is being worked on for a scheme that comes into place on 1 January 2020. Last I looked, that's in a very short period of time.

Does that mean that first home buyers who know this is coming along will stop buying this year and wait until 2020? Then, we would have an oversubscription, so there would be losers. You don't get the government guarantee on your 15 per cent, so do you wait another 12 months? It's supposed to bring more people to the market. It's supposed to be a boost for people trying to get into their first home, and all of it is completely obscure. There doesn't appear to be any cogent advice from Treasury on it or industry on it. It was an election campaign announcement which is now going to be legislated with an investment mandate yet to be seen.

Once again, that's the calibre of this government. They do things in a very strange and unorthodox way. You would expect a scheme like this to come to the legislation committee to be tested and looked at in its entirety. That certainly hasn't happened. We're not opposed to new home buyers getting a leg up—that's entirely the way it should be—but we should have support from the other side about reviewing this scheme earlier, because there are plenty of people in the industry who are extremely nervous about what's going to come out of the investment mandate and who will be on the panel. These are all matters that are completely unclear. They're at the minister's discretion—they're not allowable or disallowable instruments, so this will pass. The investment mandate will get put out there, and we would hope it is beneficial in the aggregate to the housing sector and first home buyers.

I want to make some general context points about the issue of housing policy because we just had an election in May which you could describe, in some ways, as being a referendum on tax policy, especially related to two very flawed policies that the opposition took to the Australian people: one related to retirement savings and another one related to housing policy. The opposition's policy on housing was to introduce a new tax. I think their logic was: more tax equals more houses—I think that was their logic. But, of course, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of how life works would know that, if you have more tax, you will have fewer homes. Of course, our policy is to have fewer taxes and therefore more homes.

These housing tax policies, which the opposition took to the last election and are still their policies, were tested by various organisations independent of the government. One such analyst, SQM Research, said that Labor's housing tax policy would increase rents in Sydney by 10 per cent—Sydney, of course, in New South Wales. That's hardly surprising, because the last time Labor tried a housing-tax-like policy in the eighties, where they abolished negative gearing between the years of 1985 and 1987, you saw rents increase in Sydney. Of course, supply and demand and the iron laws of arithmetic are very hard to suspend, so it was quite extraordinary that Labor would take a new housing tax to the last election which they claimed would create new houses or would at least do something for housing affordability. You really couldn't make this stuff up!

As I mentioned, we hear that the Labor policy on housing taxes is now under review—we hear that there's a big review. Still, there's no white smoke, so we have to suspect that that's still their policy in its entirety. I again remind the Senate that the logic here from the Labor Party is: we'll put more taxes onto houses, which will make the houses more expensive to build, and that will create more houses. It really is quite extraordinary!

To now move to a more positive subject, our policies are consistent with our Menzian philosophy, and yesterday marks 75 years since the creation of the Liberal Party. Going back to the days of Menzies, the Liberal Party has always been about supporting the vast bulk of Australians to be able to afford their first home. We've always supported any measure that we could think of to encourage homeownership, because we understand that it is very important that people can get access to a first home. Having a roof over your head is a very important financial benefit, frankly. As an elected official, I'm not in the business of giving unlicensed financial advice. I know that there were a lot of politicians from the other side of the chamber who wanted to give unlicensed financial advice during the last election. Apparently some people were over-invested in Australian shares, and I won't be making that mistake. But it is true to say that having a home is a good thing for an Australian and for Australian families. That's why our policies, going back to Menzies, have always put emphasis on getting a home.

Beyond trying to keep taxes low, which of course we've been able to do in recent years—in the last parliament, we cut business taxes for small and medium enterprises. Of course, one of the first acts of this new parliament was to cut taxes for all working Australians. We think that your money, which you earn, is in fact your money, and you will do a better job of spending it than we will. Keeping taxes low is a very important principle, because if you want people to be able to assemble the capital that is required to purchase a first home, then you need to give them at least a fighting chance. Trying to give them more of the money they earn is a very good idea.

It is hard to get a first home. It is much harder than it was in decades past. Prices have increased significantly in large markets, where state governments have failed to build infrastructure and therefore there has been pressure on prices. Beyond trying to keep taxes low, we have decided that it was appropriate to unleash some initiatives to try to boost homeownership. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill provides that there will be 10,000 opportunities for people who can assemble at least five per cent of a deposit to then access the remaining 15 per cent, which takes them to 20 per cent, to have a first home. This bill, which sets out in detail how this will work, was an election commitment. As I mentioned before, this was the commitment given in the context of an election, where we had a very clear policy to improve the capability of people to get a first home. Our opposition was keen to impose a housing tax, which would have made it so much harder to get a first home at all. That's 10,000 guarantees per year, and this begins from January next year.

The private economy, which provides some form of lenders' mortgage insurance, has not raised any significant concerns with this bill. Their view is that this will not undermine that market, and it will be a complimentary activity. It will be targeted at people who genuinely have no other capacity to assemble the necessary 20 per cent which is often needed to get a deposit. That's how the guarantee scheme will work.

As I said, this policy sits alongside our general disposition to keeping taxes low and not imposing measures which are totally discredited, like the taxes that we saw during the last election, which is still the policy of the Labor Party, even though they failed to learn the lessons of 1985 to 1987. We've also unleashed in recent times the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which allows people to save up to $30,000 as an individual inside a superannuation scheme. If you are a couple, that means you could get $60,000 assembled in a superannuation account, which would be concessionally taxed and then released to you if you wanted to buy a first home—which could even be a block of land, let's say.

Going right back to Menzies we have been committed to keeping taxes low. We've always valued the idea of all Australians having access to a first home. We think it's a very important bedrock which goes right back to the Liberal Party's creation 75 years ago yesterday—and what a great contribution we have made to modern Australia. But this particular bill today, again, really is consistent with our ethos that we are on the side of working people, we are on the side of all Australians and we are prepared to set aside any commercial concern in order to do the right thing by the Australian people, because, although there may be some concern from some quarters in the banking or other financial sectors about legislation that comes before this place, we always take the view that we are elected by the Australian people and we will deploy targeted measures which are required to solve difficult issues. The problem of homeownership is acute in many ways in large cities, and so I think this is a creative solution which sits very neatly alongside the first home saver super scheme, which is also an initiative of this government. With that, I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak on the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2019. I'll say from the outset that we all know that our housing system is broken. In fact it is monumentally messed up; there are no ifs or buts about it. For many years we've gone from one news headline to another about the housing crisis only to be met with a very lukewarm policy response from the government. Here we are today with another one that will not work. Let's be clear: this government does not have an agenda to reduce homelessness, to pull struggling people out of housing stress or to make housing fairer for everyone. We are reminded of this again as we are here today debating this absolutely flawed piece of legislation.

We know that, for decades, governments of both stripes have treated housing like a commodity and created a system that works best for big developers, for the rich and for the big corporate donors. The federal government has shrugged off its responsibility to make sure that everyone who lives here has a roof over their head, has a place to call home. It's a national shame that over 100,000 people are homeless. We have a lot of catching up to do in this area of public housing. But, unfortunately, that's not what we are here debating today, because it's the last thing on the government's mind and agenda. They are too busy promoting housing as a portfolio. Responsibility for housing affordability has bounced between different departments. The cynical view this government has of our social services means that the housing crisis never gets the attention it deserves at the national level.

The entire housing debate is an exercise in political expediency. They're interested only in hollow promises they made on the campaign trail, and this is what this bill is all about. It is bad policy and bad economic management to encourage risky borrowing. If people can't afford to put a deposit down for a home, that means prices are just too damn high. The system is rigged, but we are not in here talking about that, and we should be. Why are we not here talking about that? It's because that's something this government really doesn't want to touch, doesn't want to debate. You may have the luxury of pretending that we don't have a housing crisis in this country, but many are struggling to find a place to sleep in, a roof over their head. They are struggling to pay rent, struggling to save for an ever-expanding deposit. Tax breaks that favour investors have dominated policy under one neoliberal government after another. We know that decades of Labor and Liberal tax policies have rigged the housing market in favour of their big donors: property investors, who can afford to play the so-called housing market; and big banks, who profit from mountains of mortgage debt. This bill is yet another attempt to appease the developer industry and big banks, further inflating house prices.

The reality is that the only way to support first home buyers is by dismantling this rigged tax system. The capital gains tax discount has encouraged wealthy investors to gamble on future price rises. Negative gearing has encouraged speculation, causing house prices to soar. By backing these policies for decades, it has been made easier for investors to buy their fifth property than for a young person to buy their first. We need to abolish these unfair tax breaks, like negative gearing, and phase out the deeply unfair capital gains tax discount. It's only by reforming our tax system that we can build a fairer housing system where an affordable home is a reality for every one of us.

The bill establishes a first home loan deposit scheme to be operated by the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. But that's about the extent of detail on the scheme that you get from reading this bill. Core elements of the proposed scheme are totally missing from the bill. There is no detail on funding appropriation, the number of guarantees to be issued or eligibility; no legislated annual caps; and no price cap on homes or loans that will be guaranteed. What's more, the government wants to leave this crucial detail of the scheme to non-disallowable regulation, which means that parliament will never be able to scrutinise the details of this proposed scheme. This bill is really an affront to those who do not have a roof over their heads. It is disgraceful that we are in here discussing this flawed and terribly drafted bill when thousands of Australians do not have a place to call home, and this bill will do nothing for them. What an outrage.

Housing is a human right. Everyone has the right to a safe, secure and permanent home. That is a basic need that everyone has. The federal government must show leadership in tackling the housing crisis. They must intervene to reverse the decline in social and public housing, and they can do this by making an unprecedented investment as is needed in public housing. We know that we need at least 500,000 new public homes in this country—actually, we needed them yesterday. Let's also not forget that this is the start of Anti-Poverty Week, and this government has refused to increase Newstart, despite calls from within its own ranks. We know that this government is intent on stigmatising people who have landed on hard times, who need support. It was only a couple of weeks ago that Senator Ruston, Minister for Social Services, attacked people on Newstart—so callous, so shameful. And what about rent assistance? Let's talk about rent assistance, which even the Productivity Commission has said has not kept up with rising rents. They have shown that two-thirds of lower-income renters spend more than 30 per cent of their income on rent—the commonly used benchmark for identifying rental stress—and half of those remain stuck in stress four years on. Why aren't we talking about increasing Commonwealth rent assistance today?

The 2016 census found that there was a 14 per cent increase in homelessness on the previous five years, with a staggeringly high jump of 37 per cent in my home state of New South Wales. We know that social housing has not kept pace with demand. It really is a big national problem that tens of thousands of people are still on public housing waiting lists. Public housing is a crucial part of our social safety net, but it has been eroded over time—not much investment, states and territories selling off existing public housing. We need to reverse this. We, at the federal level, need to take responsibility for this. But here we are: we have this bill that does nothing to address one of the most urgent problems facing the people who live in Australia today. The government itself admits, in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, that housing affordability has dropped in recent years. But, rather than addressing the actual cause of this problem, they are encouraging risky borrowing that could actually drive house prices further up. There is no doubt that this is a bill for their mates, the big developers and the big banks.

Everyone in Australia is paying the price of the housing mess we are in, but low-income households are being squeezed the hardest. A growing number of Australians are becoming homeless every year, and more and more are finding themselves in temporary accommodation. And this is all because successive governments in Australia haven't had the guts to make the bold policy decisions that are needed to fix the root causes and the real problems. We all know that policy is a really powerful tool and Commonwealth funding is a really powerful tool; but there is no help in sight for those struggling unless the government decides to use these tools properly and effectively. This bill is not the right policy for housing. The Greens will not be supporting this bill.

I rise to commend the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2019. As my colleagues have correctly stated, this was an election commitment. This is something that we took to the people of Australia at the last election and the people of Australia, by returning us to government, supported this particular initiative. It is an initiative that does not pretend to be a silver bullet. What it does seek to do is give the opportunity for more Australian families—in particular, young and lower-income families—the opportunity to enter the housing market and gain access to a mortgage even though they perhaps have not been able to save the 20 per cent deposit that is required to get a mortgage without requiring lenders' mortgage insurance. They will then be able to enter the housing market in a more advantageous position with lower total costs than would otherwise be the case.

What this bill does is provide the framework. Yes, Senator Faruqi is correct: a lot of the detail will be in the investment mandate. And I will get to why that is very important a little later on—why the investment mandate is the correct vehicle, rather than a disallowable instrument, in which the details of the program are to be contained. I will go through what this bill does. It enables the existing corporation, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, the framework under which it can implement the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme—the scheme we took to the Australian people at the last election. But also—and this is very important—it establishes a research function within the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to do some of the research work that is required to more wholly and completely understand what is happening within the Australian housing market and access to homeownership, which is a very fundamental part of the Australian dream.

The bill expands NHFIC's functions to enable it to provide guarantees to improve access to homeownership and undertake research into housing affordability, including supply and demand. The bill also establishes a funding mechanism for scheme claims. A standing appropriation will provide NHFIC with the funds to meet claims made on the scheme's guarantees as they arrive. The bill sets out a framework for the new functions with core details—including eligibility and conditions of the guarantee, and the actual operation of the research function—to be set out in the investment mandate, which of course will be issued by the minister.

The scheme itself will provide up to 10,000 guarantees per year to help Australians—in particular, young Australians and, I hope, young Australians in rural and regional Australia—to realise the great Australian goal of owning their own home. Owning your own home is a really fundamental path to economic security in this country; it has been for generations and will continue to be so. It provides a level of security throughout your life whether you are in the early stages of life—starting a career or starting a family—or in middle age or approaching retirement. Homeownership provides a level of security and stability that has been a hallmark of Australians' experience of their economic life. It remains a goal of many, many people in our society.

Facilitating younger Australians—my hope is particularly Australians in regional and remote and rural Australia—to gain access to purchasing power to buy their own homes when they do not necessarily have the ability or have not had the ability to grow a 20 per cent deposit is something that is very important. In recent decades it has become more challenging for first home buyers to get into the property market. That is something that we have seen over time, particularly in the larger capitals, but not solely in those areas. In parts of rural and regional Australia the 20 per cent deposit has also become a significant constraint. While many prospective first home buyers have the ability to service a mortgage, the time it takes to gain that 20 per cent deposit as savings is significant and it holds people out of the market for a lot longer than they would otherwise wish. As a result, the market has come up with a solution, and I do want to talk about this further as well: the lenders mortgage insurance. This developed over time, partly as a result of previous government actions many decades ago. A private market did develop, and it does provide an important provision for people to gain access to a mortgage when they do not have the 20 per cent deposit. Part of setting out the investment mandate, in consultation with those lenders mortgage insurance providers, is to make sure that that market is not significantly disrupted. I think one of the important things that came out of a Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry I chaired was that the lenders mortgage insurance market was comfortable that the 10,000 figure would not adversely affect the operation of that current lenders mortgage insurance market. I think that is very important.

I will, in passing, add my compliments to Senator Gallacher's comments earlier on the work done by the secretariat of the economics committee, in terms of putting together that report. I commend it to all those interested in this particular topic.

As I said, one of probably the two key issues that came out of that inquiry was the potential impacts on the lenders mortgage insurance market. They were very clear that they did not feel that the 10,000 figure would have a significantly detrimental impact on the lenders mortgage insurance market. It does enable people to gain access to the housing market when they don't have a 20 per cent deposit. It obviously does add a cost to the provision of a mortgage, but it is a product that is out there and that is utilised by a percentage of the market to gain access to a mortgage when they perhaps do not have the 20 per cent deposit that is required for a mortgage without insurance attached. I think that was a very important aspect that came out of the inquiry.

Probably the other aspect that was discussed most during that inquiry was whether or not the 10,000 and other details of the investment mandate should be either in the legislation or in a disallowable instrument. On first blush, I can understand where those views were coming from. On first blush, it sounds like a good idea—that it should be in the legislation or in a disallowable instrument so the parliament has some oversight of it. But, when you think about it in a little more detail, when you think about the potential level of uncertainty that that would place into this marketplace and when you have a government instrumentality through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation who is operating with a number of commercial entities, providing these guarantees to Australians seeking a mortgage, that level of uncertainty would potentially disrupt the market to a significant degree.

The investment mandate is something that actually needs to provide certainty to both the NHFIC board, who have to carry out their duties responsibly, and the market participants, who are obviously seeking to supply many of the mortgages with a full 20 per cent deposit but also access lenders mortgage insurance products through a second party. They need certainty in the provision of all those aspects of exercising functions and powers. That certainty comes not through a disallowable instrument but through an investment mandate provided by the minister which gives NHFIC and all the players, be they the banks, the smaller nonbank lenders and the borrowers themselves, certainty in the marketplace on how this is going to work, without the level of uncertainty that would come if it were a disallowable instrument.

For example, it is expected that the commercial lenders will have to make long-term commitments to participate in the scheme. Mortgages are not gone within a couple of years. For most of us—and I will include myself in this category—mortgages are something you take on for a long period of time, not just from the borrower's point of view but also from the lender's point of view, and they need certainty and stability in how those market rules will operate. Lenders expect and in fact need a level of certainty in the operation of the scheme and the manner in which any changes to the scheme are made. That certainty would be compromised due to potential delays and unpredictability in market conditions and the regulatory environment if the investment mandate were disallowable. It would also place NHFIC in an exceedingly difficult position and would lead them and their board to a great deal of uncertainty and impracticality. That would then flow on, obviously, to those who would participate in the scheme.

These sorts of ministerial directions are not unique. They're not something that we only see in exceedingly rare cases. Ministerial directions like this are completely consistent with the way ministers interact with corporate Commonwealth entities on a regular basis. To say there are no checks and balances in that process I think completely misunderstands our system of government and completely ignores the many opportunities that this chamber has, particularly through the Senate estimates process, to, for example, inquire into the operation of government agencies, including NHFIC. I think that the investment mandate is the correct instrument by which these rules are put in place. An investment mandate is required to be tabled in parliament. It is required to be registered on the federal register of legislative instruments. Again, this enables both the parliament and the public to hold the government accountable.

Once again, this was an election commitment. This is something that the Australian people, as part of a raft of measures, looked at when they chose who would govern this nation. I think that this is a vehicle by which younger Australians and lower income Australians—and, as I said, hopefully many of them are from rural and regional Australia—will be able to gain access to a mortgage at a slightly lower total cost of entry, and that is something I think we should all support. Thank you.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to make comments on the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2019. Let me first say that in support of Senator Hanson's decision to not vote on legislation other than critical legislation until the government has addressed the plight of dairy farmers, I will not be voting on this bill. Firstly, though, some background comments. Let's get to the basics. Housing affordability is deteriorating because of the exorbitantly high prices of housing. We are experiencing the world's greatest-ever resources boom, yet young Australians cannot afford homes.

Under Liberal-Labor governments, electricity prices have gone from the world's lowest to the world's highest. That is due entirely to UN policies that the Greens drive, Labor adopts and the Liberals follow. Under Liberal-Labor governments, tax has become a convoluted mess that is crippling and drives counterproductive behaviours across society. According to a New South Wales housing industry body, tax accounts for almost half the cost of a new house. Let me quote from housing and other industry bodies that were cited in a Sunday Telegraph article of 19 February 2014. That might seem like some time ago, but the article foreshadows the current mess. It was all so predictable. The article is titled 'Nearly half the cost of a new house is gobbled up by a range of "hidden" taxes and can add up to 250k per property'. It was written by Tim McIntyre, the real estate reporter for the Sunday Telegraph, and says:

The taxes make up 44 per cent of the price of a property, with the extra costs being blamed on a shortfall of new housing in Sydney.

"Most people are aware of things like stamp duty, but not the hidden taxes in housing," said Stephen Kirchner, research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies.

"The added tax can make the price unaffordable."

Mr Kirchner said the tax burden was contributing to a dwelling supply shortfall in NSW, tipped to reach a deficit of 55,000 houses in 2014, according to QBE Insurance Group's report Australian Housing Outlook 2013-2016.

A Centre for International Economics report found that taxes accounted for $267,879 of the average total dwelling cost of $639,533.

"Government taxes are forcing developers out of the market," said Peter Icklow, CEO of developer Monarch Investments. "I’m selling house-and-land packages for $500,000 each and then paying the government $50,000 for each settlement.

"That's after paying taxes all the way through the development process."

Mr Icklow said the introduction of the GST on settlements had all but crippled many developers. In addition to the GST, the hidden taxes severely affected the viability of developments.

Glenn and Pai Ferguson recently bought in the Ingleburn Gardens Estate at Bardia, in Sydney's southwest.

The affordability of a house and land there compared with their former suburb of Sutherland convinced them to move, but they were unaware that 44 per cent of the price was taxes.

"I had absolutely no idea," Mr Ferguson said. "It's definitely something that needs to be addressed. We need more affordable properties."

Personal taxes are also high, and that leaves little room for saving. And then governments waste our money. This is so infuriating for taxpayers. Last May—five months ago—I was in Mount Isa and I bought something at Woolies, and a middle-aged lady who was supervising the Woolies automatic checkout said that she works two jobs, sometimes three. She was staggered with the level of tax in this country. Worse, she was disappointed with Canberra's politicians wasting money. It just alarmed her, frustrated her and angered her.

Thirdly, we have unbridled and excessive immigration, driving house prices through the roof. So we have an increase in house prices and a decrease in people's ability to afford houses, through energy and tax and many other factors.

And let me dwell on a few other things that gouge people and hurt people and suppress people. We have the UN's Lima Declaration, which Gough Whitlam's Labor government signed in 1975 and Malcolm Fraser's Liberal-Nationals government ratified the following year, in 1976. That destroyed manufacturing and incomes. A friend of mine gave me three plastic bags. They were not the sort of plastic bag that the Labor Party uses to collect cash. But one was, in fact, an Aldi bag, which had been made in Germany, and there was a Woolies bag that had been made in Thailand and a Coles bag that had been made in Malaysia. We don't make cars here anymore. Value-adding industries are being exported. Jobs are being exported.

Then in 1992 we had the UN's Rio de Janeiro declaration for 21st century global governance, which Paul Keating's Labor government signed and which the Liberals have since implemented. We had the UN's 1996 Kyoto protocol, which John Howard's Liberal-National government committed to fulfil. They said they would fulfil the commitments under the Kyoto protocol for the UN. Subsequently, the Labor government, under Kevin Rudd, signed it. Then we had the UN's infamous 2015 Paris Agreement. In my office I have a copy of some 7,000 bilateral and multilateral treaties to which our Liberal and Labor governments had signed us as of the 1990s. Heaven knows how many have been signed since then. Does anyone know? UN policies, agreements, protocols, declarations and treaties are killing our country's productive capacity and making housing unaffordable.

Then we have the housing land stock, which is under state and federal government control. They withhold land and that drives up the price of land. Added to that is the high regulation in this country, which adds tens of thousands of dollars to the price of a home. Liberal and Labor governments are failing the young, failing farmers and rural communities and failing the middle class.

Liberal and Labor have been reluctant to manage and constrain the banks, as the royal commission recently showed so clearly. We need competition in banking. We need a people's bank, such as the one that worked so successfully from 1912 to 1923, until it started to be dismantled by successive Liberal and Labor governments. That was the Commonwealth Bank—a people's bank. It was killed because it was effective in providing competition to the private banks, just as is the case now with the state owned Bank of North Dakota, which provides loans to farmers, small businesses and individuals. It is one of the only banks—I think it might be the only bank—in North America that has made a profit in every year of its existence.

The basics for housing were in a mess. So what happened then? The government didn't address the mess or the basics. The government, as part of its 2017-18 budget, established the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. This was recognition, supposedly, that greater private and institutional investment was needed to expand the community housing sector and provide more Australians with access to affordable rental housing. Let's put a bandaid on it or put it on life support without addressing the basics!

The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation operates the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator to provide lower-cost and longer-term finance for community housing providers by aggregating their borrowing requirements and issuing bonds into the wholesale market at a lower cost and longer term than traditional bank finance. Because the government is doing it, there is less perceived risk to the investment, so the government enables lower interest rates. But, in doing this, it transfers risks from purchasers of bonds to the government—or rather, more accurately, to the taxpayer. The government says that the benefits of accessing finance more efficiently will allow community housing providers to reinvest into expanding the supply of affordable housing. This will, they say, help to improve outcomes for social housing and homelessness.

The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation also administers the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility. The National Housing Infrastructure Facility will provide the $1 billion to support local governments through a range of options to finance critical infrastructure designed to expand housing supply through, for example, special purpose grants for spending on transport links, power and water infrastructure and site remediation works.

This pair of initiatives has only been underway since March, when the corporations executives were appointed. Now we have a third part of the package: guarantees to improve homeownership. The guarantees provided by the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation on eligible loans will be equal to the difference between the deposit, which is at least five per cent, and 20 per cent of the property purchase price. Firstly, because this will drive up housing prices so high, those who did the right thing—young people who saved and parents who went as guarantors for their children—will pay more for housing. Secondly, there will be an annual cap of 10,000 guarantees issued, leading to 50,000 houses being guaranteed over the five-year forward estimates. Thirdly, eligibility requirements for applicants include that the applicant must be a first home buyer and an Australian citizen purchasing property in Australia, and they must satisfy an income test—that is, taxable incomes up to $125,000 per annum for singles and up to $200,000 per annum for couples earned in the previous year. Fourthly, there will be eligibility requirements for loans. A loan is eligible if the residential property will be owner occupied and the purchase price of the property is less than the price cap that applies in the area where the property is located. These regional price caps will be set with the view to ensuring, so the government says, equitable access to the scheme across Australia. This is an unknown future regulation at this time.

Let's look at what the bills committee had to say about this. The bills committee objects to this legislation on the basis that all the rules around the actual operation of the guarantee scheme will be non-disallowable legislative instruments. As such, there is no parliamentary security on this scheme. How can we accept that? We can't. Further, those rules are not provided with the bill, so we are voting to set up a scheme that we do not know how it will operate and over which we have no supervision. What could possibly go wrong!

Let's have a look at the big-ticket policy. Let's calculate a simple understanding of the cost of guaranteeing the purchase of homes. Remember, there are 10,000 homes a year, so over the five-year forward estimates that's 50,000 homes. The average price of a house is, say, $600,000. The difference between five per cent and 20 per cent, which is what the government is guaranteeing, is 15 per cent of $600,000, which is $90,000. When you times that by 50,000 owners, that's $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money at risk. I'll say it again: that's $4.5 billion of Australian taxpayers' money at risk. The Australian housing bond aggregator issues bonds backed by mortgages and then lends that money to builders to build more low-cost housing. As such, the Australian housing bond aggregator is on the hook for a reduction in the performance of those mortgages, which is also tied to housing valuations. By 2021, the Australian housing bond aggregator expects to be holding $1.25 billion in housing finance bonds. Is there a limit to how far the government will go to keep the housing bubble going?

What about the administration cost? The administration cost is $25 million over the five-year forward estimates. This distorts the market. This whole bill distorts the market. The federal Liberal government's liability is just going to keep going up and up under this system both in guarantees and construction bonds through the Australian housing bond aggregator. By tying the federal government up with direct financial exposure to the housing market, it is building in a failsafe so that, no matter what happens, the federal government cannot allow or afford the market to crash. This feels like the government is putting a safety net in place for a potential looming property crash. Homes that fall below mortgage value can be moved over to this scheme so that the federal government can give banks a 15 per cent buffer and prevent foreclosure. If values fall even further in a wider or deeper crash, then the effect of this will be for the federal government to wear 15 per cent of the original valuation of each property as a straight up financial loss so the banks don't have to. Nice if you're a bank! The actual effect will be to sustain irresponsible lending by banks, as they will know that they are not wearing the risk. The federal government is wearing the risk; the taxpayer is wearing the risk. In turn, that holds up values in an environment where the direction should be downward, driven by falling affordability and falling demand. Perhaps this bill should be called 'keep the housing bubble going a bit longer bill' and 'make the federal government and the taxpayer pay for the crash bill 2019'.

I trust nothing about this bill. People can either afford a house or not afford a house. Government intervention just makes housing more unaffordable, not less; it'll drive the price up. Let's get back to basics, where I started with this speech. Let's stop the lazy and dishonest Liberal Labor government. Let's get back to basics: Let's restore affordable energy to increase take-home pay, useable pay, discretionary pay. Let's restore access to water. Let's comprehensively reform tax so that it is once again fairer and efficient. Let's cut immigration to put downward pressure on house prices. Let's restore our country's productive capacity—lower house prices will follow and will be sustained.

I'm delighted to have the opportunity to rise to speak in favour of this bill, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill, this afternoon. In doing so, I note that this is the delivery of another Liberal-National government commitment made at the last federal election.

At the outset, I'd like to address a number of comments that have been made in relation to this bill by some of the previous speakers. Firstly, in relation to my good friend Senator Bragg from New South Wales: he is absolutely right when he says that homeownership, the right of every single family in this country to own their own home, was part of the philosophical basis of the establishment of the Liberal Party, and we're honoured to be in Canberra this week to celebrate the anniversary of the establishment of this great party.

Menzies, in his 'Forgotten people' speech, spoke about the importance of the family home—not just the bricks and mortar, but the spirit of the family as it's encapsulated in that home to engender that sense of family which is so crucial to our country. I should note that over the course of Menzies' time in parliament, homeownership materially increased in this country—more Australian families had the opportunity to own and live in their own home than was previously the case. And that is the aim of this legislation that is being considered here today.

In relation to the comments made by Senator Faruqi, I must say that I am always impressed with the sincerity Senator Faruqi brings to any debate, and there is no question whatsoever that she has a genuine concern for those in our community who need more support, be it from the government sector or non-government sector, and I do admire that. On this occasion, however, I must disagree, with respect, with a number of points raised by Senator Faruqi. I don't believe that the housing system in this country is broken. I think the evidence to that is to the contrary. There is no question that everyone—government at all levels, so federal government, state government and local government; non-government organisations; and people in the community—has an interest to make sure that every single person in this country has the opportunity to have a permanent roof over their head. I absolutely agree with that.

The government does, in fact, have a number of initiatives where it is supporting measures to assist the homeless in our country, and I'd just like to run through a number of these as part of this discussion. As I said, the government understands that having a roof over your head is crucial to the welfare of all Australians. The government is contributing more than $6 billion a year to support states and territories in that regard, and that includes $4.6 billion annually through the Commonwealth Rent Assistance program, more than $1.5 billion per year through the new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, and $620 million over five years from 1 July 2018 in dedicated funding for homelessness services. So there are measures being taken by the federal government to address homelessness in this country.

The other point I'd like to make in relation to the issue of homelessness in this country is that, and I believe this passionately, we should not bring ideology to this topic. It's a question of solutions to try and assist people the best way we know how, to give them the benefit of that homeownership. In my own home state of Queensland, the previous state Newman government had introduced what was called the Logan Renewal Initiative—one of the most disadvantaged communities in my home state of Queensland. Under that project, 2,600 units of public housing were being transferred to a non-government organisation—a community, not-for-profit organisation. Through that, it was expected that an additional 2,300 homes would have been constructed by that non-government, not-for-profit organisation to provide homes for those people who are on the public housing waiting list that Senator Faruqi referred to. Unfortunately, it was scrapped on ideological grounds by the Palaszczuk government when it came to power. And what was its replacement? The construction of 70 public housing units. That's it!

So there was a system where the not-for-profit sector could have been used and mobilised in this country. The local community in Logan and the good people of Logan are passionate about providing housing for the local people in that area, many of whom are new Australians and many of whom have fallen on hard times and need assistance. It was going to have had 4,900 public housing units, and what was the state government's answer in my home state of Queensland? Seventy—on purely ideological grounds.

The reason I refer to that is to emphasise my point that ideology needs to be taken out of this debate. On an ideological basis, there would be some who would say that the government shouldn't be involved in this at all. But why is the government stepping in through this legislation to provide assistance? In this regard, I want to come back to a comment that my good friend Senator Brockman made earlier in the debate, and that is that we have an opportunity, especially in this low-interest-rate environment, to assist potential first home buyers to make up ground and to build up their first deposit to 20 per cent. That is what this legislation is seeking to do. You've saved and you've got your five per cent, but you need an additional hand. You need an additional hand to get your deposit up to 20 per cent. We know there has been no better time—certainly whilst I've been alive—to service a home loan in this country than today. There has been no better time, with historically low interest rates. But if first home buyers can be given just that bit of a boost to put their foot on the first step of the ladder of homeownership then they'll do the rest.

I note Senator Roberts's comments with respect to this scheme. I'd simply say that we should keep it in perspective. We need to keep it in perspective. Last year there was a total of 386,000 residential property transactions in this country. What we're talking about here is providing assistance, with respect to a guarantee to cover that five per cent to 20 per cent margin, for up to 10,000 first home buyers a year. That's 10,000 out of 386,000—or, hopefully, 10,000 out of 396,000, because there'll be some people who'll be able to buy their first home who were not able to do it prior to this legislation coming into effect.

To summarise, I think this legislation does a number of things. Firstly, it provides that well-needed boost for first home buyers to enter the market for the first time and to achieve that goal of owning the family home. As I said, the research indicates, the facts indicate, that we're only talking about 10,000 out of a potential 400,000 property transactions a year. So, while Senator Roberts raised concerns about what impact this would have on market prices, I think the reality is that we're looking at a marginal impact at best. I'm quite satisfied that this bill does not offend any principle in that regard.

Secondly, research is part of the mandate of the corporation, and I think that that is absolutely fundamental to this legislation. We need the research to continue to look at housing affordability in this country, so I'm pleased that research will be part of the mandate, as it will be enacted in this legislation if it's supported by the Senate today. Thirdly, I think the legislation is measured and moderate. We're talking about the increment between five per cent and 20 per cent—it could be between 10 per cent and 20 per cent in some cases—and we're only talking about 10,000 transactions out of a potential annual pool of residential property transactions of 386,000 or 400,000 a year. So this is a measured and moderate proposal.

Fourthly, it's responsive to the regions, and as a senator representing the great state of Queensland, which is the most decentralised state in our Federation, I must say we need to do more. We need to do more to assist first home buyers to buy their first home in the regions. We need to do more to actually attract first home buyers to move from Sydney and Melbourne, where the property market is more challenging, and to take advantage of the great opportunities in my state of Queensland, especially in regional Queensland.

Last week I attended a committee in Mackay that was looking at jobs in the regions, and we heard testimony from the Mayor of Mackay during that hearing. He emphasised to us that in Mackay at the moment there are something between 1,200 and 1,400 job vacancies. There are opportunities in this country, and I believe that we need to do a better job of marrying up those people who are seeking the opportunity with those places where the opportunities exist. Hopefully, when the mandate is considered, and consideration is given as to where people will be residing—when they can take advantage of this incremental benefit to help them to afford a guarantee—that will be considered as part of the mix, because there are tremendous opportunities in regional Australia, including, in my home state, in Mackay.

Lastly, I note that there is provision for appropriate reporting with respect to how this proposal progresses. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation will be reporting annually with respect to the take-up of the guarantee and all of the other material information that we need to know with respect to the performance of this legislative proposal, including with respect to the outcome of the research which is undertaken within the mandate.

In conclusion, I must say that I'm delighted today to stand up and support this legislation. I'm delighted to support the government meeting another one of its election commitments and delighted to be part of assisting those first home buyers aspiring to homeownership to achieve their dreams.

I thank all senators for their contribution to this debate. This bill sets out the framework to enable the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to provide guarantees to improve access to home ownership for first home buyers and undertake research into the housing market in Australia. The 10,000 guarantees provided by the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation each year will enable eligible first home buyers to enter the housing market sooner.

The government wants to take the opportunity to thank stakeholders that have assisted with the development of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. The government has been working with stakeholders throughout the design phase and will continue to do so ahead of the commencement of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme on 1 January 2020.

The bill will be supported by an investment mandate consistent with existing arrangements. The government will provide broad direction to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation on the operation of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme through that investment mandate.

The bill also establishes the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's new research function into housing affordability in Australia. With this role the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation will embed itself in Australia's research landscape and assist in identifying and addressing existing research gaps. Both the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's new research function complement other housing measures introduced by the government, such as the establishment of the First Home Super Saver Scheme and reinforces the government's commitment to helping Australians achieve their goals years earlier. The bill is an important part of the Commonwealth's objective of making the dreams of first home buyers a reality, and I commend this bill to the Senate.

The question is that the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2019 be read a second time.

Are we dealing with the amendment circulated in my name?

We are dealing with the general vibe of the bill.

I'll leave it and wait for the amendments.

It being very close to 2 pm, I think the committee should report progress—

I could get up and sing a song.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The interjections are disorderly.

Point of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Were you seeking the call?

I was. I'm not sure if I have a 45-second point of order! Is there any other point of order?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: There is no point of order.

Progress reported.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Labor is deeply concerned about the Turkish military operation targeting Kurds in northern Syria and has called on Turkey to cease unilateral action. We are already seeing that the operation is further destabilising the region and worsening the humanitarian disaster in Syria and risks undermining progress against Daesh. Can the minister update the Senate on the situation in northern Syria and advise what action the Australian government has taken?

I thank Senator Wong for her question. As the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate would appreciate, this is a very fast evolving and very dangerous situation. Both the Prime Minister and I have made it very clear in our statements that the Turkish military action has grave consequences for regional security. Amongst other things, it will significantly undermine the gains that have been made by the international coalition in our fight against Daesh and, without question, Daesh continues to be a serious threat to regional peace and security, despite its territorial defeat. It will certainly cause additional civilian suffering, it will lead to greater population displacement and it will further inhibit the access of international organisations to those who are in need of international humanitarian support.

The shadow minister also asked a question in relation to Australia's engagement. Before the incursion actually commenced and as a clear response to the announcements being made by Turkey, I issued a statement on 8 October urging restraint by all parties to the conflict in Syria and calling for all involved to avoid escalatory actions and opportunistic actions that would cause further instability and add to humanitarian suffering. I directed the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to make Australia's views plain to the Turkish ambassador in Canberra and in Ankara. Last week, the Prime Minister spoke to French President Macron and, on the weekend, the Prime Minister and I both spoke with US Secretary of State Pompeo to discuss the situation with Turkey and in Syria. Yesterday, I spoke to my counterpart, the Turkish foreign minister, in a detailed and wide-ranging telephone discussion, repeating Australia's concerns, urging restraint and indicating the severe impact that this would have on the regional security situation and the security situation more broadly.

Senator Wong, a supplementary question?

I thank the minister for her outline of what the government has done. Whilst the military action has been launched by Turkey, it has been enabled by the decision of the Trump administration to withdraw US forces from northern Syria. I understand from her answer that representations have been made to the Secretary of State. Could the minister advise what representations were made to the US about the impact of its decision to withdraw forces from northern Syria?

I think it's very important to be clear about where responsibilities lie in relation to the impact of these military actions. Turkey is responsible for the decisions it has made in conducting this incursion. Turkey is totally accountable for the actions of its military forces and the militia groups it is employing. They are responsible for the humanitarian suffering they are causing through their military operations and they are accountable for the detention, custody and escape of any Daesh fighters. Our discussions with the United States concerned these issues and more, but it is not my habit, as you know and as the Senate knows, to go into the contents of those private discussions.

Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?

Reports indicate thousands of Daesh or ISIS fighters were being held—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order at the rear of the chamber! Senator Wong, please start again. I lost track of the question.

Reports indicate that thousands of Daesh or ISIS fighters were being held by Kurdish-led forces in northern Syria. What is the government's assessment of the consequences for the fight against Daesh of both the Turkey military action and the US decision to withdraw from the region?

As I said in my remarks in my response to Senator Wong's first question, we are very concerned about the impact that this military action by Turkey will have on the fight and campaign against Daesh. We know that we have achieved a territorial defeat of Daesh, and that is broadly accepted, but we also know, and Australia most particularly recognises given the vulnerabilities in our own region, that Daesh is more than capable of large bursts of energy and activity and continuing terrorist and violent extremist activity not just in the Middle East but also allied with other extremist organisations in our region and more broadly. So any action that enables their activity, that enables that engagement, is of concern to Australia.

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Senator McKenzie. Minister, can you please inform the Senate as to how the Liberal-National government is supporting farmers and communities across Australia who are currently experiencing prolonged and devastating drought? And how is the government building resilience against future droughts?

Thank you, Senator Davey, for your question. I know that it is something near and dear to your heart as a senator who bases herself out in regional New South Wales, where so many of our farmers are struggling with the drought. The Liberal-National government continues to stand with our farmers and regional communities as they struggle with the ongoing drought. We know that heading into summer the rain signs are not great, and that is why we're taking immediate action in the here and now, but we're also assisting communities and the agriculture sector more broadly to prepare for the future.

Support in times of hardship is part of what is needed to help farmers and their communities through these difficult times, which is why on 27 September, with the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, Minister Littleproud, the Prime Minister and I headed out to David Gooding's farm in Dalby to announce an additional $100 million worth of support to our drought-affected communities—radically simplifying the farm household allowance, its application process and its key policy settings; resuming the Drought Community Support Initiative, which puts $3,000 cash into the hands and onto the kitchen tables of these farming families; and extending the Drought Communities Program, making sure that 13 additional local councils can access $1 million to build local projects and, therefore, employ locals.

Firstly, for those here-and-now perspectives, we've got the farm household allowance, additional rural financial counsellors, the Drought Community Support Initiative, important mental health services, wellbeing support, concessional loans and generous taxation measures. Secondly, there are broader measures in the medium term. Thirdly, there are programs to assist the long-term resilience and preparedness, including our $5 billion Future Drought Fund. The message to farmers and our communities across Australia is very clear: we know that times are tough, but we will stand with you now and through the recovery.

Senator Davey, a supplementary question?

How will the changes to the farm household allowance that we've put through benefit and make it easier for farmers experiencing hardship to receive support from this government?

The farm household allowance was created with strong bipartisan support. In fact, it was actually an initiative of the Labor Party, although they only established FHA for three years in any given lifetime of a farmer. Since its introduction in 2014, over $350 million in FHA payments have been made to over 12½ thousand farmers going through financial hardship and their partners. On 10 September our government announced an independent review into the farm household allowance, and our response is being enacted on receiving that review. We'll be passing legislation through this place in coming weeks and months to ensure that our farmers have that radical simplification of the farm household allowance that they've been calling for, including a simplified asset test, including changing the time limit from four years in total to four in 10 years— (Time expired)

Senator Davey, a final supplementary question?

Finally, as the drought is ongoing and as it bites harder, what are the risks to both the agricultural sector and our broader communities if we do not assist the sector and the flow-on value add?

Our government recognises that farming in Australia is a long game and that governments can't make it rain. But what matters at the moment is that some of our farmers can't put food on their own table, which is ironic, because they're putting food on everyone else's table and clothes on our back. Supporting them in times of hardship is exactly what's needed to help our farmers and their communities through these difficult times, and supporting our drought-affected farmers and communities remains our government's No. 1 priority, which is why we have committed over $7 billion in programs. The wealth of our entire nation is generated across regional Australia, so it's not just these communities that are doing it tough. It's estimated that up to $12 billion will be the hit to our national economy because of the drought. Our farmers feed people across Australia as well as millions across the world. I and the rest of the government welcome bipartisan support for drought measures, particularly around the farm household allowance. I hope that continues.

My question is for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. In an embarrassing leak of the Prime Minister's speaking instructions for government members, it was revealed the Prime Minister's office is boasting that the government has 'a plan for an even stronger economy'. Why then has Deloitte Access Economics today—

Government senators interjecting—

Order on my right! I have a sense that I may need to hear the exact nature of this question. Senator Sheldon, please continue from 'why'.

Why then has Deloitte Access Economics today pointed out they expect economic growth to be below trend this year, much less than what the government forecast, and that wages growth has stalled?

I'm very pleased that Senator Sheldon read that very important information. I commend him and I hope he will distribute it to his constituents in the great state of New South Wales.

The point I would make is that the Australian economy continues to grow. It is one of just 10 AAA-rated economies around the world. It is AAA rated by all three major credit rating agencies. Under our government, we've created more than 1.4 million new jobs. Employment growth in 2018-19 was running at 2.6 per cent compared to a budget forecast of 1.5 per cent—significantly stronger. Of course, that has underpinned our stronger budget performance against forecasts over the last three financial years. Indeed, real wages growth in the last financial year was the strongest it's been since Labor lost government—the 2.3 per cent real wages growth and the 1.6 per cent CPI.

Of course, we're facing global economic headwinds. I mean, economies around the world are going backwards. The UK economy in the June quarter was shrinking. The German economy in the June quarter was shrinking. The Singapore economy in the June quarter was shrinking. The Australian economy, even with all of the challenges we are facing—internationally, with the drought, still dealing with the impact of the floods in North Queensland earlier in the year—is continuing to grow. Our government has a plan, as that information the senator has just read out said, to make our economy even stronger because that is, of course, our mission. Let me tell you: the economy is much stronger that it would have been if Labor had been able to impose more than $387 billion in higher taxes, which would have absolutely crushed confidence, harmed the economy and harmed working families all around Australia.

Senator Sheldon, a supplementary question?

Treasurer Frydenberg has claimed that 'fundamentals of the economy are strong' and that his government has 'the right policy settings'. Is Deloitte Access Economics correct when it says, 'The pain in our economy has been homegrown'?

As I've already indicated, we are dealing with the impact on our economy of the drought, which is quite devastating across large parts of Australia; we are dealing with the impact of floods; and, indeed, we are dealing with significant global economic headwinds. Let me say it again very slowly: you went to the last election promising to increase taxes by $387 billion. What do you think that would have done to the economy, to wages, to jobs, to job security? It would have hit the economy. It would have absolutely harmed the economy. It would have harmed working Australians.

Our plan is designed to ensure that Australians today and into the future have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. I would refer you to the RBA governor, who made very clear that he expects gradual strengthening in the economy on the back of lower interest rates, lower taxes, strong investment in infrastructure and a pick-up in the resources sector— (Time expired)

Senator Sheldon, a final supplementary question?

Deloitte Access Economics has said that we're unlikely 'to see wages accelerate or to see unemployment fall much over this coming year'. Is this the stability and predictability in the economy referred to in the government's talking points?

Let me assure Senator Sheldon that if he has a very good look through the information that was supplied to him he will see how our plan will deliver a stronger economy, with more jobs and stronger wages growth into the future, certainly stronger wages growth than would have been achieved on the back of Labor's higher taxes. We have legislated—and we were opposed by Labor every step of the way—$300 billion in additional increases in take-home pay through our income tax relief that you opposed. That's $300 billion that will end up in the pockets of individual Australians, that you opposed.

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister explain to the Senate how a strong vocational education system is critical to running a strong economy, and what steps is the Morrison government undertaking to ensure that Australia has a world-class vocational education system?

I thank Senator Chandler for what is a very important question. Senator Chandler, like those of us on this side of the chamber, understands that a strong vocational and educational training system in Australia is essential to a strong economy. We as a government are ensuring that vocational education and training in Australia is given the profile it deserves. We are committed on this side of the chamber to demonstrating to the Australian people that a VET qualification is just as good as a university degree. We are committed on this side of the chamber to ensuring that we have a system in place that delivers job-ready Australians, with the right skills, to employers. We have a $585 million skills package, which we announced in the budget and the Australian people endorsed at the most recent election, that we are now rolling out across the country.

But our most recent announcement is of course the inaugural Australian careers ambassador, Mr Scott Cam. The Prime Minister and I recently announced Scott Cam as Australia's inaugural careers ambassador. Scott Cam is a household name. He is a former apprentice. He undertook an apprenticeship in carpentry around 40 years ago. He is someone who has gone on to run his own business, employ Australians, employ other apprentices and, of course, achieve success in terms of becoming a household name. What those on the other side have conveniently forgotten is it works across both sides of politics, in particular when it comes to promoting apprenticeships. Scott Cam is uniquely placed to highlight the value, the career opportunities and the success that can be achieved through vocational education and training.

Senator Chandler, a supplementary question?

How does all of this build on existing investments in the vocational education system, and why is it important to promote vocational education as an equal pathway to university?

For many years now university has been seen as the default expectation for young people who are finishing school. But of course it's not the only pathway that is available to them. It's all about understanding the choices that are available to you as you're making important decisions in relation to your career. All too often young Australians can be led down one path, and they're not necessarily told about the value in vocational education. It was recently highlighted that 31 of the 50 top-earning occupations now require a VET qualification. I will say that again: 31 of the 50 top-earning occupations now require a VET qualification. The message is clear: a VET qualification can be lucrative and successful.

Senator Chandler, a final supplementary question?

Thank you, Mr President. Is the minister aware of any consequences of failing to support vocational education?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left—Senator Watt and Senator Ayres!

Despite the interjections, those opposite seem to conveniently forget that, when they were last in government, they actually ripped the guts out of the vocational education and training system in Australia. Let's talk about Labor's legacy when it comes to vocational education and training in Australia. It was, of course, that great policy disaster—in fact, it has been described as possibly one of the biggest policy failures of all time—VET FEE-HELP. What happened under VET FEE-HELP, Labor's signature policy when it comes to vocational education and training in Australia? What we saw was thousands of Australians, courtesy of the Labor government, receive dodgy qualifications and significant debt. What we had to do when we were elected to government—like we do on so many occasions—was step in and clean up Labor's legacy.

My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann. Minister, since we were last here, the UN climate summit in New York resolved that countries need to lift their current target by three to five times in order to contain global warming below two degrees. You might not be aware of it because the Prime Minister snubbed the summit to meet with a donor. One of the core demands that has emerged from the protest movement that is building right around the world is for some truth-telling. Minister, are you prepared to tell the truth that, firstly, you have no plan and next to no chance of meeting the weak targets we have agreed to in Paris despite using dodgy accounting to get there; and, secondly, that even if we meet those targets we won't come close to ensuring that we prevent the breakdown of our climate?

The answer to the first question is no. Senator Di Natale is wrong. We do have a plan to meet our emissions reductions targets that we have signed on to in Paris. Indeed, we are on track to meet and exceed our 2020 emissions reduction targets as agreed to in Kyoto. And we have a plan to meet the emissions reduction target agreed to in Paris, which is a sensible target. We are focused on doing everything we can to protect the environment in a way that is economically responsible, and that is what we believe the Australian people expect us to do. Senator Di Natale is entitled to his views. We will stick to our plan and do what is right by the Australian people.

Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question?

Minister, I want to quote you something from the International Monetary Fund's report last week: 'There's growing agreement between economists and scientists that the risk of catastrophic and irreversible disaster is rising, implying potentially infinite costs of unmitigated climate change including, in the extreme, human extinction.' Minister, do you accept the IMF's testimony or do you believe it is another example of negative globalism?

I refer Senator Di Natale to the proposition that some of those scenarios that are put forward by the IMF would lead to a carbon tax in Australia of about $75 to $90 a tonne. And I can confirm for Senator Di Natale that this government does not support the reintroduction of a carbon tax—

Senator Di Natale, a point of order?

Mr President, a point of order on relevance. I read a quote out and I asked whether the government accepts that quote. I didn't ask for the minister's opinion on a carbon price; I asked him specifically whether he accepted that testimony or thought it was negative globalism.

I asked senators, in the last session, to be careful about raising points of order on relevance that were in fact points of order about the nature of an answer to a question and not on relevance. I can't instruct a minister how to answer. The minister was being directly relevant and, in fact, in the point he was just outlining, I believe, he was extrapolating by referring to the report that you quoted. It is entirely directly relevant. Points of order are not to go to the nature of the questions; they go to whether they are directly relevant.

I am aware of the report. I have read the relevant parts of it. I can confirm again for Senator Di Natale that we don't support the proposition that Australia should consider a $75 to $90 a tonne carbon tax. We think it would be bad for our economy. It would be bad for the environment. All we would end up doing is shifting environmentally more efficient production into other parts of the world. We would shift jobs and shift emissions, and the world would be worse off at the same time as leaving the Australian people worse off. That is not our way to approach these things. That might be the Greens way, but that will never be our way.

Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question?

Since you raised the carbon price—on truth telling—do you accept that, since you abolished the carbon price, which you said would save consumers $550, wholesale energy prices have almost doubled, that emissions are rising and that they are higher than ever in this country right now under your government?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Wong, order on my left during questions, as I called for it earlier on my right. I'll call Senator Cormann when there is order, but it is opposition time. Please lead by example. Can those on the left please follow the current example of their leader. Senator Bernardi on a point of order.

Senator Wong is clearly accusing me of sitting with the Greens or something absurd like that. It offends me, and I would like her to withdraw that on the basis that it is completely inappropriate.

On the point of order, I think it is a matter of public record that the Greens sat with you to vote down the carbon price.

This is a matter for debate; I don't think it's a matter of unparliamentary language or something that requires withdrawal. This is traditionally time for the opposition and non-government parties. We are wasting your time in question time.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Wong, again, this is opposition time and crossbench time; I am trying to ensure it is used productively. I was about to call Senator McKim to order.

Not McKim.

As much as I enjoy this conversation amongst Labor and the Greens, former coalition partners, let me get back to the question. Firstly, all of the modelling of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the carbon tax actually showed emissions would continue to increase, assuming that the economy would continue to grow. There was a period during the Labor-Greens administration where the economy weakened quite a bit compared to what was anticipated, so emissions in that context were lower than what had been anticipated. That is true, but only the Greens would argue that somehow removing a carbon tax hasn't actually reduced the cost of generating energy. If you reduce a government imposed tax, all other things being equal, that reduces the cost and indeed it has. The cost today would be higher if it weren't for the removal of the carbon tax. Let me tell you again: we have a plan to meet our emissions reduction targets signed onto in Paris for 2030, as we have a plan to meet and indeed exceed our emissions reduction targets for 2020. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the RBA's decision to cut the cash rate to a new record low of 0.75 per cent. Last Friday the Australian Financial Review reported:

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has welcomed further interest rate cuts …

Given that former Treasurer Joe Hockey once described an official cash rate more than three times as high, under Labor, as being 'beyond emergency levels', how does the minister describe the current cash rate?

I'm pleased: not only do we have the great senator from New South Wales reading the talking points of the Prime Minister's office, we have Senator Gallagher reading what I say in the Australian Financial Review. That is really good.

In relation to the official cash rate, what I said in the interview that was quoted—and I stand by that—is that decisions on monetary policy are entirely a matter for the Reserve Bank, to make assessments independently as they consider is appropriate. You've obviously got to consider the international context, and that is obviously part of the judgement the Reserve Bank has made, if you listen to what the Reserve Bank has said in recent times. The Reserve Bank governor has actually said exactly this: you've got to consider what is happening in a structural sense to global interest rate settings.

If the interest rate, the official cash rate, in Australia was materially higher than in other parts of the world—as it turned out under Labor, when you put in massive fiscal stimulus—then the value of our currency would go up and our exporting businesses would be less competitive internationally. It would hurt our agricultural sector. It would hurt our resources sector. It would hurt our manufacturing sector. So the Reserve Bank makes these judgements, independently as they see fit, and I have indeed welcomed the decisions the Reserve Bank has made. Indeed, monetary policy and fiscal policy are working in the same direction, helping to ensure that our economy can continue to strengthen into the future in the context of very difficult global economic conditions.

Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?

Mr Hockey said of the RBA's decision to cut interest rates to 2½ per cent in August 2013—and there were a few global headwinds then, too—

They're not cutting interest rates because the economy is doing well. Interest rates are being cut to 50-year lows because the economy is struggling.

Why is the economy performing so badly? And who in the government is responsible?

The Australian economy continues to grow. We're into our 28th year of continuous growth. We are one of 10 economies that are AAA-rated by the three major credit rating agencies, with more than 1.4 million new jobs and the highest workforce participation on record. Earlier I was asked a question about wages growth. Real wages grew by 0.7 per cent through the year to the June quarter—above the 20-year average of 0.6 per cent and above the rate of 0.4 per cent through-the-year growth when Labor left office. So, let me say again: wages growth today is stronger than it was when Labor left office. Real wages growth today is stronger than the long-term average.

We are continuing to work to build the strongest-possible economy in the context of very difficult conditions globally and domestically. You say that you had difficult conditions back in 2012-13. Let me tell you: you either had the— (Time expired)

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?

Interest rates are now at record lows and, according to the Reserve Bank, growth is weaker than expected, employment growth is likely to slow, wages growth remains subdued and there is little upward pressure at present. When will the government finally take responsibility and lay out a plan to support the economy?

I don't think Senator Gallagher listened to my previous answer. Wages growth through the year is actually above the 20-year average of 0.6 per cent and above the rate of 0.4 per cent through-the-year growth when Labor left office. I'm just telling you the facts. I also know what the RBA governor said very recently—that he expects the economy to gradually strengthen on the back of lower interest rates, lower taxes, continued high investment in infrastructure, a pick-up in the resources sector and stabilisation of the property market. The government are continuing to do everything we can to build a stronger economy through our ambitious infrastructure investment program and our ambitious free trade agenda, helping our exporting businesses sell more Australian products and services all around the world, as well as our deregulation agenda and our plans to bring the cost of energy down. We will continue to do the right thing by the Australian people, and we'll leave the sniping to you.

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Senator McKenzie. There is an immediate need to deal with the imbalance in bargaining power between dairy farmers and processors by legislating to make unfair contracts, and in particular multiyear contracts that bind farmers but not processors, unlawful, because these farmers do not have the means to pursue these unfair contracts in court. When will we see the draft mandatory dairy code of practice? And how long will the consultation period be in relation to the code of practice? And will the government introduce the mandatory dairy code of practice before the end of the year, giving farmers some hope?

Thank you, Senator Hanson, and thank you for your advocacy for dairy farmers. Like you, the National Party and the Liberal Party are strong supporters of the dairy industry and the 5,699 dairy farmers that are right around our country. Ninety-eight per cent of our dairy farms are family owned and operated, and making sure they're sustainable going forward, making a profit at the farm gate, is exactly what we're focused on doing. That is why we committed to introduce a dairy code of conduct. That is why that code has gone out for consultation twice already. That is why I am right now getting the exposure draft completed: so it can go out for its third and final consultation prior to the end of the year, we can get it instilled in regulation and give our dairy farmers the security they need when negotiating contracts with processors.

As I've travelled round the country, one thing about the dairy industry is that it is very different in different states. In WA, for instance, I, with Nola Marino, met with dairy farmers last week. They are hurting because they don't have the competition in processors to actually get a decent price for their milk. But, Senator Hanson, we also need to make sure that profitability is through the system, so we're getting the dairy code of conduct up and running. We've got other measures to help them. We standardised contracts to actually give them financial and legal advice through Dairy Australia and be able to get a level of expertise so that, when they are negotiating a contract with a processor, they've got the support that they need. They're very good at producing milk and sometimes they need those additional skills to get the right price. We're also, though, addressing energy and fodder and water costs because those are also the input costs that are affecting the ongoing profitability of the dairy sector. But what the dairy farmers need is competition for their product.

Senator Hanson, a supplementary question?

Milk processors are the beneficiaries of the government's delay in introducing a mandatory dairy code of practice. Will the government make sure there is a retrospective provision in the code to allow farmers to renegotiate contracts in accordance with the code once it is introduced?

As I was saying, Senator Hanson, giving our farmers choice where they can sell their product is absolutely paramount for them to get a decent price, and they don't just have to go to the one or two processors in their region; they can actually sell their product to more places. Opening up new markets for our dairy industry across the globe will also help them be more competitive and get a better farm gate price. That's why we are unashamedly negotiating free trade agreements. Even with the Indonesia free trade agreement, an Australian dairy farmer has said that those tariff reductions with, hopefully, the Indonesian—

Order! Senator Hanson on a point of order?

My point of order is on direct relevance. The question was: is there a retrospective provision in the code to allow farmers to renegotiate contracts?

You've reminded the minister of the nature of your questions. She has 22 seconds remaining to answer.

Thank you. The Australian dairy farmers saw that getting the Indonesian economic partnership agreement up and going would actually be worth $6½ million per annum to the Australian dairy industry. That is another way we are assisting our farmers. In terms of the content of the code, it is actually based on the two consultations that we did prior to the election— (Time expired)

Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question?

That wasn't really an answer to renegotiating contracts in accordance with the code. The dairy market was deregulated in 2000 but has since been reregulated by a small number of milk processors and the two big supermarkets. Why has the government waited until there has been a mass exodus of dairy farmers before realising a code of practice is required?

Senator Hanson, that's actually not true. Our government has been taking steps to stand by our dairy farmers and the industry more broadly over many, many years. It was the competition review that we did under Professor Harper that went to exactly the heart of this point: to actually make sure they've got market power. Getting the code in place is an important commitment we made and we're going through getting that done. There is no hold-up whatsoever on our side to get this in place and give farmers the security they need.

We also need to recognise that getting their electricity prices down is important. The Labor Party, when they were bringing in their carbon tax, forgot to model the impact on our dairy farmers. It was going to cost 15 grand per annum to keep a perishable product cold and make sure it was transported and able to be sold. We are taking action on energy prices. We're trying to assist farmers. We have a specific package for our dairy farmers around energy costs. We'll implement the code as soon as possible. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister update the Senate on how the government's strong economy and strong budget management has helped to regenerate Australia's naval capabilities?

I thank Senator Rennick for his question and also his support for the ADF. The Morrison government does have a very comprehensive strategy for establishing and also sustaining a strong Navy to secure Australia's security and prosperity. The rapidly evolving strategic circumstances in our own region mean that the ADF needs a strong maritime presence both within and beyond our borders. We need to be in more places at the same time and be capable of responding to our region. For that reason, this government is investing over $90 billion in our national shipbuilding endeavour for the Navy. We are building 57 naval vessels in Australia by Australian workers with Australian steel. But it is not just about building ships; we're also sustaining our fleet and working with industry to generate world-class naval capability, to foster innovation and also to create thousands of long-term multigenerational jobs for Australian workers.

We are building state-of-the-art shipyards in South Australia that will deliver the new Hunter class frigates and also the Attack class submarines. The first two offshore patrol vessels are already being built in South Australia. For the third ship, they'll transfer to Henderson in Western Australia. In Western Australia, we're also building the 21 Guardian class Pacific patrol boats. They will provide our near neighbours with enhanced maritime security capability. All of this work will support our security and create Australian job opportunities in South Australia, Western Australia and the rest of the nation. It is truly a national shipbuilding endeavour.

Senator Rennick, a supplementary question?

Can the minister update the Senate on how we continue to build international relationships in the naval domain?

I thank Senator Rennick for that question. Last week I was very privileged to return to the Sea Power Conference conducted by Navy. Last week, it was the 11th such conference they've held, and it was in Sydney. And it was a huge success. Over 3,000 registered participants attended from the military to industry and also academia from over 50 nations. We all gathered to discuss the significance of sea power and also their contribution to Australia's military capability. In the keynote speech, I highlighted the vital role that our Navy plays in supporting Australia's interests in regional and also global security and stability. As I explained there, we are acquiring new naval capabilities because we must. Our nation needs these capabilities. But our Navy is also working in new ways with friends and allies to support the changing realities. In short, the Navy is busier than it has ever been before.

Senator Rennick, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister outline how the government is rebuilding Australia's naval shipbuilding industry?

The sad fact is that this government has had to rebuild our naval shipbuilding capability following its destruction by those opposite after six years of cuts, failures and indecision. Labor's Australia industry content in naval shipbuilding was—how much was it? A hundred per cent of nothing. In stark contrast, the Morrison government is committed to creating a productive and globally competitive and sustainable Australian defence industry for building ships. Already, work is underway to create jobs for over 15,000 Australian workers. I saw firsthand at the Pacific 29 conference more than 600 industry stands, many of them—hundreds of them—displaying Australian ingenuity and the workforce at its best. Naval shipbuilding truly is an Australian national endeavour, and this government is extraordinarily proud, as I am as the minister, of this endeavour.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Just last month, the minister said:

The Government believes the UN remains central to maintaining the rules and institutions that underpin a free, open, inclusive and prosperous global order.

In his speech to the Lowy Institute last week, the Prime Minister warned of 'an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy'. Was the Prime Minister referring to the United Nations?

I thank Senator Kitching very much for the opportunity to refer, at some length, to the Prime Minister's speech to the Lowy Institute, because it is convenient, of course, to read selective quotes from a significant set of remarks, but I think it's important to take them in context. If you were to take them in context—which is not convenient for the opposition—the Prime Minister made a number of observations. For example, he observed:

We have entered a new era of strategic competition—a not unnatural result of shifting power dynamics, in our modern, more multi-polar world and globalised economy.

Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?

The question was very simple. It was whether or not when the Prime Minister warned of 'an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy,' he was referring to the United Nations.

I'm listening carefully to the minister's answers. I believe it is directly relevant for the minister to be answering the question by referring to other contents in that very speech. I think that is directly relevant and a narrower construction than the word 'relevant' would imply.

We don't know who he was talking about.

It would be helpful, Senator Pratt, if I could offer rulings on points of order your leader has raised without your interjections.

If Senator Pratt is finding it hard to get the call on the other side, we could allocate one of our questions to her, I presume. As I was saying—

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Senator Pratt seems to be seeking the call; I was pointing that out. As I was saying—

Senator Wong interjecting—

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

Under our standing orders, interjections are always disorderly, but they're particularly disorderly in the way they were just thrown across the table by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I would ask you to call the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to order.

Order! They are particularly disorderly from the centre table, where leaders are granted extra liberality in the application of the rules. I ask them to lead by example. There is the time for debate of this after question time. Senator Payne is to continue.

And the Prime Minister went on in his remarks through a number of the challenges that we face in the current strategic environment. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing for a Prime Minister to do. He also talked about the changes and the impact they have on Australia on a number of areas—on our jobs, on our environment, on our safety and on our freedom. Our freedom—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Cormann, on a point of order?

Even from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and with all of the courtesies, interjections are disorderly, and these are particularly uncalled for interjections. I asked you to call Senator Wong to order.

You did call me to order.

I will do so again. You correctly point out that I did call you to order, Senator Wong. I will call you to order again. I would ask all senators to obey the call to order when their name is mentioned—at least to count to 30 before they interject again.

What I was going to say was, before the remarks to which Senator Kitching alludes, the Prime Minister talks about the impact on our freedom—

Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?

I again raise a point of order of direct relevance. She can read the whole speech out as a way of avoiding answering the question, but the question is: 'To whom was the Prime Minister referring when he talks about "an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy"? Was it the United Nations?' Reading the rest of the speech out, in my submission, does not comply with the direct relevance provisions of the standing orders.

On the point of order, Senator Payne?

If Senator Wong had listened to what I was saying in my most recent submission to the Senate in response to Senator Kitching, I said that the paragraph to which I was referring immediately preceded the paragraph to which Senator Kitching referred. They need to be considered together. Selective quoting is convenient for the opposition, but it's not accurate and it's not truthful and therefore it's not unexpected from them.

On the point of order: Senator Wong, with respect, I believe your point of order goes to the nature of the answer. The issue of direct relevance does not go to the nature of the answer, only to whether the content of the answer is directly relevant. I do believe a minister providing an answer that refers to a speech raised in the question is directly relevant.

Mr President, I accept your ruling. I'd ask you to consider this and take advice from the Clerk, having looked at the Hansard and the questions after question time, and perhaps respond to the chamber tomorrow.

I'm happy to do so.

As I was saying, the impact on our freedom depends on our dedication to national sovereignty, the resilience of our institutions and our protection from foreign interference.

Senator Wong interjecting—

In that context, the Prime Minister went on to—

Order! Senator Cormann on a point of order.

You've now ruled twice on points of order raised by Senator Wong. She is again interjecting, seeking to raise the same point of order that she previously said she accepted. I would ask you to call Senator Wong to order.

I will always take a request from senators, particularly leaders, to reconsider an issue on a ruling I have given. But the ruling I have given will stand until and unless I reconsider it, so I will ask senators to cease interjecting on the same point, whether it is to me or to the minister.

As I was saying, he went on to say, after that paragraph to which Senator Kitching referred— (Time expired)

Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?

The Prime Minister warned against 'negative globalism that coercively seeks to impose a mandate from an often ill-defined borderless global community'. Can the minister advise the Senate which international agreements Australia has signed up to involuntarily?

I don't believe there's any reference or implication in the Prime Minister's remarks that indicate signing up to international agreements involuntarily. What the Prime Minister does say is that globalism needs to facilitate. It needs to align. It needs to engage. It needs to do that, rather than direct and centralise, because an approach of that nature can corrode support for joint international action. I think it's fair to say that in 2019 we are at peak commentary from those opposite and from multiple sources around the world. We are at a point or an inflection in time where peak commentary is the way of the world. Trying to navigate a clear path through that in the national interest is what you should expect your Prime Minister and foreign minister to do, and that is what we are doing.

Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question.

What multilateral institutions was the Prime Minister talking about when he warned about the dangers of negative globalism?

I think the most important thing that the Prime Minister was referring to is exactly what I just said. As the speech says, we need to have institutions and we need to have an approach to globalism that facilitates, aligns and engages rather than directs and centralises. I don't think that is a provocative statement to make. I think it is a considered statement by a Prime Minister who is taking a serious engagement in matters of international relations and foreign affairs.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Order! I think Senator Payne has concluded her answer, Senator Wong.

Without answering the question.

Senator Payne has concluded.

My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. How is the Liberal-National government building the economy through strong budget management and programs for northern Australia and, in particular, by supporting new opportunities for oil and gas development in the north-west of my home state of Western Australia?

I thank Senator Brockman for his question. He's a very proud supporter of the great resources state of Western Australia. To maintain our strong economy we must continue to develop the resources of our nation. It's also important to continue to do that to help secure our nation. In history, in the past, we were a proud producer of oil. In fact, less than 20 years ago Australia produced 96 per cent of its raw petroleum needs domestically. Since that time, Bass Strait has declined, as has the North West Shelf, and today we produce less than 50 per cent of our raw petroleum needs. So we should look to secure more supply, and that's exactly what the federal government is doing. We're not going to find more oil unless we drill, explore and do the science you need to do to find what's underground. Together with the West Australian government, the federal government has funded a drill well about 214 kilometres east of Marble Bar—in country I'm sure that Senator Brockman knows well—that is an exciting prospect for a future oil and gas frontier. The core well is about a kilometre down. We've got about a kilometre to go. It should be done by the end of the year with results known in mid-next year.

Why this is exciting is that the early estimates are that there could be something in the order of 860 billion barrels of oil in the Canning Basin. Not all that will be recoverable but even if five or 10 per cent can be recovered, which is often a recovery rate used in the industry, about 43 billion barrels of oil could be there. That is equivalent to the Permian Basin in the United States, which the United States Geological Survey updated last year to contain 46 billion barrels of oil. So this is a potential world-class resource—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator Whish-Wilson!

which would not only help secure oil production and reserves for this country, to help our national security, but help spur economic development for the great state of Western Australia, which already does so well with its world-class iron ore and gas.

Senator Brockman, a supplementary question?

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Minister, what is the resource potential of the Canning Basin in the north-west of Western Australia and how could this support new jobs in my home state?

As I was saying, this resource is potentially of a size similar to those in the United States. Those that have followed this, or looked at this, could easily see the development of their shale oil resources—the Canning Basin is also a shale oil resource—in the US has helped rekindle the manufacturing industry and jobs in the US, and brought jobs back to the US that had left over the last couple of decades to other countries with cheaper manufacturing.

I believe in manufacturing in this country. I believe we should support our manufacturing sector and anybody in this place—and I can hear a few people whispering in my ear over there—who says no to the development of our oil and gas resources is also saying no to manufacturing jobs in this country. And if you say no to resource development you are also saying no to jobs and you're especially saying no to good high-paying jobs in our factories across Australia.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator Whish-Wilson, I have called you to order numerous times. Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question?

Minister, what else is the Liberal-National government doing to support resource development in northern Australia?

The well I was commenting on or talking about in those first two questions is being funded. It's a $5 million exploratory well. It's being funded through our $100 million Exploring for the Future program. That program is all about trying to find new resources for Australia.

The first major mineral find in Australia was 1859. It was found by a wombat basically, or a stockman saw a wombat kicking up some rocks. They looked a bit green. It ended up being copper. And that's pretty much how every resource has been found in this country since—not so much with a wombat but with finding rocks and drilling from there. Our Exploring for the Future program is all about looking below the surface, using seismic testing, aeromagnetic testing, to look below the surface to make new minerals finds where there's no surface mineralisation. In fact, we're doing the world's largest aeromagnetic survey right now across Western Australia and the Northern Territory. That's due to be completed soon under this program. There have already been major finds as part of this program and companies are starting to invest on the back of it. It's a great initiative to help build jobs and economic opportunity in Australia.

This week is Anti-Poverty Week. My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Minister, why doesn't Australia have a national definition of poverty?

I thank Senator Siewert for her question and acknowledge too that it is national Anti-Poverty Week. I want to assure this chamber and assure Senator Siewert that the government takes poverty very seriously. We, obviously, want to make sure that all Australian families enjoy a high quality of life and that's why we're so focused on jobs and economic growth.

But in relation to the specific question that the senator raised in relation to a measure of poverty, the government actively monitors trends and debates around poverty and inequality. Evidence brought forward recently by the Productivity Commission shows that those most at risk of poverty are people in jobless households. So rather than measuring poverty by assessing households against other households we believe poverty needs to be assessed against a household's minimum needs. We think it's very important to target programs so that people who find themselves in poverty—because, as I said, according to the Productivity Commission and many other research programs we have seen and reports that have been returned, people who are jobless are more likely to suffer financial stress and be at risk of poverty than those people where the families have jobs. Therefore, whilst we believe it is absolutely imperative that we support people who are suffering financial distress and poverty and fund them through our very targeted welfare system, the most important thing we can do to move people out of poverty—

Point of order: I was really clear about my question. There was no preamble. It was basically just: why we don't have a definition of poverty. The information the minister has given us is really interesting but it doesn't actually answer the question.

You have reminded the minister of the specific nature of your question. She has 22 seconds remaining to answer.

In specific response to your question, again, the government does not have a specific definition of poverty, because we believe the most important thing we can do to assess financial distress, difficulty and poverty is to assess the needs of the individuals that find themselves in that situation. An assessment defining poverty by comparing it to other people's incomes serves no purpose. (Time expired)

Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?

Under the Sustainable Development Goals, Australia has committed to halving poverty by 2030 according to national definitions. How is Australia meant to meet its goal to halve poverty if we don't actually have a national definition of poverty?

Thank you very much, Senator Siewert. As I have mentioned in my previous answer, we accept the fact that people who find themselves unemployed or without a job are far more likely to find themselves in financial distress and, eventually, possibly even in poverty. That is why our welfare system is very targeted on two very clear things: firstly, we want people who find themselves without a job to have the jobs, have the pathways and break down the barriers to enable them to get a job, because we know that is the best way of relieving poverty; but, secondly, through our targeted welfare system we are also very focused on providing assistance to those people that need it. As an example, every year we provide $2 billion worth of grants to over 2½ thousand organisations to provide direct and specific services to people who find themselves in need of assistance.

Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question?

Given this is Anti-Poverty Week, it is an ideal opportunity for the government to do something about the appalling rate of Newstart. Will the government announce this week that they are going to raise Newstart?

Thank you very much to Senator Siewert for her ongoing questioning. The government is absolutely focused not only on making sure people who do not have a job have a job to go to—by the creation of jobs; the 1.4 million jobs created over the term of this government and a plan to create just as many going forward—but also on creating the pathways through a number of programs to make sure people who don't have a job have a pathway to get those jobs as they are created by virtue of a strong economy. But the most important thing we do is seek to break down the individual barriers that individual cohorts find for themselves in getting a job, through programs like the Try, Test and Learn program. I met with people on this program last Friday in Adelaide. Of the 19 migrant women who are going through this particular program, 18 now have jobs. That is the kind of success this government is determined to achieve in breaking the poverty cycle.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Sheldon and Gallagher today relating to economic growth.

I rise to take note of the questions given to Senator Cormann—not his answers—asked by Senators Sheldon and Gallagher. Quite clearly, the call should be, 'Roll up, roll up, roll up—the circus is in town!' My goodness me, what a shemozzle! I particularly take note of the question that Senator Sheldon put to the finance minister. When we read the priorities that the Prime Minister's office has sent out to all of Australia, it's no wonder that the majority of Australians sit there and shake their heads thinking, 'What the heck have we got leading this nation?' Senator Sheldon clearly asked the minister about the embarrassing leak—these speaking notes—where the government says that they have a plan for an 'even stronger economy'. I have to be honest with you: if it came down to what the Prime Minister said or what the finance minister said in question time, I would put my money on Deloitte Access Economics. Deloitte Access Economics would absolutely get my vote straightaway. They today pointed out that they expect economic growth to be below trend this year, much less than what the government forecast, and that wages growth has stalled. We got a dribbling response from the minister—I'd like to say it's comic, but it's not funny; it's far from being funny.

Then Senator Sheldon proposed a supplementary question to the finance minister. In the government's talking notes, Treasurer Frydenberg has claimed that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Once again—if I had to choose—would I believe Deloitte Access Economics or would I believe the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, when we talked about the economy being strong or otherwise and that his government have 'the right policies settings'? Deloitte Access Economics came out quite clearly. They said that the pain in our economy has been home grown. That only means one thing: it's by this mob here. It's been fertilised well by this mob too, over the last six years, I can tell you!

I'd like to think this government talking points document is just pretend stuff, but unfortunately there are a bunch of young kids in the Prime Minister's office who think that all the backbenchers are that dumb that they have to put out stupid statements, that government members can all follow, in case they get bailed up in the hallway. Have a look. It has some of their plans for a stronger economy. This is what the Prime Minister's kiddies are saying to that mob opposite—in case they get quizzed, see if they can blind the media or anyone else with some pollie words, some absolute rubbish. One of their plans for an even stronger economy is 'building resilience and rewarding aspiration'. Makes you want to vomit, listening to this! This is what they say: 'Reduce the costs of doing business—

A government senator: Hear, hear!

And then they put 'energy, deregulation, finance'—are you ready for another 'Hear, hear!'? Give me another 'Hear, hear!' Are you ready for this one?—and 'getting paid on time'. Well, let me just spend a couple of minutes talking about getting paid on time. What this mob over there wouldn't know is I've been very, very busy this year hosting transport industry associations, owner-drivers state and national, the Transport Workers Union. We've all been in the one room here in Canberra not once but twice. The first time there were 70-odd people and the second time there were 60-odd people, representing no less than 36 different organisations around Australia. They're having a gripe about this great industry, the transport industry. Let me tell you this: when Australia slows down, the first for it to affect, the first who feels the pain, is the trucking industry. I'll make that very clear. It's not the housing industry but the trucking industry, because we're the ones who cart the bricks and we're the ones who cart the tiles and the cement. We know what it's like.

But they had a host of issues that they were concerned about. One was the great disrespect afforded to them by the mob over on that side of the chamber when they insulted the industry. When the industry drove the recommendations in the terms of reference for the Senate inquiry into the road transport industry, each and every single one of this mob lined up dutifully and respectfully and voted against it just to slap the trucking industry on its way through. Their rates are shocking not only now but it was quoted to me on more than one occasion—and I talk with experience here, because I know darn well what I'm talking about. I don't need kiddie speaking notes from someone who spent most of their adult life watching The West Wing'This is what you need to say.' Not only are they struggling to get paid, but guess what one of the biggest problems was? It was getting paid on time. There is this nonsense in the transport industry about the users of transport from mining companies, the great doyen of the Liberal Party support base, that it's not seven days or 14 days—I went on strike to get paid for seven days! I pulled up and parked across the gate with my mates to make sure we got paid, because we had bills to pay. With you lot, it's 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, 120 days. One of the largest contracts in this nation—I won't mention who it is—has now screwed the trucking industry to 150-day payments, and the government is doing nothing. (Time expired)

I'm happy to rise to take note of answers. Firstly, if I could just respond to that last point: I absolutely agree that our mining companies and other major suppliers need to respect their suppliers and not treat their suppliers as another form of finance. I absolutely agree with the senator's point in that regard. However, there wasn't much else I agreed with.

I had cause to reflect on the fact that, given the PMO's note was inadvertently circulated earlier today, the best the opposition could do was to refer to a report put out by Deloitte Access Economics earlier today where it referred to homegrown pain. And what are they referring to when they refer to homegrown pain? They're referring to the drought, and they're also referring to the fact that there have been decreases in home prices over the last little period. And why wouldn't there have been decreases in home prices? As I've said in this place before, I have never seen such fear in the lead-up to an election as I saw in my home state of Queensland—the fear of a possible Labor government, the fear of the changes to negative gearing, the fear of the changes in capital gains tax and the fear of a raft of messages which would have been an absolute hit to this economy.

And yet, the difference is quite outstanding. As the Minister for Finance referred to earlier today, what we now have is a situation where, in the June quarter, the real GDP grew by 0.5 per cent to be 1.4 per cent higher through the year. This is much better than how some of the other countries with AAA ratings are faring in these difficult global conditions—better than Singapore, better than Germany, better than many of our trading partners and better than many other countries which have a AAA credit rating. We're actually doing much better than many of our trading partners and other countries with AAA credit ratings.

It made me reflect on whether or not the opposition has properly read the PMO note that was inadvertently circulated earlier today. The plan is there—our plan for an even stronger economy, building resilience and rewarding aspiration. I must say that every morning when I get up, the first thing I do is read the PMO note. Some people might go for a jog for 10 kilometres, do yoga or swim laps—I read the PMO note. It's the best way to be invigorated for a day ahead in this place. Why? Because we're meeting the plan—the plan that's set out in the PMO's note. It actually invigorates me. 'Lower taxes so you can keep more of what you earn.' Tick. 'Reduce the costs of doing business—energy, deregulation, finance, getting paid on time.' Tick. 'Equip Australians with the skills that Australian businesses need to boost their success.' Tick. 'Expand our trade borders.' Tick. 'Build the infrastructure our economy needs to grow.' Tick. We're on track.

I must say, listening to the last contribution, it reminded me of an anecdote from the famous Lord Birkenhead, one of Winston Churchill's best friends. When he was appearing before a judge, the judge said after reading his submissions: 'I must say, Mr Smith'—he hadn't reached the heady heights of becoming a lord at that stage—'after reading your submissions, I'm no wiser. I'm no wiser after having read your submissions.' Lord Birkenhead responded, 'No, milord, no wiser but at least better informed.' So we can say today that the members opposite, having read the PMO note, are at least better informed. It doesn't appear that they're much wiser, but, at the very least, they're better informed.

I suggest that they take the note out, study it over the course of this week and reflect on it, because there's some great material there. It sets out the priorities of this government. It sets out the support which is being provided for drought-affected areas. It sets out the reforms which are being undertaken with respect to the farm household allowance and with respect to water infrastructure. It sets out everything that this government is doing in response to the royal commission into the banking industry. It sets out the proposals and initiatives being taken with respect to a raft of policy areas. It's all set out in that note. The best the opposition could come up with was not referring to the note in detail but actually referring to the Deloitte Access Economics report, and even then they did not refer to the proper context of that report.

I'm not sure how much it takes to invigorate Senator Scarr, but I can tell you: the morning note, as I think this is called—it probably changes once we hit afternoon, just like most of the things that this government says—is not invigorating Australians. The government may talk a big game on the economy, but from what we've seen today in their answers, in the contributions thus far in this debate, what is actually in their misplaced talking points, the Deloitte report and their inaction on banks, their talk doesn't reflect reality. That's the point in the discussion around the comments by Deloitte. What's in the speaking notes does not reflect reality. It doesn't reflect the reality of Australians in regional areas struggling to get a job, the reality of workers and families dealing with stagnant wages and rising costs of living or the reality of small businesses that have been promised so much by the government, who claim to have their interests at heart despite their actions showing the complete opposite.

As we heard this morning, the latest Deloitte Access Economics Business outlook is forecasting below-trend growth this financial year: growth of just 2.2 per cent, which is well below the government's forecast. Most damningly, the report states that 'the pain in our economy has been home grown'. It also says that we're unlikely to see wages accelerate or see unemployment fall much over the coming year. This is terrible news for Australian workers and jobseekers. The government has failed to provide confidence to the Senate today in the answers that we received—and, I expect, has failed to provide confidence to Australian business and workers—that it has the foresight, the capacity and the ability to lift growth, create jobs and boost wages. Indeed, the Deloitte report went on to make it clear that the RBA has been doing all the heavy lifting, with dwindling capacity to move if it wishes to keep some flexibility in the system for monetary policy to deal with global shock.

It's time for the government to do its part and use the levers available to it to support Australian businesses, jobs and workers and get the economy moving. Yet all we see from the government are talking points in an attempt to paint a picture so far from reality. It reminds me of a song from the Rocky Horror Picture Show:

Rose tints my world

Keeps me safe from my trouble and pain.

Well, the rosy picture painted in the government's talking points may try and keep them out of trouble, but it does nothing to alleviate the pain experienced by Australians facing rising costs and dwindling pay. It's time the Australian people got some honesty from this government. It's time the Prime Minister and the Treasurer issued a budget with updated forecasts that reflect reality. This country is crying out for an economic plan that will reverse the collapsing confidence and finally spur along overdue wages growth. Instead, all we see is relentless wedge politics, blame-shifting and, embarrassingly, rosy talking points.

Let's make sure we never forget just how many Australians are doing it hard. This week is Anti-Poverty Week. There are three million Australians, including 739,000 children, living below the poverty line, living on less than 50 per cent of the median income—that is, 13.2 per cent of Australians or one in six Australian children. Where is the government's plan to tackle poverty and boost incomes? All of this comes from seeing record household debt, stagnant wages and banks that are refusing to pass on cuts to interest rates. If there's one thing that Australian people know about this Liberal government it's that they simply can't be trusted when it comes to standing up to the banks. This is a government that has had 12 months to consider a Productivity Commission report on the failures of banking competition, and this government has done nothing. (Time expired)

We've heard a lot today about our morning note, which we receive and read voraciously, and I would certainly be amazed if the ALP didn't follow a similar process. Otherwise, how can you keep yourselves informed about what your agenda is? On our side of the chamber, we are well informed as to what our agenda is, and I thank you for raising the issue of what our government can do and what levers we have in our toolbox that we can use to stimulate our economy. We are certainly doing that. Our government has a 10-year, $100 billion infrastructure pipeline that is going to stimulate our economy and create jobs. Most importantly, it will create jobs in regional Australia and regional New South Wales, which is getting me very excited.

What has the team on the other side of this place done to stimulate regional economies in the past 10 or 20 years? I would say they have done nothing. They've taken water out of our districts and they have not invested in infrastructure in regional Australia at all, whereas we've got a $100 billion pipeline that is going to see us deal with projects, both metro and regional.

We have hundreds of projects—city-shaping projects, congestion-busting projects—underway or in the planning phase. We've got NorthConnex and WestConnex in Sydney, the M1 in Brisbane and the Melbourne Airport Rail Link. Personally, I cannot wait for that to open, because there's nothing worse than trying to deal with peak-hour traffic between Flinders Street railway station and the airport in Melbourne. We've got METRONET in Perth, Bridgewater Bridge in Hobart and the North-South Corridor in Adelaide. They're our metro projects. They're going to address bottlenecks and traffic headaches, free up our roads and deal with urban congestion. We're also investing in commuter car parks to get people off our roads and onto public transport, which helps in trying to reduce carbon emissions from traffic. That should make the Greens very happy, and we are investing in it. That's what we're doing.

We are also investing in regional infrastructure. We have the Inland Rail being constructed as we speak, which is going to get freight between Melbourne and Brisbane more conveniently and more efficiently. We're going to invest in a hub-and-spoke model so that we have the connections to get our regional freight to intermodal transport hubs, getting it to port far more efficiently, which is going to stimulate our regional agricultural enterprises and make our economy more efficient at getting our export products to market.

Most importantly, in the current environment, we are investing in water infrastructure. Just this weekend, we announced money for Dungowan and Wyangala dams in New South Wales. We are committed to further significant water infrastructure to help our nation droughtproof itself for the future. This is not limited to dams. This is also about investigating water recycling, stormwater harvesting and modern technologies so that our towns have secure water supplies into the future. We are delivering the funding needed to fast-track the construction of dams and this critical water infrastructure.

However, we need the states to get on board. That is why the Prime Minister has written to the states, asking them to prioritise infrastructure projects so that we can get this money into our economy and start stimulating our economy and creating the jobs that we know are there, ready for the taking. We need to identify the skills shortages and get people into these jobs so they're off welfare. The best way for them to increase their household income is by getting off welfare and into a job. Infrastructure projects will create jobs. They will create the opportunities that people need and want across our economy, particularly in rural and regional Australia, and I'm very excited to be part of a government that is committed to delivering these projects across our economy for our communities and for the future economic security this will provide.

If you'd listened to the contributions from senators opposite, you wouldn't think that they'd been in government for six years, would you, given the way they were talking about what they are doing now? They've had six years to do something about it. Senator Davey was talking about building a dam in New South Wales. You've had a state Liberal-National government in New South Wales for eight years, and they still haven't done anything about it. When she talked about the regional economy, there was one report that didn't make the talking points. They've come in here and they've all sucked up to the Prime Minister's office, saying how they all wake up in the morning and dutifully read their talking points. I don't have a problem with them doing talking points, but what I do have a problem with is that the rhetoric in the talking points misses the reality. The reality is what the Australian people are facing, and it is what people like Senator Davey need to be made aware of.

Let's look at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland's report that came out today, which says that youth unemployment has gone from 12.1 per cent in Central Queensland when Labor left office in 2013 to 22.5 per cent under this government. That's actually their record. So they can come in here and say on their victory lap—the hubris and arrogance we've seen since they won the election—'How good are we?' but that's the reality of what people are facing in all parts of Australia but particularly regional Queensland, and it's what this government is responsible for. That's what needs to be accepted and rammed home: this is the economy that this government has created. After six years of being in power, this is the economy that they have created.

That's what the questions we asked in question time today went to. They went to the economic circumstances that Australians are confronted with after six years of an LNP government. It's not good enough that people in regional Queensland are having to wait so long for employment. Again, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that the average wait time for someone to find a job in parts of Central Queensland is 10 times the wait in inner-city Brisbane. It's also not right that if someone loses their job in Mount Isa it takes them on average 18 months to find work. This is what people in Queensland are confronting at the moment. This is the economy that this government is responsible for.

Let's go to today's questions about the Deloitte Access Economics report about Australia's economic challenges. I thought the most interesting thing was that it made the point that these things are home grown. Weak growth, stagnant wages and unemployment are all significant problems, and they are all home grown after six years of this government. We've had an LNP government for six years. We've had three prime ministers, we've had three Treasurers—we're actually onto our fourth one now—and this is what they have been responsible for.

Let's go to the leaked talking points. This is where the rhetoric doesn't match the reality. They talk about how they'll keep the budget strong to guarantee the essentials that Australians can rely on et cetera, et cetera. There's going to be a reckoning on this when the Australian people say: 'Hang on a sec. This is what we are confronting after six years of this government.' They have no plan to fix the economy, even when the Reserve Bank cut interest rates again below one per cent. For the first time they are a quarter of what they were during the global financial crisis. They have no plan when it comes to plummeting consumer confidence. I'm reminded of Joe Hockey, when he said of the RBA decision to cut interest rates to 2.5 per cent in August 2013:

… they're not cutting interest rates because the economy is doing well. Interest rates are being cut to 50-year lows because the economy is struggling.

Well, today they're at 0.75 per cent under this government. So, if that's what they were saying six years ago, we know the reality of what they should be saying now.

We know that the government has been attempting to say that the fundamentals of the economy are strong and that it has the policy settings right. Well, we only need to look at today's report from Deloitte, which shows that more needs to be done to address weak economic growth, stagnant wages and unemployment. It also says that we're unlikely to see wages accelerate or unemployment fall much over the coming year. So, basically, what Australians can expect from this government is more of the same. They're actually not providing any of the answers that the Australian people need. They continue to do a victory lap. All we have seen from them since winning the last election is hubris and arrogance. They are going to continue with that. They will not actually try and deal with the real challenges confronting the Australian people, and the Australian people are going to work that out.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

You would think that when the IMF says the risk of climate change is catastrophic, irreversible and rising, the government would take notice. Or when they say the costs may be infinite if we don't act now, you'd think the government would be listening. You'd think that when the IMF says the risk of human extinction is real, the government would listen. When the UN climate summit says that the targets we agreed to in Paris aren't going to do the job, that we need to lift our level of ambition and the targets need to increase by three to five times, you'd think that the government would listen. You'd think that when millions of people right across the world are marching saying that they want action —hundreds of thousands of them are marching here in Australia—the government would listen.

Sadly, the answer is the opposite. Instead of listening, what we get is fudging, deflection and lies. We heard that today in the response we got from the minister to my question about the climate targets we agreed to in Paris. Lie No. 1 was that we have a target of 26 to 28 per cent. No, we don't. We're using dodgy accounting with carryover credits. That means the real target is about 15 per cent. We need four, five or six times that number to give ourselves any chance of meeting those commitments. Lie No. 2 is that we are going to meet those targets. Well, we know that, based on the current trajectory, we have next to no chance of meeting those already weak and compromised targets the government has agreed to. Lie No. 3 is that there is a plan to deal with climate change. There is no plan. We have no energy policy. We have no climate policy. The business community are crying out because there is no certainty. So what we get is more lies, more fudging, more obfuscation and more deflection. Of course, one of the biggest lies of all is that if we somehow reorient our economy, that if we transition, it is going to carry a huge cost to society and deliver no benefits. But we know that the opposite is true.

The worst part of all of this is that the coal, oil and gas lobby, working hand in glove with the government, has sabotaged the incredible potential that we as a nation have to create jobs and investment and to ensure that there is a long-term future for people in communities that are at the front line of climate change. Instead the government has held back progress knowing all the while that the technologies needed to drive this change are right there at our fingertips. We know that, by increasing our level of ambition, we give ourselves a chance of turning around the breakdown of our climate that we are currently facing. Better still, there are hundreds of thousands of jobs there for the taking right across Australia. Many of them are regional jobs—jobs in renewables and storage, jobs that will attract manufacturing. That's what happens when you have those technologies bringing down energy prices. There will be jobs in biotech and the cultivation of biomass for chemical and pharmaceutical substitution. These are jobs that are being created right around the world right now. There will be jobs in local energy efficiency—retrofits across our housing and business stock. There will be jobs in agriculture—in restoring and improving the land rather than depleting it. There will be jobs in planting trees on marginal farmland—in restoring our ravaged and depleted landscapes. There will be hundreds of thousands of jobs if we get this transition right.

Instead we have a government that is intent on prosecuting campaigns from almost a decade ago. Today we had the minister stating clearly that there are no plans to introduce a carbon price. Remember the lie that was told at the time the carbon price was destroyed: an extra $550 in cheaper energy prices. We've seen nothing but the opposite. Energy prices are up and emissions are at record levels. We're about to see the renewable sector fall off an investment cliff. We've got businesses now showing the leadership so desperately lacking here in Canberra.

The good news is resistance is building. People across the world are taking action. Right now hundreds of thousands, indeed, millions of Australians are saying: 'Enough is enough. It's time that you acted. We're taking a stand.' (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Fawcett for 14 October 2019 to 17 October 2019 on account of parliamentary business.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senators Carr and O'Neill for 14 October 2019 to 17 October 2019 on account of parliamentary business.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Rice from 14 October 2019 to 17 October 2019 on account of personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) on Wednesday, 16 October 20 19, consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Henderson to make her first speech without any question before the chair; and

(b) immediately after Senator Henderson's first speech, valedictory statements may be made relating to Senator Sinodinos.

Question agreed to.

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

That the Senate—

(a) notes that it is Anti-Poverty Week from 13 to 19 October 2019, and 17 October 2019 is the United Nations Day for the Eradication of Poverty;

(b) recognises that:

  (i) everybody has a right to a roof over their head, food on the table and a dignified life,

  (ii) Australia is a party to seven core international human rights treaties—the right to social security is contained in article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

  (iii) one in six Australian children is living in poverty and relying on food banks every week,

  (iv) people in our community are denied dignity when they are forced to live on $40 a day on Newstart for extended periods because the jobs are simply not there,

  (v) it is difficult to look for paid work if you are homeless and hungry.

  (vi) people living on Newstart are trapped in a daily struggle to make ends meet which makes it hard to think about the future they aspire to, and

  (vii) increasing Newstart is a long overdue part of addressing growing income inequality, and it would also be a real boost to our economy; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to make it a priority to help alleviate poverty by immediately increasing Newstart.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Morrison government understands that having a roof over your head and food on the table is crucial to the welfare of all Australians. That's why we provide the states and territories more than $1.5 billion a year through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement to support their delivery of key services, as well as invest $45½ million for emergency relief annually as part of our comprehensive more than $170 billion welfare and social security program.

Question agreed to.

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

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission (the Commission) has rejected the development of the Bylong Valley coal mine near Mudgee in New South Wales, citing concerns about the long-lasting environmental, agricultural and heritage impacts of the proposed coal mine;

(ii) the Commission raised serious concerns about the proposed mine, including groundwater contamination and the mine's contribution to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions; and

(iii) the Commission also raised concerns about the intergenerational inequity of environmental costs associated with the proposal, saying that younger generations would have to bear the heavy environmental, agricultural and heritage costs of the proposed coal mine; and

(b) congratulates the community, who have been campaigning for years to protect the Bylong Valley from coal mining.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The coal industry is providing jobs in communities across rural and regional Australia. It employed more than 54,000 people last year and pays more than $5 billion annually in royalties, enabling new investment in roads, hospitals and schools, and provides jobs and opportunities for current and future generations. The Bylong Valley coal project will create around 1,000 new jobs and inject hundreds of millions of dollars into the region. Unelected state agencies bowing to activists' demands are imperilling our economy.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

This motion is a running commentary on decisions of the New South Wales Planning Commission. The Greens political party set back climate change and environmental protection by more than a decade when they voted against Labor's ETS in 2009, and now all they focus on is individual projects, rather than achieving meaningful climate action and environmental reform. In fact, the Greens political party's single-issue campaigns boosted the climate-change-denying coalition vote in regional communities at the last election, further setting back meaningful action on climate change and environmental protection. The Greens political party don't care if the environment and the climate pay the price of coalition election victories. They only care about more votes for the Greens party in the Senate.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Referring to paragraph (a)(ii), today is day 35 since I challenged the Greens leader, Senator Di Natale, to a debate on climate science and on the corruption of climate science. He has failed to respond. It is day 35 since I challenged Senator Di Natale to provide the empirical scientific data showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. Again, he has failed to respond. There is no scientific justification for paragraph (a)(ii), so we cannot support this motion. One Nation is committed to restoring Australia's productive capacity. This includes providing all Australians with low-cost electricity to drive growth. Coal does that, and our country has many coal deposits. Restoring Australia's productive capacity includes ensuring a strong agricultural sector, feeding Australians and feeding the world. The Bylong Valley shows how a local community can develop this beautiful country into a food source while caring for the environment. One Nation is on record for putting agricultural land use ahead of coalmining.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 158 in the name of Senators Faruqi and Waters be agreed to.

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today 11 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Waters:

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

'To mark the Senate's involvement in the Girls Takeover Parliament, the issues of concern to young women in Australia.'

Is the proposal supported?

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

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

I want to use my short contribution to quote Sanjoli, who's one of the women taking part in Girls Takeover Parliament in the Greens offices today. Her speech reflects the very deep worries and concerns but, at the same time, the hope that young people have for the future. While both the major parties, in their efforts to get more coal, oil and gas projects up and running, are flat out rejecting the concerns of young people, she has some very strong words to say, and I want to get them on the record:

'I have some facts about last year. Sydney saw the hottest summer day in 80 years, with a temperature of over 47 degrees Celsius. We also experienced the worst drought in living memory. Queensland alone fought with 200 bushfires, and around 30 per cent of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef have died since 2016. Our children don't deserve to go through this at all. Our women don't deserve it, because they're the worst affected by climate poverty. Our Aboriginal brothers and sisters don't deserve to see their culture die.

'The Great Barrier Reef alone provides work for 60,000 people, and if the reef dies there'll be social repercussions. Dissatisfaction and frustration among young people are already at record levels and will deepen, and social unrest will give rise to uprising. Learned members of our ruling parties seem not to understand the gravity of the situation. That's the reason that mining goes on unabated, that greenhouse gas emissions are still at a high rate while we shamefully fail to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, and that the Adani mine is welcomed with open arms.

'Since we don't have another planet to run away to and we have to pass on a legacy to future generations, we need to take action, and we have to act now. Time's ticking away and our children are looking to us with hope. We can't disappoint them anymore. We need to realise the urgency of the situation. We need to withdraw all of our support for the Adani mine. We need to switch to clean energy, cut down on fossil fuels and adopt renewable energy, which Australia has in abundance. All we need is political will, empathy and accountability towards the cause and towards the people, all of which seem to be lacking.

'The on-the-ground reality is that people are protesting, shouting their throats out, to stop Adani and take measures, but it's falling on deaf ears. All that concerns the Liberals is profits at the cost of the environment. So it's with hope for a better future that I conclude with Gandhi's words: "Be the change you want to see in the world." It is up to us.'

I couldn't have said it better myself. It's about time we started listening to people like Sanjoli. (Time expired)

Equal representation of women in leadership roles across the corporate sector and in public life is a matter of public importance and one that is very important to me. I'm glad to be standing in this place to speak on this topic today. This is an issue affecting young women and girls, because our parliament should be directly reflective of the wider Australian society. Today I welcomed a young woman, Lucinka Fernandes, into my office as part of Jasiri Australia's Girls Takeover Parliament. This is an innovative program that pairs young women with politicians, with the hope of inspiring them to enter politics. It's programs like these that create real opportunities for young women and girls to see themselves working in a place like Parliament House.

She and I worked on this speech together. She reminded me of the old saying that goes, 'You can't be what you can't see.' As I said in my maiden speech, I'm fortunate enough to be surrounded by remarkable women, including my partner, Nerilee. She's one of Australia's most talented corporate women, and I admire how she's never let gender get in the way of her success, even whilst working in a male-dominated industry. Nerilee and all women like her are exceptional role models for our country's young women.

The total percentage of women in parliament today is just 32 per cent. However, it is very refreshing to note that, since the appointment of my Victorian colleague Senator the Hon. Sarah Henderson, half of the Senate is now women. I note that this is certainly not because of a quota but entirely based on merit. All quotas do is leave a question mark hanging over the rise of successful women. While they likely got there on merit, where a quota exists, their ascent will always be open to conjecture. I acknowledge that there may well be a role for quotas in countries where there is a cultural bias against women, but that does not exist here in Australia like it does in a small handful of other countries. I believe merit-based appointments ensure that capability and talent are genuinely recognised.

I acknowledge that across our federal parliament and corporate Australia we can do better and we must do better. It should be our priority to ensure that young women are nurtured early on in their careers to strengthen workforce participation. We need to continue to change the culture so that women feel supported in both their careers and their family life. It does not have to be one or the other. This is crucial in supporting women for leadership positions. We are committed to increasing the number of women in public and private sectors, and this will inspire a future generation of young women to change the representative landscape of Australia as we know it.

The dream gap report, which surveyed more than 2,000 girls and young women aged 10 to 25, revealed that girls and young women in Australia are reluctant to pursue a career in politics because they worry about being treated unfairly. We cannot afford to raise a generation of girls who have these stereotypes ingrained in them. So I say to all young Australian women: no matter your ethnic background, your religious belief or the colour of your skin, you have the right to aspire to a leadership position. We cannot allow young girls to feel defeated before they have a go. (Time expired)

Today we welcome 60 young women to Parliament House as part of Jasiri Australia's Girls Takeover Parliament—or women take over parliament, as I think it should be known! My participant is here today: Kate Bomm, a 21-year-old student—in no way a girl but, indeed, a young woman—at the Australian National University who in fact prepared this speech on an issue that impacts many young women, and that is the prevalence of sexual assault on university campuses.

Earlier this year, TheSydney Morning Herald reported the story of a young woman who was sexually assaulted in a residential hall at the Armidale campus at the University of New England. She was asleep in her bed when a fellow student entered her room, climbed on top of her and began kissing her without her consent. After reporting her horrendous ordeal, the young woman was simply told, 'You should probably just lock your door when you're asleep.' Her story is not unique and her experience is not an aberration. Another survivor at the Australian National University who reported her sexual assault to university administration was left in limbo and forced to live under the same roof as her attacker for more than six months. A student at the University of Western Australia was pushed into a bathroom stall at a university social event and forcibly groped. She said: 'It happens all the time on campus. There are so many stories like mine.'

According to the 2018 Red Zone report by advocacy group End Rape on Campus, approximately 200 sexual assaults occur on university campuses each week in Australia. That's an average of 30 students every single day. More damning in the report is that 68 students who live in residential colleges across Australia are raped every week. That is a shockingly common occurrence. In a report released by the Human Rights Commission in 2017 it was revealed that women are three times as likely as men to have been sexually assaulted in a university setting. This sends an appalling message about general attitudes towards women and community safety, particularly the attitude towards our future female leaders. More frightening still is that 94 per cent of students who were sexually harassed and 87 per cent of students who were sexually assaulted did not make a formal report, revealing a huge disconnect between students and university administration. Universities are in a unique position to implement policies to address sexual assault and harassment on campus; however, they are failing in this duty. Instead of amplifying voices through effective policies, they are contributing to a culture of abuse and victimisation in institutions that should be safe havens for young people as they begin the next chapter of their lives.

The Australian National University, a university not four kilometres from where we stand today, an institution which I'm sure a number of people in this building once attended, has a rate of sexual violence double that of the national average. Their response has been manifestly inadequate. Rather than work to improve its capacity to respond, the ANU cut senior university staff members from its residential halls. How can such cost-cutting actions be taken while students are being kept in the dark for months and left to share a home with the perpetrators? Not only is the ANU failing victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment; it is also forcing its students to become the front line in dealing with the burden of receiving disclosures and supporting peers through their trauma.

University is a place where teachers, doctors, engineers, artists and leaders are created. University is a place for creativity, passion and learning. Australia is a world leader in education. Every year we welcome a diverse range of students and academics to our world-class educational institutions. Sexual assault and sexual harassment have no place on our university campuses. We must do more to prevent it. We must take real action in addressing the prevalence of sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus. The recommendations of the Australian Human Rights Council need to be implemented throughout our Australian universities. Students need to feel heard and need to feel safe when making reports to their university, and we need to ensure that university staff and members are able to safely respond to disclosures, reports and critical incidents. At university, education should extend beyond the classroom, and students should have access to information and resources to tackle sexual assault and violence. Australian universities need to step up and prove they care about preventing sexual violence on campus and are committed to reprimanding perpetrators when it occurs. We shouldn't accept, 'It happens all the time,' as an excuse. It's time to stop failing our— (Time expired)

It's great that young women have a chance to rub shoulders with the female political leaders of today through the Girls Takeover Parliament program. It is important that young women and young men have a chance to observe and experience leadership up close, because they may well be our leaders of the future. My only hope is that they are getting solid and sensible advice and not being led astray. It is also very important that they have a chance, as the MPI reads, to raise 'the issues of concern to young women in Australia'. I would suggest that one of the issues of concern they should make sure they're aware of is the very raw deal being handed to Australia's dairy farmers at present. A lot of these young women are from the dairy industry and have a background in the farming sector, and I'm sure they can see their parents doing it very hard in the farming sector. Dairy farmers are going broke because the costs of production are increasing, including as a result of increased electricity prices—which is, incidentally, a government charge and the result of a government policy—and, of course, increasing water prices, which are also the result of government policy.

I welcome young women to take the lead and try to further themselves in our society and, hopefully in future, become leaders of this nation in this parliament, as I have had the opportunity to, but I would also like the parliament to acknowledge young men. We can push women's issues, but there are a lot of men out there who should be given the same opportunities and who feel they are being let down by our society. It is very important—and I say this to the families out there: 'You may be pushing for women to go further in our nation, but don't forget about giving the young men of our nation the same opportunities and encouragement as well.' I think that's very important. As a mother of three boys and one girl, I encourage them all equally.

Senator Hanson your time has expired. I saw that, Senator Steele-John, and I don't think it's called for.

I've always thought that you can do great things as a supporter of other people, and certainly, as a supporter of women, I think men have a very important role. As a straight person, I ran a marriage campaign in 2017, and it was from that experience that I learnt how indirectly-affected people could be very effective advocates—and how, as the father of Sophia, could I not be a supporter of women? It was a great pleasure to have Cherish, who's here in the gallery, in my office today as we did the Girls Takeover Parliament initiative.

I want to focus my remarks briefly on some practical things. I'm a practical person—although perhaps the people closest to me would argue against that—so, in terms of representation in this place, I think it is a good thing that the Senate was able to achieve gender parity in recent weeks. I'm very pleased to see that that was achieved, but there is more work to be done in the House of Representatives.

In keeping with the practical focus, I've always thought that embedding people within an organisation that has an insiders culture, so to speak, is a very important thing to do. It's very important that branches of political parties have members of all shapes and sizes, not just young men. Certainly my experience has been that where women have been members of branches and conferences within the Liberal Party for a long period of time it has meant that it has been easier for them to get preselection, and preselection in safe seats is, of course, very important, in terms of achieving a better balance in the House of Representatives.

I also want to talk briefly about some of the things that the Liberal Party has done in the past that I think we should be proud of, given that yesterday we marked 75 years as a very successful political movement. Not only was the first woman parliamentarian a Liberal; the first cabinet minister was also a woman. I'm talking here about Dame Enid Lyons and Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. Menzies himself was a great believer in supporting women. He established the women's council and, at the Albury conference in 1944, which we're commemorating this week, he said:

Women are unquestionably destined to exercise more and more influence upon practical politics in Australia … In the educating of the electorate in liberal ideas they have for many years been an effective force. Now we have an organisation in which all distinctions have gone, and with men and women working equally for the one body …

Again, in terms of practical issues, we can talk about representation in parliament—and that is very important—but in a day-to-day sense I think there are more bread-and-butter issues facing women in Australia. Things like the gender pay gap have become very prominent, and rightly so, in recent years. It is a good thing that over the last five years the gender pay gap has been reduced from 18.5 per cent to 14 per cent, as at May 2019. We're heading in the right direction, but there's a lot more work to do.

I rise today to talk about this very important motion, and that is around the international day of the girl. It is a day to celebrate girls everywhere as they break down boundaries, take charge of their futures and demand more from their leaders not just in this place, not just in the place over there, but all around the globe. We have more than 60 of these girls with us today in parliament. Today, spending the day in my office is a girl named Georgia Rice. Georgia is 17 years old and from St Francis Xavier College in Canberra. Today I'm going to talk about an issue that Georgia cares about and wants to see action taken on by this parliament. I asked Georgia to prepare a speech about something that she deeply cares about, and I was actually quite surprised and happy with the topic that she chose because it's very dear to my heart.

Georgia wanted me to let the parliament know that she wants parliament today to talk about paid parental leave and flexible working conditions. She said: 'You might wonder why a 17-year-old girl cares about parental leave. Let me explain. When I was born, my mother, being violently ill, had to remain in hospital for a few weeks. When my father applied for paid parental leave to take care of myself and my older brother, he was denied. His employer said it wasn't something he was entitled to at his position in work, so he had to take leave without pay. This is not equality.' Georgie says, 'How is it that today, 17 years after I was born and my parents faced this tough condition, we are still struggling to have a paid parental leave system that is equal? I want to call on parliament to instigate mandatory equal time for each parent to be a parent.' What a powerful statement from Georgia about something I am deeply passionate about as well—about delivering equality for women not just at work but also at home.

I agree with Georgia: we cannot have equality until both parents are able to be primary caregivers if they wish to be. We cannot have equality until we close the gender pay gap. Australia's national gender pay gap is at 14 per cent, and in my home state of Queensland it is 16.6 per cent. But some other interesting figures ring true. In the private sector the gender pay gap is 17.3 per cent, and in the public sector it is 10.7 per cent below the national average. I only raise those two statistics because it is true that women in workplaces where conditions are collectively bargained have better outcomes. On this day of the girl, I want to acknowledge all of the women and girls who have fought for equal pay, and I echo the sentiments of my first speech and encourage them not to be quiet. There will be people that will tell you to be quiet. Don't listen to them. Speak up. Be loud. In fact, I want you to be very, very loud.

I want to finish today by talking about a group of girls that inspire me every day. The Matildas are the heroes of many girls not just in Australia but around the world. In 2015, they took strike action to demand that they be paid full-time pay for their full-time jobs. Since they achieved that greater pay equity, they have gone from strength to strength. The girls here today stomping the halls of parliament, demanding that their leaders listen, are my heroes. The Matildas, who take to the field every day to live out their dreams, to be equal—to be considered equal to their peers—are my heroes. And I want to thank them for all the work they do in inspiring women around the world, around the country, and I wish them luck. And I wish the girls here today all the best of luck for the future.

To mark the Senate's involvement in Girls Takeover Parliament, I'm really proud that all the senators here with participants have given over their time so that these young women's voices can be placed on the parliamentary record. I note we have Tara, Sanjoli, Brianna, Dougha, Ashley and Manya in the advisers' box in the Senate where they and other young women belong.

I will let Tara have the three minutes that was allocated for me to this slot. Tara says:

In Australia, 4-16% of the population have an eating disorder, with approximately 1 million Australians, predominantly young women, currently living with one.

Those suffering from eating disorders have a mortality rate 5x greater than the rest of their demographic from physical causes, and death by suicide is 32x higher than otherwise expected, making anorexia the deadliest mental illness

Those who do not die from an eating disorder experience reduced quality of life due to their low weight, which can cause osteoporosis, fatigue, nutrition deficiencies, seizures, immune dysfunction, and organ damage.

Tara says:

The government has pledged $70.2M to eating disorders. This is welcome, but it's also important to start looking at some of the root causes.

Evidence shows eating disorders increase with exposure to Western media and our culture's obsession with thinness. A study in Fiji found that the percentage of young women inducing vomiting to lose weight grew from 0 to 11.3% after the introduction of Western television. 77% of surveyed Fijian girls reported television and magazines made them feel weight conscious.

The fashion industry particularly continues to promote thinness. According to WHO—

the World Health Organization—

66-94% of models are underweight, and at least ¼ classify as anorexic. This is terrible for them to maintain and a terrible example to set for anyone exposed to the media.

Things are improving—many companies are seeking to represent a more diverse range of healthy women in their ads. However, fashion and celebrity culture continues to prioritise very thin models and actors and uses photoshopping technology to erase natural features seen as flaws.

While we perpetuate unrealistic beauty ideals, young women will continue to feel pressure to conform. We can see that exposure to thinness is driving our young women to develop eating disorders, and it is time for that to end.

Other countries, including France, now require magazines to explicitly state when they have modified images. Australia should take action to encourage a broader, inclusive, and more realistic representation of women in the media.

To that, Tara, the Greens say an absolute: 'Hear, hear!' We are particularly pleased at the presence of all 60 girls that are taking over parliament today, and we commit to ensure that their voices will always be heard in this place.

Today is the day that girls take over parliament. Girls Takeover Parliament is a program organised by Jasiri Australia to raise the awareness of girls to what goes on this in place and encourage more girls into both political and leadership positions. This is my first year as a senator and it's the first year I've taken part in Girls Takeover Parliament. I was absolutely delighted to be paired with Phillipa—Pip—Gelland from Mudgee, and even more so because I have very close ties to Mudgee and its community. My grandparents lived there for many, many years and, indeed, it is where I first went to start my career as a cadet journalist. It's great to have that common background with Pip. Like many other kids from the country, Pip has now moved to the city to pursue her education, studying law and international relations here in Canberra at the ANU.

I asked Pip to prepare a speech on what matters to her. If she were in this place with a position of responsibility, what would she like to see addressed? She has rightly raised the serious problem of domestic violence. I will read Pip's speech before I add my own comments. Pip's speech read:

Australia has a serious problem of gender-based violence, especially when it comes to domestic violence. 1 woman is killed by an ex or current partner every week in our country. These cases are rarely reported to the police, and if they are, the rates of successful prosecution are incredibly low. This must change. We must be educating young people about these issues as part of the national education curriculum, and be creating change within our law enforcement procedures to make the authorities more accessible to women in need. By educating young people we are giving them the necessary tools to engage in respectful relationships from the beginning and will in the long-term reduce domestic violence rates. This is absolutely not a new idea, and was repeatedly brought up in the inquiry into respectful relationships during the creation of the National Plan for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and Their Children adopted in 2010. However, this plan was little more than an affirmation that violence against women is an issue for state and territory responses. The practice of pushing issues towards the states and territories can not suffice in this instance. This issue is not defined by state borders - it is nation-wide. In an effort to address this, the Liberal-Nationals government has invested $340 million to the fourth and final action plan under the National Plan. This has also included a focus on rural and regional women, acknowledging that women in these areas are more susceptible to domestic violence, but also have a much harder time accessing support.

Such a single federal response will negate any educational variations across state jurisdictions. The same approach should be given to reforms to the reporting processes to increase women's access to legal enforcement.

I am proud, as a Nationals senator in this government, that we have made that investment into the fourth action plan. I hope that, as a future leader, should Pip enter this place, or if she instead pursues a career in law or diplomacy, she continues to speak up on this important issue facing Australian women and girls, particularly those living in our shared home of rural Australia.

Thank you, Senator Davey. I see Pip's made it to the government advisers' box—that might not be all that long away; look out!

It's just been incredible to hear so many stories and contributions from the girls who have participated. It's been an absolute joy for this chamber to be filled with voices of young girls and young women, and I'm very pleased to participate in and join the debate. We mark this occasion today, and we have this experience all as part of International Day of the Girl Child as well, where every year on 11 October the world is called to recognise the unique challenges that girls face, to talk about their potential and to bring about significant change and make a contribution to building a better world.

It's so appropriate that, at a time when we're celebrating International Day of the Girl Child, we have all these young women take over our parliament. It's also been very special for me to be able to welcome my stepdaughter to the parliament today—she's been here with her classmates as well—because what we're talking about is my stepdaughter's future, these young women's future and, indeed, every girl in Australia's future. We're talking about their rights to education and to affordable health care, their freedom of expression, equal pay and their right to determine their own future. We're talking about their aspirations to become leaders, to create positive change, to contribute to our world and to be a voice for their own rights. It's about their hopes and dreams to follow their passions and do what they enjoy.

Over the past decade, we have seen girls all around the world rising up to the challenge and leading movements for change. They're leading the charge on tackling gender equality, fighting for action on climate change and fighting for their right to an education. There are girls like Malala Yousafzai, who as a young girl defied the Taliban in Pakistan and demanded that all girls be allowed to receive an education. Malala was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman in 2012, but she survived, and, as we know, in 2014 she became the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. There are also girls like the young women who have gone through CAMFED's mentorship program around the world, which supports girls to access schools, succeed and become leaders of change in their communities.

There are so many incredible role models globally and locally for our young girls to choose from. But, unfortunately, we know that, even whilst there are all these amazing role models for young girls, a lot of girls in Australia still don't feel entirely empowered to advocate for the future that they want to see in our world. Plan International, the leading international charity for girls' equality recently published a report in which they asked 1,461 girls and young women around Australia to share their hopes, dreams and concerns for the future. Their report showed that 91 per cent of girls had an overwhelming desire to lead change on the big social issues facing their future. But, sadly, the same girls noted that they were less confident in their abilities to achieve that leadership. This is something we should all be concerned about in this parliament, particularly as the women who have got to this place and have had an opportunity to lead. We need to make sure that we're empowering the young women who come along next to feel that confidence and that capacity to deliver change, and I hope that some of you young women who are here today really feel that and feel confident in your ability to change our country as well.

This report from Plan International showed that 91 per cent of the girls had an overwhelming desire to lead this change, and often the change that they nominated as most important was that of climate change. They were right to be concerned about this, because we know climate change is real. Its impacts have the potential to hit the poor and the young hardest, and its effects will be irreversible. It is not, as the Prime Minister has said, a matter of needless anxiety among young people; it is a matter which requires urgent and serious action.

More than 18 per cent of the young girls surveyed by Plan also nominated violence against women as a leading concern. Here in Australia one woman a week is murdered by a current or former partner and one in six women experience abuse before the age of 15. These are horrific statistics and our work to address them is nowhere near complete.

When it came to girls around the world the respondents cited education as a major barrier holding back their peers from achieving their goals and being able to participate in the kind of society they wanted to see and they're right. Globally 131 million young girls remain out of school. Four out of 10 girls will never enter a classroom. These statistics are worse in lower and lower-middle income countries where one in four young people are illiterate. We know that 90 per cent of a child's brain develops in their first five years of life but 175 million pre-primary aged children are not enrolled in pre-primary education.

This survey also asked girls what their biggest wish for other girls around the world was and one in three all agreed that it was equality—for them to also be equal, to be seen as equals and treated as equals—and if you ask me it seems like a pretty fair and reasonable wish. But the reality is our girls don't see fairness in their future and it's not hard to understand why, because beyond the issues I've already canvassed there are plenty of other barriers which remain in our community that act as a barrier to gender equality and to fairness. For a start, the gender pay gap and the associated superannuation gap remain pervasive. In 2019 Australia's full-time gender pay gap stands at 14 per cent according to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. In industries such as finance and insurance services the gap soars to 24.4 per cent. Fragmented work histories and lower paid work mean women are also likely to accumulate significantly less in superannuation savings and, therefore, face a greater risk of economic insecurity in retirement. On top of this, we know that women still carry a disproportionate burden of unpaid work. The ABS tells us that 36 per cent of women spend up to 15 hours in unpaid domestic work weekly.

If we are to take gender equality seriously, beyond these important but largely symbolic days, then we need to get serious about implementing policies that will create a fairer nation in Australia. Policies like the nation-changing reforms implemented under previous Labor governments, including for paid parental leave; the Workplace Gender Equality Act; affordable, flexible and high-quality child care and laws against discrimination and sexual harassment, through amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act. These are the types of policy endeavours we should be pursuing, not, as some of the other senators who came in before focused on, shaming women from political parties who have quotas and allegations that that means there is no merit on this side—ridiculous things to hear in a debate about girls and young women and their future in parliament. Policies like this are big reforms—nation changing reforms. I can't think of a better time to start putting women and girls and their futures at the centre of policy than International Day of the Girl.

I'm so proud to be able to share the words of Dilanga De Silva, who I have had the pleasure of hosting in my office today. The particular focus of the work that she undertook is mental health. She says, 'Mental health disorders have consistently been ranked in the top three concerns of young Australians over the last few years, with 25 per cent of young Australians having faced a mental health disorder in any one year. However, as an origin research study demonstrates, higher education institutions currently lack the resources to sufficiently deal with mental health issues. As Australians it is a right that young individuals live happy and healthy lives and are equipped with the tools to assist them in dealing with mental health issues in the future for themselves or for another person.'

She says, 'However, the mental health system in secondary and tertiary educational institutions currently fails to provide adequate and timely support when assistance is sought by individuals who are facing a mental health disorder. Too often students must wait months for an available appointment, let alone with their regular counsellor or psychologist, to receive advice and counsel on how to manage their mental health disorder. As a result students not only fall back academically and socially, but this inattention to managing mental health issues can lead to more serious actions such as self-harm or suicide.'

She continued: 'Research undertaken by Youth Action in 2017 found that mental health services were too adult centric, segmented and outdated. Mental health services are currently understaffed at educational institutions, and lacking in rural communities, and are not tailored to tackling youth issues. It is vital that the Australian government should not only address aiding young people to manage mental health disorders but also be more attentive to their effects. With greater accessibility, availability and more tailored mental health services for Australians through increased government investment in resources, we can better aid youth with mental health issues and reduce the number of deaths and situations that may occur due to poor support for people with mental health disorders.'

Dilanga has raised an extremely important issue that affects so many young people in this country. I really enjoy it every time we have Girls Takeover Parliament, and I commend the young women that have taken over our parliament today. I look forward to them taking over this parliament permanently at some time in the future.

I'm also delighted to join with Senate colleagues in endorsing and talking about the Girls Takeover Parliament program and my involvement in it. Senator Keneally talked briefly about how we should be calling it 'young women take over parliament'. I'd like to say it should be 'girls take over parliament program still' or 'young women take over parliament more' because there's no doubt that as you walk around this parliamentary building you can not only see the presence of women but more importantly you can absolutely feel the power of their presence and the influence of their presence.

I'm delighted to have had Ella Parker joining me over the course of the busy day that the Chief Government Whip has, and she is joining me in the government advisers box. Ella, from Western Australia, was previously a student at Mercedes College and is now studying at the Australian National University. She has hopes of being a future foreign minister of our country—and, as Senator Sterle will know, Western Australia has delivered some very, very competent foreign ministers. The 14th foreign minister was Sir George Pearce, a Western Australian senator, followed by Sir Paul Hasluck, Gordon Freeth, Stephen Smith and, of course, none other than Julie Bishop, who was the 38th foreign minister.

I'd like to share with the Senate this afternoon some of the remarks Ella Parker has put to paper: 'Australia is a country which prides itself on wearing a liberal democratic identity, a country in which if you have a go you get a go. However, not everyone in Australia believes they can have a go or that when they do have a go they are respected. The issue I raise today is inspired by the Jasiri Australia young women's charter for democracy, which calls for actions such as facilitating opportunities for young women and minorities to be engaged in our democracy and to ensure all elected officials are bound to a statutory code of conduct. Women have been unrepresented in the political sphere for the history of its existence, and, while improvements have been made, the fact remains that generations of young women continue to look up to a government that is founded on representation, without seeing themselves represented. Yet they account for half of all Australians. As a result, young women are growing up in a culture that does not instil confidence in their ability to govern as well as their male counterparts. Rather, they watch as female politicians are subject to misogyny and disrespect that is not suffered by men. The answer isn't necessarily quotas'—which, I might add, speaks to the independent thinking and independent thought of Ella. She says: 'We don't need women to be ticked off as a type of prerequisite to ensure the legitimacy of a party. Rather we need to change our culture so that women can have the confidence to run in preselections, gaining public support and endorsement, giving people the opportunity to vote for female candidates in equal proportion to male candidates. This will allow Australia's women to be represented in a fundamental way from the ground up and change our country's democracy to one that reflects the true composition of our society.'

Ella believes 'Australia requires a grassroots movement to instil self-belief in Australia's young women, to assure them that their voices are valued and that, when the time comes for them to stand up and represent us, we'll not support a culture that tears them down because of factors such as their appearance or for making lifestyle choices that some view as making balancing a political career unjustifiable. While public criticism is an aspect of parliamentary careers and a mechanism to ensure accountability, female politicians should not be subject to unwarranted criticism or condemnation in domains not experienced by their male counterparts. In order to encourage female representation in politics, we need to reflect this urge in all spheres of society by encouraging a national gender egalitarian direction such as has been implemented in Sweden.'

I want to congratulate Ella on her great work, her stewardship. We wish you the very best of luck in all your ambitions for the future.

As part of Girls Takeover Parliament, it's been my pleasure to host Breanna Boljkovac today in my office. She is a fantastic, intelligent 21-year-old Canberran who wanted me to take the chance, firstly, in this very brief speech to say that we need to change our attitudes towards work in this country. Breanna listens to the Prime Minister saying that the best form of welfare is a job, and Breanna would respond to that by saying, 'Actually, no: the best form of welfare is a universal basic income.' She asks the really challenging questions, and I'll just give you a couple. What is raising a child, if not work? What is studying, if not work? And Breanna says, in part in response to those questions, that we need a universal basic income to protect people from accepting exploitative employment. We need a universal basic income because we have a tsunami of automation coming our way, predicted in just 2022, which will obliterate jobs. Breanna reminds us all that the main architect of trickle-down economics and free-market capitalism, both of which are so beloved of the Liberal-Nationals parties—and she's talking of course about Milton Friedman—stated that such an economic system as free-market capitalism cannot exist, firstly, outside an ethical construct and, secondly, without a universal basic income. Well, I couldn't agree more with Breanna on those matters.

She also asked me to share a couple of her thoughts about climate change this afternoon: firstly, Breanna's view that the root cause of the climate crisis—or should we say 'climate denial', in Breanna's words—and refusal to steward with our environment is a dysfunctional and ancient idea about human nature. She's a very intelligent person, Breanna. She asked me to make the point here that that dysfunctional ancient idea about human nature is that humans are here to conquer nature, and that is a mistake. Breanna quite rightly wants us to understand that humans are part of nature and she's worried about profits being put before people and before nature. Breanna urges us to adopt a multidimensional approach, a holistic approach—an approach where we understand that an amoral economic system will always lead to immoral consequences. Hear, hear, Breanna!

As the youngest woman in this Australian parliament, I would like to extend my support for the Girls Takeover Parliament program, an organisation that aims to encourage young women to become more politically engaged and to provide a pathway for them to pursue a career in politics. The Takeover enables young women to make political networks and provides them training for working in parliament as well as mentorship for those seeking leadership positions in politics. Girls Takeover Parliament is a great initiative, and I'm very pleased to have a fantastic participant, Alex Robson, in my office today, experiencing what it's like to work in the Senate.

One of the main concerns for many of the young women participating in this program is the disproportionate underrepresentation of women in politics. Indeed, this is an issue that I myself have engaged with closely prior to being elected to the Senate, through various roles within the Young Liberals and also in the senior Liberal Party. By having capable women demonstrating strong leadership skills in government, we encourage the greater participation of other young women in politics. As my female colleagues often say, you can't be what you can't see. Programs like Girls Takeover Parliament not only provide young women with the confidence that they have the ability to pursue political careers based on their own skills and merit but also shine a light on the achievements of women more broadly in our parliament. It is important to recognise that change is happening in terms of female representation within the parliament. Indeed the Liberal Party has made significant inroads in recent times. Just recently my colleague Senator Sarah Henderson was sworn into the Senate, which means that half of the Senate is now represented by women. There are now seven women in the Prime Minister's cabinet, which is the highest it has ever been. In my own state the election of myself and Senator Wendy Askew to the Senate, as well as Bridget Archer to the other place, has doubled the number of women the Tasmanian Liberal Party has ever sent to Canberra, in the space of just a few months. I know that many more will follow us here.

Fundamentally it is reassuring to know that this has been achieved not through quotas but through the hard work and the merit of the women in question. Inevitably, debate on how we can increase the number of women in parliament often turns to the use of quotas as a way of achieving gender equality. However, in my experience, for many women the notion of quotas is offensive or even embarrassing. I know that, in my time in the Liberal Party and in the Young Liberal movement, the women I have worked and volunteered with who have an ambition to run for politics want to know that, when they put their hand up to be considered for these positions, they are competing and winning these positions entirely on merit and not on the basis of gender. We don't want to be given a position in federal politics under a scheme of quotas; we want to get here through our own hard work, because we are skilled and capable and because we've been democratically elected as the right person for the job. To me, and to many of the girls and women that I have spoken to, that is true gender equality. Fundamentally, quotas are a quick fix. They are a shallow way of addressing the real issues that cause women to be underrepresented in parliament. If we truly want gender equality, we need to be taking actions that effectively address these issues and not just using quotas to patch over them to get more women into parliament as quickly as possible. This is neither sustainable nor truly within my definition of what gender equality is. Once again I reinforce my support for Girls Takeover Parliament for its work in empowering young women to take part in our parliamentary processes, and I congratulate the other participants here today. Well done and thank you, and I look forward to, hopefully at some point in the future, welcoming some of you to this place as colleagues.

I rise to add my contribution and the contribution of the young woman who has been spending time in my office today as part of this Girls Takeover Parliament activity and program. Firstly let me just say what a wonderful program I think this is. Of course it is alongside the Day of the Girl, which many of us over the last few days have been celebrating and participating in as well—a wonderful program that is primarily promoted and advocated for by Plan International, a very worthy organisation and one to which, I might just add here, in light of the legal case that I have currently on foot in relation to former senator David Leyonhjelm, I have pledged to give any money awarded. That's how important this organisation is for ensuring that women right across this country and indeed the rest of the world have an opportunity to not only get an education and further their employment prospects but also have a say in the way their communities are run and the way society acts in their interests, not just in the interests of men or corporations around them.

Dougha, the young woman in my office today, came to Australia when she was four years old. She's from Pakistan. Her family migrated to Australia because they wanted her to have a better opportunity. She has diabetes, and they wanted her to have the best possible health care. They wanted her to have an opportunity to get an education, and this young woman has gone on to do just that, now studying politics, international studies and law at the University of Canberra—formidable, of course. When she talks about what she would like for the future of her generation, it is very strongly rooted in the reflection that she wants in this parliament—that is, a reflection of the diversity of the Australian community. She says that, as a young Australian continually frustrated by the lack of government action to advance human rights of refugees, she's resorted to raising money and aid for awareness for refugee programs herself, putting herself at the front of political activism and advocacy. This young woman, alongside her other colleagues, desperately wants this place to represent and reflect what it is: the new diverse face of Australia. (Time expired)

It is fantastic to have 60 young women and girls striding through the corridors of this place, clashing so brilliantly with the otherwise male, pale and rather stale hue that descends upon it. For me and my team, it has been a pleasure and an honour today to be guided by Havana of inner Western Sydney. If I could, I would reach behind me and tear down the golden balustrade and allow Havana to speak her words herself right here. In the absence of that ability, I will read her words directly to the chamber. From her perspective: 'As a young woman, I was raised in a single parent household alongside three children. It was thanks to social security support that we were able to put food on the table and pay for a roof over our heads. However, due to the lack of care and support for public services, we often had to rely on non-government organisations and charities to be able to pay for school fees, buy uniforms, attend most of our activities and be part of our community. This situation is not good enough.

'As a young woman who has spent too many weeks in hospital due to the lack of mental health support throughout my life, I have seen the injustices and lack of care given to those who use our public services. I've had people in my life suffer with suicidal ideation and psychosis rejected from emergency departments because they weren't sick enough. This is not good enough. My own personal experience is of being admitted to units and left to my own devices without seeing a doctor or psychologist, because there simply wasn't enough funding given to the public healthcare system to provide the resources necessary to help those at disadvantage in our society.

'Being a young person with a disability, having been forced to drop out of school due to mental health reasons, the government cut me off Centrelink support when I turned 18 because my mum had only just reached the threshold at which she was no longer eligible for Centrelink. It left me in a position where I was almost housebound by my mental health and therefore unable to maintain a job and was unable to feel part of society. I was left feeling like a burden on my family.'

Despite these challenges, Havana is an incredible leader and advocate, a joy to work alongside today. I call upon everybody in this place to move beyond words and take the actions needed so that folks like Havana feel and know that this place is working for them.

Girls Takeover Parliament is a fantastic initiative which allows young women from a wide range of backgrounds to access parliamentary processes which are so often limited to only the privileged few. I'm particularly excited this time to see so many women from diverse backgrounds taking over parliament. I've had the pleasure and privilege of hosting Manya Sinha in my office today. Manya has identified domestic violence as an issue that matters to young Australian women, especially those from a migrant and refugee background.

The following is in Manya's words:

The issue of domestic violence is a crucial issue for Australia's young women. Every week another woman is killed. One in three Australian women have experienced violence since the age of 15. Eighteen- to 24-year-old women experience the highest rates of domestic violence. Young women from migrant and refugee communities are increasingly being left behind in the government's domestic violence reforms and strategies.

The government abandoned any attempt at helping these women, who are left most vulnerable. Legal services are overrun and funding is just not there. Migrant and refugee women often experience barriers to reaching out for help when affected by domestic violence because of their limited social and economic capital, including some who have been provided no knowledge of their rights. The government has to be held accountable to protect the safety of young women in our community, whom this parliament is supposed to represent. I call on the government to remember their duty to the young women of Australia and take substantive action to fund programs tailored to migrant and refugee women affected by domestic violence. For every Parwinder Kaur, Syeda Nirupama Hossain and Preethi Reddy, there are many more cases that go unreported by the media.

Thank you so much, Manya, for raising this incredibly important issue in the Senate. It has been my privilege to share your words because, sadly, you can't today. So it is our duty to make sure that young women like Manya keep taking over parliament until our parliament looks like the streets and suburbs of our country.

The time for discussion has expired.

by leave—I present to the Senate a petition relating to Hong Kong, which is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This report was released during the break and there are some very critical points in the audit which, unfortunately, are not positive. The total budget funding for the National Ice Action Strategy for actions that the Department of Health has responsibility for implementing was $451.5 million over six years. The object of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Health's implementation of the National Ice Taskforce. The ANAO found that the Department of Health's implementation of the National Ice Action Strategy was partially effective. The department's planning for the implementation of the NIAS was not effective, it found. It said the department drafted but did not use or update an implementation plan and risk register, aside from monitoring progress of the actions it was responsible for implementing. It said an approach to measuring performance was not established. We are talking about the National Ice Action Strategy—over $450 million.

The ANAO said actions recommended by the department's program assurance team to ensure performance and accountability measures are in place have not been progressed by the program area. The ANAO said the department's delivery of actions outlined in the National Ice Action Strategy was largely effective but the department has delivered, and is in the process of delivering, the 19 actions it has responsibility for and Australian government funding for the alcohol and other drugs sector has increased. It said that, although the department monitors the activities of the primary health networks, it has not finalised a quality assurance framework that would allow it to assess whether the PHNs are effectively commissioning, monitoring and evaluating drug and alcohol services. Four hundred and fifty million dollars, folks! It goes on to say:

That's how much the department is paying attention to the ice strategy and that very important issue. Are we spending over $450 million effectively? This is the same government that now want to drug-test income support recipients when the evidence from health and addiction experts overwhelmingly is that it will not work. They say they're trials. Trials? In my mind, it means evaluation, but they haven't even evaluated the over $450 million they've been spending on the ice strategy. How do we know what's effective? We also know that we don't have enough services in place. We know because we've been listening to the community. We've been out there talking to the community. Experts appeared at the very short inquiry on drug testing. The committee actually tabled its report at the end of last week. What we heard throughout that inquiry is that there just aren't enough services on the ground—that the $10 million that the government's promised will hardly touch the edges.

My question is: how can you put in place drug-testing trials when the biggest expenditure for a long time on this matter of addiction has not been monitored? We actually don't know what's working. I cannot understand how you can put that much money in place and just leave it there, not monitor it and say, 'Oh, yes, but we want to now test this process.' All the drug, alcohol and addiction experts, as well as a person who appeared before the committee and whom you hear from very regularly, say that it won't work. Is it more about demonising people on income support? I've got to say that this government are very good at demonising people on income support. Heaven forbid, you could actually raise them out of poverty and give them a raise in Newstart—'We'd much rather demonise them and drug-test them. We won't bother evaluating it properly, because we're not very good at evaluating anyway.' It's a flawed approach. We should not treat Australians that way. We will never support drug testing. We do support spending money on drug and alcohol addiction, but let's spend it properly and make sure we know what works.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I will keep my remarks very brief. I note that the industry continues to significantly outperform expectations. The animal livestock trade, particularly based in my home state of WA, has done an absolutely extraordinary job of reducing the level of mortalities in the trade, as once again demonstrated by this latest report. I won't go through the numbers in detail; they're here for everyone to see. In a very large number of cases, there were zero mortalities, particularly on cattle vessels. From my very rapid glance through the numbers, the highest level of mortalities in this period was around 47 deaths on a particular boat, which is a very low mortality rate indeed. The livestock trade continues to clean up its act. It continues to get better every day. I just want noted for the record what an outstanding job live trade is doing, both economically and in terms of animal welfare.

Question agreed to.

I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning a government response to the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee into the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program.

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

by leave—I move:

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

Australia's Family Law System—Joint Select Committee—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Roberts

Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed—Participating members [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into the 2019 federal election]: Senators Hanson and Roberts

Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology—Select Committee—

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Hanson and Roberts

Jobs for the Future in Regional Areas—Select Committee—

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Hanson and Roberts

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—

Discharged—

  Senator Van

  Participating member: Senator Henderson

Appointed—

  Senator Henderson

  Participating member: Senator Van

Migration—Joint Standing Committee—

Discharged—Senator Dean Smith

Appointed—Senator Henderson

Multi-Jurisdictional Management and Execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan—Select Committee—

Appointed—Participating members: Senators Hanson and Roberts

Publications—Standing Committee—

Discharged—Senator Dean Smith

Appointed—Senator Henderson.

Question agreed to.

The President has received a message from the House of Representatives informing the S   enate that the House concurs with the resolution of the Senate relating to the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System.

The question is that the bill stand as printed.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8778 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 20), after item 4, insert:

4A At the end of section 8

Add:

(4) In performing its function under paragraph (1) (ca), the number of guarantees issued by the NHFIC in a year must not be greater than the number (if any) specified in the rules for the purposes of this subsection.

(5) In relation to the NHFIC's function under paragraph (1) (ca), the rules may provide that the NHFIC must not issue a guarantee in relation to a property if:

(a) the property is in a specified class of properties; and

(b) the value of the property is above the amount of value specified in, or worked out in accordance with, the rules for a property in that class.

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 18), after item 11, insert:

11A After paragraph 14(a)

Insert:

(aa) that relates to a matter mentioned in subsections 8(4) and (5); or

11B At the end of paragraph 14(b)

Add "or the rules".

These amendments are to ensure there is parliamentary oversight over key aspects of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. The scheme is designed to help first home buyers save the initial deposit they need to get a mortgage and purchase a home. Eligible households that wish to buy their first home can apply to have the government provide a loan guarantee worth up to 15 per cent of the property's value. Eligible households would only have to save five per cent on the deposit, and they wouldn't have to pay lenders mortgage insurance.

The government have announced some of the details about how this policy will operate. They've said that there will only be 10,000 guarantees provided a year. They also stated that there will be price gaps on the housing that can be purchased under the scheme. The Senate inquiry on this bill noted that these guarantees have not been worked through. Treasury and NHFIC, the body that will provide the guarantees, told the committee that they are continuing to consult with stakeholders to refine the details of the scheme. A close read of the bill shows many of these key details will be formally set at a later date through a ministerial direction that is not disallowable by parliament.

I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough. I have to be honest with you people. It looks like only a quarter of the job has been done here and you haven't done anything else. It seems that this is starting to become a habit for the coalition—putting bills up and changing things, and the bills actually have very little substance. It's starting to get to the point of being shameful. It shows me you haven't done your homework. That's not good enough when you're making major decisions like this, especially when there are many people out there who would like to purchase their first home, but this is unavailable and so they cannot. I'll have questions at the end of this. I'm sure you'll look forward to answering them. I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask those questions.

These amendments will ensure the parliament retains the ability to disallow important provisions which determine how this will work. They provide parliamentary scrutiny over the number of guarantees provided and the eligibility criteria for the housing that can be purchased under the scheme. I'm not asking for the policy details to change from what the government has already announced, and I'm not trying to slow down the proper process of getting these policy settings right. All I'm asking is that parliament gets a say over how the government spends the millions of dollars that are earmarked for this so-called scheme. Retaining parliamentary scrutiny over key aspects of this scheme is important. Some economists have raised concerns about whether providing deposit guarantees will actually help improve housing outcomes for first home buyers. While I have some reservations about this particular bill, the government is right to put housing reform on the agenda. We need broad housing reform to ensure all Australians can afford to keep a roof over their heads.

Housing affordability is a problem across the nation that is growing by the day. The steady rise in the cost of housing has increasingly eaten away at the typical Australian household's budget since the 1980s. Too many families can't afford to live while they raise their children or start their careers. Poorer households are struggling the most. They've been spending more and more of their take-home incomes on housing, especially in recent years. Today more than a quarter of the household budget goes toward putting a roof over their heads. Buying a home is very difficult. House prices have grown much faster than incomes in both cities and the regions. It's hard for young people to get a foothold in the housing market, and the lucky ones can rely on the bank of mum and dad. Let's be honest: that's exactly what they're relying on. Those who can't will have to save for eight years or more before they save their deposit to get a mortgage—and that's if they ever manage to buy a house at all. Home ownership has become a pipe dream for many Australians. Sixty per cent of younger households owned their home in 1981. Today only 45 per cent do. Older households are also increasingly less likely to own their own home, and ownership is going to become less common amongst retirees over time. As a result, renting is becoming the new norm for many families.

Back in the 1990s, around one-fifth of Australians rented privately from landlords. Today, over a quarter do. That means that renting isn't just a phase people are going through anymore. Renting isn't just for people in their 20s who are waiting until they can afford to buy a home. These days, it's a reality for the young and old. While plenty of Australians rent because they want to, most will tell you that renting can make life pretty difficult, let alone putting away money for a house. For one thing, renters are more likely to have to move than people who own their own home. A survey of renters in 2017 found that over 80 per cent of households who rent are on a fixed-term lease of 12 months or less or aren't on one at all. That makes renting insecure. Fifty-five per cent of long-term renters have moved five times or more in their adult lives. Every time they move, they risk losing their connection to their community, having to put their kids into a new school or having to switch jobs. Because moving can be so disruptive, renters will avoid requesting repairs for mould, broken locks or pests because they're worried that they might get blacklisted if they make trouble for their landlord.

Despite everything they put up with, renting is still not particularly affordable for many households. People on welfare are especially likely to have trouble. ABS data shows that over 40 per cent of renters who are on working-age payments have had to turn off their heating, skip a meal or put off paying their bills to be able to make rent. That's much worse than for those who manage to own their own home. Modelling from SGS Economics and Planning shows that there isn't a single rental property in Sydney, Melbourne or inner Hobart that will be affordable for a lone person on Newstart. Part of the problem is that the Commonwealth rental assistance hasn't kept pace with the rising costs of rents, so people on welfare are spending a rising share of their household budget on housing. The low rate of Commonwealth rental assistance is affecting pensioners who rent as well. They also are struggling to find a rental property that's affordable, and they're much more likely to be in financial stress than pensioners who do own their own homes.

With all the pressure on the household budget, it will come as no surprise to anyone that homelessness is on the rise. More than 116,000 people were homeless in Australia on census night in 2016—up from 105,000 in 2011 and 90,000 in 2006. Many more are falling through the cracks. Around 300,000 people access specialist homelessness services every year. With a little help some are able to find a suitable home, but for thousands they find themselves sleeping rough.

We need broad housing reform to solve the problems we face. Providing loan guarantees for first home buyers is just a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of the challenge. Social housing must be a top priority. The best evidence shows that social housing is the most effective way to combat homelessness. Securing a stable home is often the first step for vulnerable people to tackle other problems that they've had during their life. It's not that surprising, really. Beating addiction and finding work is much easier if you have a fixed address and a safe place to rest. Social housing also comes along with wraparound support services which help people to re-integrate with their neighbourhood or into their local community and find a way to rebuild after they have hit rock bottom.

But even though the benefits of social housing are well known, state and federal governments have underinvested in the sector in the past decade. We haven't built enough social housing to keep up with the growing population. Two decades ago, five per cent of all dwellings in Australia were social housing. Today, just four per cent are. Maintenance is also very poor, and that is putting it politely. Many of the units are in terrible shape. Infrastructure Australia reports that one in four Australians believe our social housing is of poor quality and expected to worsen. One in three people told Infrastructure Australia that public housing is too hard to access, and they're right. There are over 140,000 applicants on waiting lists for public housing nationally. If recent experience is anything to go by, only about 20,000 will be allocated to housing. Five thousand will wait for two years before they secure a place—and that's on a good day. They're the lucky ones. How many more people give up or end up on the streets or live out of their cars?

Social housing will help, but it is expensive. We can't possibly afford to house everyone. The government should also consider raising Commonwealth rental assistance or Newstart to make it easier for families to find a home in the private rental market. Policies to make it easier for households to buy housing, like this one, must be subject to proper scrutiny and evaluation. Unfortunately, it's easy for my peers on both sides of the aisle to make big promises about how they plan to help young householders buy their first home and realise the great Australian dream. Grand ideas are a good start. They're the basis of any brave policy. But the housing affordability problem faced by Australian households is complex, and simple solutions to complex problems don't end up solving anything.

I'm concerned that economists have questioned the efficiency of this scheme and I'm concerned that key aspects of the policy haven't been figured out yet. I'm concerned that this bill, in its current form, will prevent elected representatives from doing their job and holding the government to account on housing policy that will cost millions of dollars every year. I call on the chamber to support the suggested amendments.

I do have some questions. I was wondering if the minister may be able to give me just a little bit more information. It just seems like a very grand plan here and it doesn't have much substance to it. I am terribly concerned you've got no cap. Can someone with a million bucks out there come and get their first home? That's my first question: what's your cap on how much you can spend on a house? Certainly you would have to have a cap in place. If you can afford to go and get a million bucks out, surely you don't need that money?

Thank you, Senator Lambie. Can I say thank you for those genuinely considered and salient points about housing affordability and its complexity. You are right to say that there is officially no cap that is included in the investment mandate.

If there's no cap—

In the legislation.

So there's no cap?

Order! It would assist if the question is put and then an answer is given rather than interjections through the chamber. For the benefit of Senator Lambie, the interjection was that there is no cap in the legislation.

When do you propose that you'll be putting in amendments or doing whatever you need to do to this bill to put a cap in here? Obviously, this is a massive problem. You're telling me, if I've got a million bucks I can lend this money and do what I need to do. If there's no cap, how do you expect this to work?

The core elements of the scheme will be articulated in the investment mandate, which will be issued by the government, which will sit alongside the legislation. The matters that will be covered in that investment mandate including the decision-making criteria for the guarantees, limits on the guarantees and the risks of returns relating to the guarantees. The scheme will commence in January 2020 and a public consultation process is planned for the proposed amendments to the investment mandate, which will detail those core elements of the scheme and also of the research function.

Is there a reason you didn't figure all this out in the scheme before you brought this through the chamber? It's a fair question. Come on.

When this bill was taken to committee, the Senate committee report, which was released on 10 October 2019, recommended the bill be passed as is. The committee acknowledged the need for flexibility to modify the scheme to suit the circumstances of the sector. The committee noted that it was particularly comfortable with the scheme's specific details being included in the NHFIC investment mandate. The government needs to retain the flexibility to amend the parameters of the scheme as necessary. Price caps that are subject to the disallowance will create uncertainty and confusion for lenders and for borrowers.

Is that with your 10,000 guarantees? There will be 10,000 guarantees given out each year. Is that part of your committee process too? How do you intend to work out which lucky 10,000 Australians are going to have a go at this?

The government, through Treasury and through NHFIC, is consulting with stakeholders on how to best ensure the allocation process is efficient and accessible to first home buyers across the country.

Economists have questioned whether this scheme will work. They've warned that the guarantees might end up going to first home buyers who would have been able to purchase a home anyway. Some experts have suggested that this scheme could push house prices up if it were expanded. Does the government disagree with this view? Why is the government ignoring this advice from economists?

Just to recap, the scheme will provide 10,000 guarantees to first home buyers every year. Those first home buyers will have a deposit of at least five per cent of the property price. They'll have a taxable income in the prior financial year of below $125,000 per annum for singles and $200,000 for couples. It will only involve owner-occupied principle and interest loans, and they have to be Australian citizens purchasing that property. It is expected that the usual competitive principles will apply to lenders offering these loans, and interest rates will reflect the competition in the market. Any costs associated with providing the loans will be absorbed by the participating lenders. There are such limitations on the scheme that it is not believed that it will have any significant effect on property markets.

Has it been taken into account that some states already have first home buyer schemes? Where does all this come into it? Does this move them down the list of the 10,000 guarantees, or are they going to get a top-up with this and be able to get their first home buyers—the state government of Tasmania has $20,000 for a first home buyer. Is this going to affect what they're already getting? Can they get this on top as well?

The objective of this scheme is that it will be complementary to existing schemes out there.

Housing affordability is a huge issue for many Australian families. Not being able to buy their home is part of the problem, but renters are also struggling, especially if they're on welfare. Modelling from SGS Economics shows that there isn't a single property in inner Hobart, Sydney or Melbourne that is affordable for a person on Newstart. Loan guarantees for first home buyers aren't nearly enough. What is the government going to do to make a difference for Australians who are struggling to keep their heads above water?

That's probably outside the scope of the details of this particular bill.

The Treasury and NHFIC told the Senate inquiry that they are still figuring out how these loan guarantees will be delivered. Why is the government putting forward this bill when the policy hasn't been finalised? I think it's a fair question.

That's actually why we have the NHFIC, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. That is why we're making this amendment—to enable NHFIC to make those decisions.

Economists have questioned whether this scheme will work. They've warned that the guarantees might end up going to first home buyers who would have been able to purchase a home anyway. Some experts have suggested that this scheme could push house prices up if it were expanded. Does the government disagree with this view? Once again, why are you ignoring this advice? What has the government actually done to guarantee that this will not push house prices up? What modelling has been done to make sure that this is not going to occur?

The aim of the scheme is to provide 10,000 guarantees per year, so the scheme is in fact quite modest in size and is unlikely to have a significant effect on house prices. On average, there are around 100,000 first home buyer loan commitments every year, so 10,000 guarantees would be modest in size.

So, basically, this isn't going to do anything to help housing affordability, is it? You're not reducing anything. We're not giving people extra money. How is this going to help with housing affordability?

The aim of this legislation is not to bring the price of houses down overall. The aim of this scheme is to allow first home buyers to enter the market with only a five per cent deposit.

I thought I'd let Senator Lambie have the call for a bit and follow her issues through, but I thought I should put on the record Labor's position on Senator Lambie's amendments. Labor senators will not be supporting these amendments. This legislation provides guarantees in a similar manner to how the Commonwealth provides off-budget financing across a number of portfolio areas. These matters are normally managed through the statement of expectation and the investment mandate.

Whilst the committee heard evidence during the legislative inquiry that caps could be introduced via legislation or regulation, Labor senators emphasised that an early review of the scheme was the best way to ensure the scheme was meeting its objectives. That's why Labor will not be supporting these amendments at this time. While I'm on my feet, I might remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, that in my second reading speech I foreshadowed some other amendments that Labor is making to this bill as well, but I won't go into that again.

Thank you, Senator Watt. We'll come to those in a moment. Right now the question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8778 moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.

Question negatived.

I move the amendment that has been circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), after item 15, insert:

15A After section 57

Insert:

57A Review of assistance to first home buyers

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's activities assisting additional first home buyers to enter the housing market to be commenced within 3 months after the end of:

(a) the period beginning on the date when the first guarantee is issued and ending 12 months after that date; and

(b) each subsequent 12 month period.

(2) The persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

Would you like to speak on the amendment?

Not particularly, because I foreshadowed it earlier.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

I rise to speak on the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019. This legislation represents a tidy up of arrangements that were put in place when the Australian National Line was sold by the Howard government in 1988. At the time of sale, employee entitlements were transferred to the new owners along with all physical assets and the ownership of all business names and associated intellectual property. It has since become apparent that, due to the original ANL Act not being repealed, whilst the Australian government no longer owns the business names of the Australian National Line, the current owner's use of them is compromised. The ANL Act lists the business name Australian National Line as a protected name from unauthorised use. The original intent of protecting the name in the ANL Act 1956 was to ensure that no parties not associated with ANL would be able to use the name or similar names as a trading name. Since the sale, this is no longer necessary. Instead, what has come to light is that the CMA CGM, the owners of ANL, now face limitations on registering and re-registering domain names and other intellectual property due to the 1956 protection of the name ANL still being in place. The opposition agrees that it is unreasonable for this impediment to be in place and therefore supports this legislation. Similarly, we support the repeal of the ANL Guarantee Act, another piece of legislation that has not been required since the sale of ANL in 1998. The old guarantee act was in place to provide for the Commonwealth government to guarantee any loans or other financial undertakings given by the then government-owned ANL.

In supporting this legislation, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister's office and officials from the department for their timely and professional advice on this legislation. However, what the opposition does not support is the current government's lack of support for the Australian maritime industry. Unlike those opposite, Labor is a proud supporter of Australian shipping. We believe that the future of Australian shipping is vital for our economic, environmental and national security. As an island continent, it is natural that shipping provides the key transport linkage for our international trade in commodities. In fact, 99 per cent of the trade to and from Australia is carried by ship. Sadly, less than half of one per cent of this trade is carried by Australian flagged vessels. Disappointingly, thanks to this government, less and less of this trade is carried out by Australian workers on Australian flagged ships. That is because as soon as they were elected the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments set about dismantling the policy framework that was put in place by Labor to support and encourage the maintenance and growth of Australian shipping.

This government's assault on Australian shipping started with the competition policy review that was released in 2015. The Harper review basically recommended open slather when it came to Australia's coastal shipping. In their narrow view of the world, there were limited or no benefits to Australian flagged vessels being given priority in moving around our coastal trade. The government's lack of support is having an adverse impact on our local maritime industry. For the year 2015-16, the total tonnage of goods carried under coastal trading licences was 34.3 million tonnes. Of that total amount, only 10.4 million tonnes was carried by Australian flagged vessels. Twenty million tonnes was carried under temporary licence and a further 3.9 million tonnes was carried by vessels with transitional licences.

A temporary licence provides access to engage in coastal trading in Australian waters for foreign flagged vessels. The licence is usually valid for 12 months, is limited to Pacific voyages and costs $400. Alarmingly, there has been a continued decline in the number of major Australian registered ships. Today there are only 13 registered ships flying the Australian ensign. There is an alarmingly low number. Australian flagged ships crewed by Australian mariners would be the cornerstone of any additional capacity and skills our nation might need in times of significant national crisis. Australian owned large cruise ship companies seem to prefer foreign flagged vessels staffed with crews employed under overseas conditions that have much lower standards for wages and occupational health and safety. The industry is booming, but the Australian economy is not reaping the full benefits.

The horrifying stories of abuse and neglect of crews that often end up in Australian waters should be a cause for concern for everyone in this chamber. It certainly was when Labor was in government, which is why the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese, established a national system to lift safety standards. The Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill and 'stronger shipping for a stronger economy' reforms introduced by Mr Albanese not only protected maritime workers' safety whenever they were in Australian waters but also sought to provide a stronger framework to protect Australia's coastal and marine environment. These reforms were welcomed by industry and workers alike.

What has happened since? Unfortunately, as soon as the current government came to power, under the first of their three prime ministers in the past six years they immediately went to work on dismantling those protections. Another challenge facing our maritime industries, our national economic interests and our national security is the ever-increasing number of temporary licences granted by this government that allow foreign flagged ships to do the work of Australian maritime workers in Australian waters. Previous Senate committee inquiries have highlighted the challenge that flag-of-convenience crews pose when they come to Australia. Australian mariners are subject to stringent background and criminal record checks before being issued with their Maritime Security Identity Card, MSIC, which is essential for any Australian seeking to work in Australian waters or on Australian wharves.

However, foreign crews or foreign flagged vessels are not subject to these conditions. Not only are there real risks to their health and safety—as they've often been forced to spend months if not more than a year at sea without any contact with family or friends, working for subsistence wages—but also we have no way of knowing or policing their background and associations when they dock in Australia. That this has been allowed to flourish on the government's watch is truly alarming. Whilst organisations like the International Transport Workers Federation and locally the MUA do what they can to support vulnerable and exploited workers whenever they are aware of them arriving in Australia, the current situation really is not good enough.

In addition to the genuine safety and security concerns that arise out of the government's approach, I'm sure colleagues will share my concern at the reports that have emerged over the past few years of overseas-sourced labour working for as little as $2 per hour to provide maritime services. Only recently the International Transport Workers Federation asked AMSA to urgently investigate following reports that seafarers on a vessel docked at Port Kembla had not been paid for two months. The bulk carrier was in Port Kembla to carry steel from BlueScope. AMSA was also called in to detain a foreign flagged vessel at the port of Brisbane just the other week—again, because of reports of underpaid workers. In this case it is alleged that the crew were owed over $100,000 by the ship's owners. A Panama flagged vessel docked in Gladstone the previous week was found to be carrying fraudulent documentation and operating two sets of books, the second set in an attempt to disguise wage theft. Last year AMSA detained a vessel in Devonport, again following complaints of unpaid wages. In this case, crew had not been paid for six months. Eventually the vessel was given permission to leave, after more than $300,000 in unpaid wages were recovered.

Recently the ITF inspectors identified $250,000 in unpaid wages during audits of vessels at Australian ports in one week alone. These cases show that massive wage theft and most likely other exploitation of foreign seafarers is taking place in Australian waters. AMSA usually acts swiftly when they're made aware of these abuses, but it's not good enough for the government to sit back and wait for organisations like the ITF to do what should be the government's job. And, as has been pointed out time and time again, these situations have occurred not because there is a shortage of skilled maritime workers in Australia but because the government has allowed and facilitated this race to the bottom. The deregulation-at-any-cost approach that began under the former Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, and continues to this day, brings with it consequences that impact on our economic and national security.

Earlier this year the national secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, Mr Paddy Crumlin, said:

… the Liberals and Nationals have been driving a race to the bottom on the Australian coast, with highly-skilled Australian seafarers replaced by flag of convenience vessels registered in notorious tax havens and crewed by exploited foreign visa workers …

Well, Mr Crumlin was right. The federal government stood idly by in the first half of this year when BHP axed the last two Australian iron ore carriers. This ended a proud Australian maritime trade that had existed for a century and, with the axing of those two vessels, 80 Australian jobs disappeared. No sooner had BHP made their announcement than the federal government signed off on temporary licences that replaced the vessels with foreign flagged carriers and allowed 80 hardworking Australians to be replaced by those with overseas visas. So much for protecting and supporting Australian jobs and Australian workers!

This government is certainly no friend of workers, especially seafarers and maritime workers. Indeed, they actively work against Australians seeking good jobs to support their families. Australia must have as a priority the maintenance of a skilled and valued maritime workforce. That is why this is a priority for Labor at a national and at a local level.

In my home state of Tasmania, the Hodgman Liberal government has repeatedly neglected our state's needs. Most of the goods that Tasmanians need for their day-to-day lives come to Tasmania by ship. The goods we seek to export to mainland Australia and the rest of the world leave our state by ship. In recognition of the vital role our ports play in Tasmania's economic future, TasPorts has repeatedly called for an $80 million investment in the port at Burnie. This money is essential to increase the port's capacity, improve ship-loading capacity and construct an international container terminal.

Tasmania depends on infrastructure like that much needed in Burnie to maximise our agricultural and mining exports and to enhance our appeal as a tourist destination. This critical investment would directly lead to jobs on the north-west coast in the electorate of Braddon. People on the coast are finding it tough to get a job. Starving our vital infrastructure of the investment it needs to help our export industries and create jobs just doesn't cut it. Without this investment, our agriculture and mining sectors miss out on export opportunities and locals miss out on jobs. Yet the government has failed to provide, in a timely manner, the investment that farmers and mining companies are pleading for.

It is not just the needs of our ports that the Hodgman Liberal government is ignoring. It is also ignoring the safety of those working in and seeking to use our ports. There is currently a dangerous lack of maritime pilots working at the Port of Hobart. Until recently, there was only one marine pilot available in all southern Tasmania. This one person has had to cover the Port of Hobart 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the past month. Unless the government acts, and acts quickly, operations at the port will become risky as we head into the busy cruise ship season. The amount of stress being experienced by marine pilots operating in Tasmania is of significant concern. Poor rostering has caused shipping delays. Shipping at Bell Bay was delayed for 12 hours late last year because of a shortage of available staff. The pilot shortage at the Port of Hobart has also led to delays in shipping. Pilots employed by TasPorts have been known to accumulate up to 12 months of leave for the reason that there aren't enough pilots employed by TasPorts to allow them to take a well-deserved break.

Just as Tasmania is dependent on a vibrant Australian maritime sector, so too are many of our important regional communities. For example, how would our regional and remote communities in the Torres Strait get the supplies they need if it weren't for Australian ships and Australian seafarers? Where is the Australian government's commitment to those communities' ongoing welfare? Not only do Australian seafarers help sustain these communities; they help improve our knowledge of environmental and other incursions on our coastline. You have to ask: what does the Liberal Party have against Australian ports and our maritime industries?

Despite the government's lack of interest, Labor remains committed to working with all stakeholders to revitalise the Australian shipping industry. In the lead-up to the last election, Labor's then shadow minister for transport and infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, committed Labor to ending the abuse of temporary licences that has occurred under this government—abuse, I might add, that is contrary to the current legislation. Mr Albanese has repeatedly and correctly pointed out that the national interest is no longer adequately prioritised by this government when it is considering maritime policy.

Unlike those opposite, Labor believes in a strong and vibrant maritime industry and will always support Australian seafarers, maritime workers and Australian flagged ships. This is why Labor is proposing its amendment to the second reading motion.

As I mentioned earlier, Labor supports this legislation. Labor would also welcome the support of the chamber in standing up for Australian shipping and Australian maritime jobs. We can't have a strong, secure economy if our nation is completely reliant on foreign vessels to provide our fuel, bring in the goods we need, carry our exports and move products around our coastline. I formally move the second reading amendment standing in my name and I commend it to the chamber. I move:

At the end of the motion, add: "but the Senate:

(a) notes this Government's record of undermining the Australian shipping industry; and

(b) reaffirms that Australia's economic, environmental and national security interests are best served by a viable and competitive Australian shipping industry."

I rise to speak on the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019. This bill repeals legislation related to the former Commonwealth shipping line ANL Ltd. In the words of the explanatory memorandum, it does so to remove restrictions against the use of protected names relating to the former Commonwealth owned shipping line ANL Ltd and to remove outdated and unnecessary legislation.

It is worth revisiting the origins of ANL, because it captures some of the significant changes in our society as the major parties have slowly stripped governments of many of the assets they used to own. In 1946 the Australian government established the Australian Shipping Board. In 1956 the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission took over the operation of a number of ships operated by the Australian Shipping Board. They operated under the name of the Australian National Line, and the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission became simply the Australian Shipping Commission in 1974. In 1989 the Australian Shipping Commission was transformed into ANL Ltd, operating as a public company wholly owned by the government. The Keating government tried to privatise it in the early 1990s, but it was the Howard government that eventually privatised it, in 1998.

The explanatory memorandum to this bill notes that the 1998 sale included the assets, the intellectual property, and transfer of staff. Analysis by the Parliamentary Library in 1997 noted that the coalition's approach was harsher than the one previously planned. It said:

The major change is that under this Bill the Government will not retain a special or 'golden share' as provided for under the Keating Government's law. This, in effect, means that many terms and conditions of employment of ANL's workforce are not being entrenched by legislative means. The Government, for example, would have no legislative basis for insisting that ANL's articles of association contain a special provision that the company employ only Australian workers.

The ships have long since been sold, and this bill is only tidying up the legislation to make it a little easier for the current owners. But tragically, though the crucial legislation has already passed, the impact of the privatisation agenda is still impacting many of us across the country in many areas of our daily lives. Fundamentally, there is a strong case for government ownership of key assets. I'd like to quote from the book Governomics: Can we afford small government? by Ian McAuley and Miriam Lyons. It says: 'All economists apart from those under an extreme libertarian fringe accept that natural monopolies require some form of public policy intervention. Disagreement is about details, including definitions (for example, are cellular phone networks natural monopolies, do buses compete with commuter trains?) and on the means of intervention.'

A report by the Grattan Institute identified many sectors across the entire Australian economy that are natural monopolies. They include electricity transmission and distribution, rail freight transport, airport operations, toll road operations and port operations. These sectors and many others have an important impact on people's daily lives. When you use electricity, catch a train or flight, park at an airport or pay a road toll, you may be paying too much—exploited by private companies because governments have failed to act. The ACCC has called out airport operators for how much they've charged for airport parking and the fees they're charging airlines.

That's why I'm proud of the policies the Australian Greens took to the last election. We believe that electricity, banking and the internet should be run as essential services, putting public good before corporate profit. We want to create publicly owned energy and banking providers to stop people getting ripped off by big corporations. In our platform, our plan includes establishing a new publicly owned competitor to private power companies. It would be dedicated to driving down costs instead of driving up profits. We want to establish a people's bank to provide basic banking at cost price.

Governments failed us when they gave in to the corporate privatisation agenda and sold off so many key assets in the nineties. Now we need to focus on the key areas that need to remain protected in public hands. We recognise that, in relation to ANL, the sale has already occurred and we understand this bill is just housekeeping. But we stand committed to a vibrant public sector that provides key services Australians deserve, whether it be electricity, banking or other parts of the economy.

I rise tonight to make a very brief contribution on the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019. As previous speakers have said, this is merely a clean-up bill. The ANL was sold a long time ago under the Howard government, as those opposite correctly noted. However, I think it is appropriate to put a little bit of context, a little bit of history, into this debate, particularly given some of the other things that were said.

The decision to sell the Australian National Line was actually taken under the Labor government. In fact, in 1991 the then Labor government declared that they wished to sell it. I would bring to the attention of anyone who's listening an article by Mr Keith Trace, who was an associate professor of economics at Monash University at the time. It's a very interesting article because it sheds light on the trouble that the Labor government had in carrying through on its policy in the face of an intransigent and highly militant union in the MUA. It is a tale of both the destructiveness of the union movement and the inefficiency—the terrible inefficiency—of government owned enterprises in certain sectors.

I'll just highlight one thing from this article, and I note again that this took place over the period of the Labor government. The ANL had an operating profit of around $40 million in the early eighties when Labor came to power. It ranged between $20 million and $40 million from the period 1984 to 1986. Then it basically fell off a cliff. By 1994, due again to the gross inefficiencies within the system, the ANL—and, remember, this is in 1994 dollars—had sunk to a $120 million operating loss. That is quite an extraordinary trajectory, particularly for a government owned enterprise. What did ANL actually own at this point in time? It only operated 12 vessels, four of which it owned outright. So, owning four vessels outright and operating 12 vessels, it managed to achieve a net operating loss of A$120 million in 1994 dollars. As I've said, this article is a litany of aggressive union tactics basically designed to drive this business out of government ownership. I find it very, very surprising that those opposite don't remember this history, because, Senator Sterle, I think some of you were around at the time. I note, this is just a clean-up bill. I do commend all those who will support the bill.

I won't take long, but I think it's important. I've been working around this area for a long, long time. This is just a clean-up bill. My view is very clear: I think it's criminal that the ANL was sold to start with. I think it's absolutely criminal that this government has done everything it can to diminish the Australian shipping fleet. This government has gone out of its way to make sure that we have not only got rid of Australian flagged vessels but killed off good paying Australian jobs.

Let's get this very clear. We are an island nation, for crying out loud. I was joking a number of years ago with a good friend of mine ex-MUA secretary Mick Doleman. Mick said to me, 'There were more ships in the First Fleet when we came to Australia than what we've got now.' I said 'Mick, that's not even funny anymore.' But this is what it is: we've got 13 flagged vessels.

It is imperative that anyone listening to this should actually focus on what this government has done to drive down the opportunity for Australian seafarers. Masters, skippers and engineers don't go to a pastel-coloured classroom at TAFE to learn how to be a master, a skipper or an engineer. These skills are learned for many, many, many, many years. I'm not joking. It's getting into near on 20 years where these workers develop these skills. They don't get it out of a Wheaties box. Could you imagine the bile that would be coming from that side if we said: 'We don't need Aussie farmers anymore. We'll just get rid of Aussie farmers and we will bring in whatever from other countries. Not only that but we'll exploit the temporary visa system and we'll exploit them when they get here.' Could you imagine what they'd say? Senator Brockman—you and I get on extraordinarily well—you'd know there'd be uproar. So why is there not uproar when our shipping industry has been decimated by the Howard government followed by the Abbott-Turnbull—and where are we now?—Morrison government?

Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, you and I sit in here and listen to Senator Reynolds give off her spiels in question time about Defence and about what a great spend we're doing in shipping and Defence. Here's a little bit of info for that mob over there: did you know that before all these Australian defence vessels that are going to be built here can't be handed over to the Navy until the merchant navy has done all the sea trials? Think about that. You're going out of your way to make sure there won't be any more captains, engineers, masters and the lot. Who the hell's going to do it then? What are you going to do? Are you going to exploit another temporary visa system or another worker visa system and bring in foreign engineers and captains? That's what you're doing now.

We also pride ourselves that, when we have catastrophes off our coast on the Australian Great Barrier Reef, they're not Australian ships that are running into the reef. From an environmental argument too, we want Australian captains, Australian engineers, Australian masters and Australian seafarers.

What happened to the old thing you stuck on your fridge that said, 'Don't be alarmed; be alert?' What about national security? Wouldn't it be nice if we knew where all of these seafarers were coming from before they came here? This may come as a shock, but I am totally fired up and have been for many, many years watching the Australian seafarers and seafaring industry being decimated by that side of government. I think the hypocrisy from the government is extraordinary. They need to be held to account, because, as I said, I couldn't imagine it if we imported all our farmers. Maybe what we should do is exploit foreign visa systems and bring in foreign politicians. They'll probably work for one-tenth of the wage too; they're probably not a bad idea. I bet you'd jump up and down about that. It's a nothing bill, but I'm still pretty peed off about the demise of the Australian shipping industry. That's it.

I rise to talk about the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019. This bill is to repeal the ANL Act 1956 and the ANL Guarantee Act 1994. It is designed to remove the current restrictions that are extremely out of date and unnecessary. ANL was an Australian government owned shipping line that was sold to a French shipping company in 1998. This sale included all access to business names, the IP and websites. It also included for the remaining staff to have all their leave and entitlements be met by the new owner. Over the years since the sale there have been issues around new owners having full provisions to use the ANL trademarks, IP and web addresses without the risk of being sued. This bill will give the legal clarity and certainty to the French container company that they are entitled to.

Labor, as a party, are proud to support the Australian shipping industry. We know that shipping is an important national strategic industry. For my home state of Tasmania shipping is crucial for our island. If we are to value and add to the products and produce that we are currently exporting then shipping will only become increasingly more important. As an island we depend on shipping as it is our lifeline. We rely on the shipping industry for transportation of freight and passengers. In fact, in Australia 99 per cent of our trade to and from other countries is carried out by ship. We know that Australia has the fourth largest shipping freight task in the world.

In Australia international shipping is becoming busier with the expansion of our commodity trade. We have also seen a boom in the cruise ship industry and know that we're seeing more international tourists visiting Australia. In Tasmania alone for the period of 2019 to 2020 there are 130 scheduled cruise ships planned to visit. This boom in tourism, with the help of cruise ships, is great for our economy both here in Australia generally and, in particular, for my home state of Tasmania.

Through the history of Labor, we have shown we are proud to support the vital role that the Australian maritime industry plays in securing our economic, environmental and national security interests. In fact, if Labor had been elected at the last election we would have worked to create a strategic fleet of Australian flagged vessels that could be called upon in areas of strategic importance to the Australian economy and, in particular, the distribution of liquid fuel. If Labor had been elected in May, we would have stopped the abuse we see on temporary licences that has occurred under this Liberal government, which is in breach of existing legislation. We would have ensured that the national interest was of high importance when it comes to licensing of foreign ships to work in Australia.

Labor, unlike the current government, is a big supporter of the Australian maritime workers and the Australian flagged vessels. We know that a vibrant maritime industry can help serve our nation's economic, environmental and national security interests and, as such, we want to see the industry that serves the nation's shipping needs able to create profit for the industry and secure a strategic set of maritime skills that can provide jobs and opportunities for our people.

In fact, the Australian Maritime College, based in Launceston in Tasmania, has a significant role to play in education and training, and skilling of maritime workers both within the Australian shipping areas and also internationally. So we do have very much a vested interest in ensuring that we have a vibrant, profitable but well-trained and skilled maritime industry.

In the last six years, we've seen contrast to Labor's plans and, in fact, we've seen this current government neglect this vital industry. We've seen this government undermine policy settings that were put in place by the previous Labor government, and they have failed to even offer an alternative view for the maritime sector in this country. Even though we know we have a high percentage of trade to and from countries, we've seen this current government cut our Australian fleet. We now have only 14 vessels that operate both domestically and internationally. Australia's seaborne trade is carried by less than half of one per cent by Australian flagged ships. This is money going out of Australia and means fewer jobs for Australian workers.

In my home state of Tasmania, shipping is vital in creating jobs and economic growth. Tasmania, as I've said, is an island that is isolated by water, and as such Tasmanian consumers and exporters demand and depend on shipping in order to export our high-quality products and produce. If nothing is done to protect shipping, then Australia is potentially at risk, which would have a massive effect and a very negative effect on our economy.

With the ridiculously high use of temporary licences that have been allowed under this Liberal government, on their watch we have seen foreign flagged ships come in and do the work, bringing along with them foreign workers. As such, work has been taken away from Australian maritime workers. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have had an extremely long history of undermining the viability of Australian maritime industries, despite their importance to our national security. They talk about wanting to keep all Australians safe, yet we have international vessels from a various number of countries coming into our waters, and we have no idea—I repeat: no idea—about their workers and if they could potentially create a risk to our security.

In fact, in 2015 the then minister for transport and infrastructure tried to introduce legislation that would rip up reforms made by the previous Labor government's legislation that aimed to protect Australian shipping. While the Labor Party agrees to support the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill, we will be watching the government very closely and very carefully, as their track record regarding protecting Australian shipping has not had the high priority that we would place on it, and we will be holding them accountable. We will continue to keep this government accountable, and we will make sure that the maritime industry is protected and that Australian workers and Australian businesses are looked after and not pushed aside and forgotten by this Liberal government.

I rise to speak on the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill. As has been noted, this bill repeals the ANL Act 1956 and the ANL Guarantee Act 1994, which both set out arrangements relating to the former Commonwealth shipping line ANL, or the Australian National Line, which was owned and operated by the Commonwealth during the last century.

The ANL shipping line was founded in 1956 and operated until 1998 as a Commonwealth owned entity. In 1998, the Commonwealth sold the line, including all associated business names, trademarks and intellectual property, to the container shipping company CMA CGM. Since the sale of ANL to CMA CGM in 1998, the ANL Act has been left dormant and has largely had no legal or practical effect. And while most of the act is defunct, it still restricts the use of certain protected names relating to the ANL shipping line, including the names 'ANL', 'Australian National Line' and 'SeaRoad'. This is restricting some businesses from registering domain names, website names and trademarks, despite these businesses actually having used these names in good faith for many years since the sale of the original company.

The ANL Act contains no discretionary provisions or powers that would allow other entities to use the protected names. The government has taken a pragmatic approach towards enforcing the protected name provisions. No prosecutions have been undertaken and none are planned. However, we need a permanent solution. A permanent solution is required to ensure that we as a government do not hinder businesses from legitimately registering or reregistering trademarks, website names or other intellectual property, especially those businesses that have been doing so in good faith for many years.

Repeal of this act is the most appropriate and efficient means to remedy this situation. If the ANL Act is not repealed before 1 November 2019—this year—when the website registration of the first affected company is set to expire, the Commonwealth could be exposed to significant legal, financial and reputational risks for not honouring that 1998 sale of ANL in good faith. As with the ANL Act and the ANL Guarantee Act, as they no longer have any legal or practical effect, they should and can be repealed. The guarantee act sits with the Treasury portfolio and grants the Treasurer the power to guarantee loans made in relation to the former government shipping line, ANL Ltd, but, as the ANL shipping line no longer belongs to the Commonwealth, this power is no longer required.

This bill is important because maritime trade is and always has been vital to Australia's economy, and we need to make sure that our companies and corporations can operate using their own intellectual property and trademarks. In fact Australia relies on sea transport for 99 per cent of its imports and exports. A substantial portion of our domestic freight also depends on coastal shipping. Shipping and maritime trade supports both directly and indirectly the livelihoods of Australians right across the nation, including in my home state of New South Wales, where ports serve as a key economic driver in our region: the port of Newcastle is the largest port on the east coast, is one of the world's largest coal export ports and has been a global trade gateway for more than 220 years; Port Kembla, on the Illawarra coast, is home to the state's largest motor vehicle import hub and grain export terminal and is the second largest coal export port in New South Wales, behind Newcastle; and Port Botany, the largest container facility in New South Wales and the state's primary bulk liquid and gas port, serves as a global trade gateway to Sydney, the largest population centre in Australia.

It is a duty of Australia's regulatory framework for our maritime industries to remain current and fit for purpose and it is a duty that we take very seriously. I agree with Senator Brown, who says that we need to maintain a viable, sustainable industry, but it is also very important that that industry is internationally and globally competitive, and that is what the government is committed to doing. Our regulatory framework should continue to facilitate trade, which is critical to the continued prosperity of so many Australians and Australian industries, and this requires the government to remove unnecessary regulation and regulatory burdens to support the efficient operation of maritime businesses. In essence we need to reduce red tape. This bill will ensure affected maritime businesses can get on with their operations and make important contributions to our national economy without interference from unintended historical regulatory barriers. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I'm going to speak just briefly on the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019 tonight. It does sound like the Senate will vote in favour of this bill, correcting a longstanding oversight associated with the 1998 sale of ANL by the Commonwealth. As we heard earlier, the sale of ANL, 21 years ago, included the rights to business names, intellectual property, domain names et cetera; however, the continuing existence of the ANL Act and the ANL Guarantee Act poses a statutory bar to the current owners' comprehensive use of those rights. This repeal will remove any restrictions on the use of protected names by the current owners of ANL. The coalition is at least willing to take action to help one shipping line; if only it could say the same for Australia's maritime industry!

As Senator Sterle and others on this side have said, Labor is a strong supporter of Australian shipping. When we came into government in 2007 we took steps to reform the shipping industry, consulted widely with industry and unions and eventually passed the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012. This coastal trading act sought to level the playing field for the Australian shipping industry. It offered, as my colleagues Senators Sterle and McCarthy wrote in 2017 in a Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report:

… a stable fiscal and regulatory regime, one that would encourage greater investment and promote international competitiveness.

The 2012 reforms that were led by the former Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, now the federal Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, included measures, like favourable taxation incentives, to encourage the flagging of ships in Australia. It encouraged the employment of Australian seafarers and funded a maritime skills development package.

We took these steps because Labor recognised the importance to our future of a flourishing and vibrant shipping industry. A strong shipping industry is critical to our strategic position, in terms both of economics and of national security. We need a thriving domestic shipping industry. Almost all trade to Australia—99 per cent, in fact—is carried by ship. We have the fourth-largest shipping freight task in the world. As our commodity trade expands, international shipping is becoming busier. Our cruise industry is also growing rapidly. Not only does this explain how critical the industry is; it also shows the extent of the opportunity that shipping presents to our economy.

Sadly, that's an opportunity that, over the last six years, the current coalition government has been determined to squander, to our detriment. In the four years between 2013 and 2017, 12 Australian vessels reflagged to foreign states. Today, there are just 14 Australian flagged vessels operating domestically and internationally, and less than one-half of one per cent of our seaborne trade is carried by Australian flagged ships. The coalition has overseen six years of neglect of our maritime industry. Not only did the coalition vote against the reforms back in 2012; it has twice attempted to pass legislation that would have undermined Australian shipping industry legislation and would have seen the demise of employment opportunities for Australian seafarers.

It's clear to me and other senators on this side of the chamber that the coalition simply does not take seriously the potential for and the regular occurrence of the exploitation of foreign seafarers in Australian waters. The coalition government has tried to push its reforms, which have inflicted enormous damage on the Australian shipping industry, through the parliament twice in the last six years. What Australian seafarers and the shipping industry stakeholders need to know is that, unlike senators on the other side, my ALP colleagues and I support the Australian maritime workers and Australian flagged vessels. That is why Labor is committed to stopping the abuse of temporary shipping licences that this government has allowed to go unchecked and in breach of the existing legislation.

When it comes to licensing foreign ships, we are committed to prioritising the national interests. We're committed to working towards a fleet of Australian flagged vessels that will be not just necessary for the future of a successful Australian shipping industry but essential so it can be called upon in times of strategic importance. Labor is committed to a vibrant shipping industry—a maritime industry that serves the national interest and is profitable and strong. We are committed to ensuring seafarers in our territorial waters are free from exploitation and wage theft. We are committed to a shipping industry that provides good jobs with proper pay and conditions. Labor will never support measures that undercut and undermine the Australian maritime industry, and we'll continue to draw the attention of this place and the attention of the Australian community to this government's continuing neglect of Australian maritime workers and Australian flagged ships.

The ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019 repeals the ANL Act 1956 and the ANL Guarantee Act 1994, removing outdated legislation and unnecessary restrictions on businesses. These two acts set out arrangements relating to the former government's shipping line ANL, the Australian National Line, which was owned and operated by the Commonwealth during the last century.

In 1998 the Commonwealth sold the ANL shipping line. Following transition of the ANL shipping line to a private business, most provisions of the ANL Act ceased to have any legal or practical effect. A key exception is provisions protecting the use of names such as ANL and SeaRoad once the Commonwealth sold the ANL shipping line. These protections should have been removed but were retained through a historical oversight. Recently, these protections have impeded a small number of maritime businesses that have sought to undertake activities such as reregistering of website names and registering trademarks, despite these businesses having used the names in good faith for many years. This bill repeals the ANL Act, correcting that oversight by removing an unintended and unnecessary barrier impeding business operations and honouring the sale of ANL in good faith. This will allow these businesses to get on with their operations and continue making important contributions to our national economy. Like the remaining parts of the ANL Act, the ANL Guarantee Act became obsolete following the 1998 sale of ANL. The power for the Treasurer to guarantee loans made in respect of the former government business ANL has long ceased having practical effect. Both acts should therefore have been removed as unnecessary and outdated pieces of legislation.

I acknowledge and thank the Treasurer for his agreement to repeal the ANL Guarantee Act simultaneously to support the efficient use of the parliament's time. Removing outdated and spent legislation is part of the government's duty to ensure Australia's regulatory framework for our maritime industry remains fit for purpose and supports the efficient operation of our maritime businesses. I thank senators for their constructive contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

There is no committee stage required. I call the minister.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I am in continuation, but I would like to draw your attention to the state of the chamber, Acting Deputy President Kitching. (Quorum formed)

Sitting suspended from 18:29 to 19:30

The Senate last discussed the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019 on 29 September. Given the passage of time, I'll briefly reiterate some of the remarks I was making.

As originally drafted, this bill was certainly flawed. That was rather unfortunate, because this law has the potential to have a direct impact on more Australians than any other piece of national security legislation, noting that most Australians will at some stage, and often regularly, go to airports. Soon, however, as a consequence of this legislation, visitors to our major airports will be well advised to check that they are carrying photographic identification, because they could be stopped by the Australian Federal Police and asked to identify themselves. If a person's not prepared to do so, they'll face significant fines. If considered to be a problem for aviation security, they'll also be at risk of being banned from their flight or being ejected from the airport—banned for up to 24 hours.

Minister Dutton has said that people won't be randomly checked. However, police officers will certainly enjoy significant discretion to demand identity checks and to expel people on security grounds. Missing a flight may involve significant costs for a person who has broken no law but, by virtue of background or association, falls within the intelligence risk profile. And of course we know that while police do a good job they don't always get the intelligence right 100 per cent of the time. Moreover, these new powers may easily be focused on particular ethnic and religious groups, so de facto ethnic and cultural profiling is a significant risk.

This bill has been amended since it was first introduced by the government. The government agreed to a number of recommendations by the PJCIS, and one presumes that therefore it will soon pass through. I'd just like to make a couple of points in conclusion. The first is that, beyond the specific powers contained in the legislation, a great deal will depend on the operational practices, the culture and the use of intelligence by the Federal Police. While the annual reporting requirements will provide us with some general statistics on the use of these powers, the parliament needs to keep a close eye on just how the AFP goes about exercising these powers. This legislation, as I said before, has the potential to impact on a large number of people. And most young people don't carry IDs anymore; they don't carry wallets, because their iPhone or their Samsung can do much of their credit card transactions and they may not feel the need to have ID upon them.

In times of terrorist threat or international tension, the legislation could be used to help the public, but it could also be applied with disproportionate focus on particular groups and communities within our diverse society. The operational impacts of this legislation will need to be subject to review, both through the Senate estimates process and, given the sensitive security and intelligence background, through the PJCIS. This will be essential so that the parliament and the travelling public can be assured that the operational use of these new powers is proportionate and effective. Consequently, to provide appropriate parliamentary review, Centre Alliance will move an amendment to the bill to insert a four-year sunset clause on the operation of these new powers and a second amendment requiring that within no longer than three years the PJCIS must undertake a review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of these new powers as well as security matters at major airports more generally. That review would be required to be completed within nine months—that is, before the sunset clause would take effect. The parliament has included similar review and sunset clauses in other major counterterrorism and security legislation. Such measures are appropriate in relation to this bill given its potential impact on the travelling public.

My other concluding observation arises from the inevitability that the Department of Home Affairs, the Federal Police and other law enforcement agencies will, in due course, say, 'Why stop at airports?' Similar security considerations may apply to other places where large numbers of people gather—railway stations, bus interchanges, sporting matches, music festivals or, indeed, any crowded shopping mall. No-one would be surprised if this federal legislation sent a signal to state police to do similar sorts of things, just as we saw with the very, very narrow application of intercept powers when they originally came in. Now, they are commonplace across every jurisdiction. We may all be safe, but with each successive tranche of security legislation there is an incremental but significant change in the relationship between citizens and government operatives. Privacy and freedom of movement will no longer be rights, but they are incrementally subject to even greater discretion on the part of law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies. So we do need to consider the big picture, and we must make sure we do our job in respect of accountability.

I rise to speak in favour of the government's Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019. This bill will enhance police powers at Australian airports by enabling police constables and, indeed, Protective Services Officers, in appropriate circumstances, to direct a person of interest to produce evidence of their identity to facilitate an identity check or to direct a person to leave the premises or not take a flight.

The overarching priority of this Morrison Liberal government is to keep Australians safe and secure. This government is absolutely committed to ensuring that our police services can continue to protect Australians. Of course, aviation is an enduring and attractive target for terrorism and organised crime. The disrupted terrorist attack on the Sydney airport in July 2017 both demonstrated this and demonstrated a level of sophistication which had not been seen before in this country. Airports, ultimately, are known focal points for gang related activities, such as illicit drug trafficking, and they provide pathways for transnational, serious and organised crime groups to expand their operations for domestic and international travel.

Australia's busiest airport, Sydney's international airport, handled as many as 44 million passengers in 2018, 16.7 million of which were international travellers. My home airport of Adelaide handled eight million in the last financial year. Although the current arrangements provide a strong and comprehensive system of aviation security, it's always essential that we remain ahead of what is an ever-evolving threat. The police powers bill, as I'll describe it, will expand police powers at all major airports—and I'll come back to that—by enabling police to direct a person to produce evidence of their identity, which we'll describe as an identity-check direction, direct a person to leave the airport premises or not take a flight or direct a person to stop or do anything else necessary to facilitate an identity check. For example, the proposed amendments would ultimately allow officers to check the identification of a person where a known terrorist suspect, for example, drops off an unknown person at an airport or where a person is seen photographing screening and security points.

Of course, police would always be required to exercise these new powers based on a very clear criteria in the legislation, and relying, as always, on their specialist expertise and training. The new threshold, which is provided by this bill, is that the police are to exercise their powers to safeguard the public order and safe operation of a major airport, which is perhaps a broader definition, or a lower threshold, than the previous 'airport security' definition.

This of course doesn't mean that the intention of this bill is to check the identity of every person in the airport. The police presumably have no interest in doing that, nor will they have the resources to do so. It's not the intention that these powers would ultimately act as a de facto requirement for people to carry identification. The move-on direction is not a mechanism for punishment. Rather, the intention is that the move-on direction would allow the police to provide what is basically a circuit-breaker to safeguard public order—for example, by preventing people from boarding a flight. As always, it would be open to police, in circumstances where they have enough information to reach the criminal threshold for arrest, to avail themselves of that as well.

The Australian government is committed to ensuring that these powers are genuinely exercised in a non-biased and non-discriminatory manner, with laws that are necessarily reasonable and proportional to the threat. I should also say that these measures have been developed on the advice of the Australian Federal Police. That advice was, in essence, that the current identity-checking powers were no longer suitable, were no longer enough, and were no longer purpose-built for the current national security environment. So the government is essentially trying to strike the right balance between security and, of course, minimising disruption to the travelling public—and the numbers I detailed earlier on show that very large numbers of people travel through our major airports.

I should say that, as always, people will have a range of options when asked for identification—and I notice that Senator Patrick touched on the issue of children and their identity before. They'll be able to satisfy a direction given by a police officer or a security professional to provide their identity in a range of ways. That may well be producing something as simple as a passport or a driver's licence. One would assume a person would be very likely to have a passport in an airport. It could be providing a student card or a Medicare card, or simply giving the officer their name, date of birth and address. In the case of children, it would be open to the police to simply contact another person such as a parent or guardian to obtain the name and date of birth to confirm their identity.

In circumstances where a person does not have proof of identity but appears to have a genuine reason for being at the airport, this bill provides that the police may simply accompany that person without trying to delay them. However, a refusal to provide ID, coupled with having met that threshold along with the behaviour of the person, may elevate police concerns about threats to public order, and the power could be used. That is the intention of what is being proposed here. Obviously it goes without saying that the Australian Federal Police have a high level of training. Their officers at airports will regularly undertake specialist training, including behaviour analysis. The AFP will regularly review and update their programs in the environment to ensure that the current legislative powers continue to maintain their sufficiency.

It's instructive in certain circumstances to think of the bill in its current form as a case study. You can well imagine a situation where, in response to a heightened-threat environment, increased numbers of police are assigned to patrol and observe security screening areas, which of course are a significant point in an airport. Police may well, in this circumstance, observe a person taking photos or videos at the screening point during and passing through security. In that circumstance, the police may well look to CCTV footage and, in circumstances where, for example, the police identify that that person has been at the airport for a lengthy period of time—perhaps potentially even for hours—taking photos and making notes, police may well consider this conduct highly unusual in contrast to the sorts of normal and everyday observations that you would see at an airport.

Under our existing laws, the person's behaviour in those circumstances would probably not be sufficient to reach the threshold where the officers would have identity-checking powers. But, in the currently described circumstances, a still image of the person could be circulated amongst the officers and, if the person were approached and were still not prepared to provide their name, date of birth and so forth, the police could issue a direction to that person to provide identification upon the grounds that it was reasonably necessary to safeguard aviation security. In those circumstances, coupled with that suspicious behaviour, if the person were to refuse to comply, the police could issue a move-on notice or direction for 12 hours, providing them with sufficient time to conduct checks of intelligence holdings and assess the threat. That may well provide the critical circuit-breaker that ensures that our airports remain safe.

The government would take upon itself to make sure that the new powers were advertised, and the new powers would be made available on the Department of Home Affairs website prior to their coming into effect. But they would only apply to major Australian airports such as those in capital cities and, in addition to those, those in the Gold Coast, Launceston, Alice Springs and Townsville. As the bill has been framed, these airports have been selected on the basis of advice from the Federal Police. They've been identified because of the large volume of passengers that trickles through those transit airports.

As I see it, the bill is further evidence of the government's ongoing commitment to keeping the travelling public safe, keeping our airports safe and, ultimately, providing our police with the necessary tools they require to do their jobs effectively. It'll provide our law enforcement agencies with tools to protect Australia's airports and its citizens from serious criminal and security threats. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise to sum up the debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019. In doing so, I'd like to thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate on this bill, which will ensure that our police can continue to keep safe and secure the thousands of Australians who transit through the airport network every day. I would also like to thank the parliamentary committees that have considered this bill, including the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, for their contributions.

While Australia's aviation network is amongst the safest in the world, it is an unfortunate reality that our airports are seen as an enduring and attractive target for terrorists and for transnational, serious and organised crime syndicates. In July 2017, a terrorist plot to blow up an Etihad flight departing Sydney was, thankfully, disrupted, preventing what would otherwise have been the greatest loss of Australian life from any terrorist attack in history. This terrorist plot demonstrated a level of sophistication not seen before in Australia, and was just one of the 16 planned terrorist attacks that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have disrupted since the national terrorism threat level was raised in September 2014. Organised crime syndicates also pose a significant threat to Australian communities and the Australian way of life. These groups are highly adaptable and resourceful, looking for opportunities to exploit any potential vulnerabilities in our aviation network for their own criminal operations, such as the trafficking of illicit drugs and firearms.

With these threats to Australia primarily based offshore, our actions to combat serious and organised crime must be targeted at detecting, deterring and disrupting the actions of criminals seeking to infiltrate our borders, including through our major airports. Although Australia already has a strong and comprehensive aviation security framework, we must continue to review and bolster our security arrangements from time to time to remain ahead of these real and evolving threats.

This bill will strengthen police powers at major Australian airports, enabling police to direct the person to produce evidence of their identity and to leave the airport or to not take a flight for up to 24 hours if they pose a criminal, safety or security risk. The bill also contains new offences for failing to comply with a direction to stop, provide proof of identity or move on from the airport in appropriate circumstances. These offences are an enforcement tool to ensure that use of new powers is not frustrated by noncompliance. Police will be able to use the new powers at all major Australian capital city airports as well as Alice Springs, the Gold Coast, Launceston and Townsville airports. These airports have been identified because of the large volume of passengers who transit through these airports annually and, in some cases, because of international flight departures. The responsible minister will also be able to determine additional airports at which the new powers may be exercised, which in practice will be based on operational advice from the Australian Federal Police and the broader intelligence community.

Various Commonwealth, state and territory laws apply across Australian airports. This bill seeks to address some of this complexity by giving police consistent and appropriate powers to respond proactively and proportionately to criminal, safety and security threats at major Australian airports. The Australian government is committed to ensuring that these new powers will be genuinely exercised by police in an unbiased and non-discriminatory manner. Police will not be checking the identity of every person present at a major airport—nor would they have the power to do so under the bill. It is not the intention that these powers will act as a de facto requirement to carry ID. Use of the new powers will be based on very clear and specific criteria in the legislation and supported by the Australian Federal Police's specialist expertise and training.

As I've noted, this bill has been considered in detail by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security as well as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The government has fully considered these committees' views and recommendations, which have been incorporated into the bill. In particular, the bill explicitly provides that a person's right to engage in peaceful assembly will not by itself be regarded as prejudicial to the public order and safe operation of a major airport. Police cannot use the new identity checking and move-on powers to disrupt or quell a protest unless the protest or protestors are causing a risk to the airport's public order and safe operation or a risk to the safety of any person in the airport environment. The bill also ensures that where police issue a move-on direction the person subject to the direction will be made aware of their rights to seek judicial review or interlocutory orders in relation to that direction, including in expedited or urgent circumstances.

Threats to our aviation security are not static, and our laws should not be either. Police powers must continue to evolve in parallel with the threat environment. The new identity-checking and move-on powers are designed to keep the Australian public safe by enabling police to better prevent, detect and disrupt serious criminal, safety and security risks—risks that are unique to the aviation environment—at the earliest possible opportunity. This bill strikes the right balance between ensuring the safety and security of all Australians using our airports and minimising the disruption to the travelling public. I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

I move amendment (2) on sheet 8776.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (after line 17), at the end of Division 3B, add:

3UV Review of Division

  (1) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security must review:

  (a) the operation, effectiveness and implications of this Division; and

  (b) security matters relating to major airports.

  (2) The Committee must begin the review before the end of the period of 3 years beginning on the day the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Act 2019 commenced.

  (3) The Committee must report on the review to each House of the Parliament before the end of the period of 9 months beginning on the day the review commences.

Amendment (2), as moved by Senator Patrick, would require the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of this division and security matters relating to major airports. This is a very wise amendment from Senator Patrick.

These are particularly draconian laws that the Senate is about to pass with collusion between the two major parties, as we always get on issues of national security, on issues of counterterrorism and on issues of border control. I just want to warn the majors again that they are walking this country down the road to a police state and a surveillance state. I've been saying this until I'm blue in the face in this place, but the major parties continue to collude to strip away fundamental rights and freedoms in Australia.

The Australian Greens don't think they should be doing that. We think it's a very dangerous path for this country to be taking. But, if they are going to do it, they've got to put in place checks and balances. That is what Senator Patrick is attempting to do here today: put in place a check and a balance that would require the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review these new powers. Remember that these are powers the government have comprehensively failed to make an argument for. We have a terrorism threat level that is in exactly the same place it was five years ago. The government have continually failed to be able to demonstrate that the risk is increasing any faster around airports than it is around any other major infrastructure in this country, and yet they want to walk into this place and bring in the 'papers please' legislation that we're dealing with here today. This is a sad day in our country's history, and I urge the Senate: if you are going to do the dumb thing and pass this legislation, at least build some checks and balances into it, as Senator Patrick is attempting to do.

Labor is supporting the second amendment on sheet 8776 that has been put forward by Senator Patrick. We support this clause providing oversight and review of this legislation through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This is the key role of the PJCIS—to review our national security laws and ensure that they're fit for purpose, effective and adaptable to emerging threats, as Senator Cash herself has highlighted.

On announcing the creation of the Home Affairs portfolio in July 2017, the then Prime Minister of our nation, Prime Minister Turnbull, said:

When it comes to our nation's security, we must stay ahead of the threats against us. There is no room for complacency. There is no room for set and forget.

Our current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has used the same phrase when describing everything from Australia's foreign policy, when he said, 'The rules and institutions that support global cooperation must reflect the modern world; it can't be set and forget,' to his emergency response to the drought, when he said, 'Our drought response is not set and forget.' So today, here in this chamber, let's heed the call and not set and forget. Today we can amend this bill in order to ensure that the legislation is creating the best possible outcomes for all Australians. We support this amendment.

The government will not be opposing this amendment, but does note that a further PJCIS review is unnecessary. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquired into the bill and did not identify a need to review the operation of the division and security matters relating to major airports after four years. Existing parliamentary committee mechanisms already provide suitable opportunities to review these new powers. For example, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement has a function to monitor, review and report on the performance by the AFP of its functions and to examine trends and changes in criminal activities, practices and methods.

Further, the AFP, as an organisation, is already subject to extensive oversight mechanisms. The AFP also has robust government mechanisms in place, including an internal audit team. The team conducts regular reviews, including a current review into how the agency implements Commonwealth legislation. The AFP is establishing a working group to coordinate the implementation required for all aspects of the police powers at airports bill. The number of identity check directions and move-on directions each year will also be reported in the AFP annual report, as recommended by the PJCIS. But in the interest of the timely passage of this important legislation, as I've stated, the government will not oppose the amendment.

Question agreed to.

I move Centre Alliance amendment (1) on sheet 8776:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (before line 8), before section 3UL, insert:

3ULA Expiration of this Division

     This Division is repealed at the start of the day after the end of the period of 4 years beginning on the day the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Act 2019 commenced.

Whenever we create a power for use by our security services or our police services, we need to be careful and we need to be, in some sense, positive about moving forward and retaining the power. I'm very grateful that my amendment in respect of the review got through. It's fitting then that, if you have a review by the PJCIS, and the PJCIS were to make a finding or want to adjust things, we would see legislation drafted by no doubt a future government. So, it's proper that we put in a sunset clause that follows the review, that requires—as every citizen who respects the rights of freedom and liberty—the government to then extend the power if indeed it was found necessary. It's with that view that I put the motion. I do indicate that I'll listen to the responses of Labor and Liberals and possibly we won't divide on this but of course would urge an indication of support. Thank you.

Once again, the Australian Greens will be supporting the amendment put forward by Senator Patrick. I just want to talk a little bit about sunset clauses in general. It's important that people understand that parliaments can effectively roll over sunset clauses. Just because the parliament might decide today to put a sunset clause into this amendment bill, that does not mean that the powers created by this amendment bill would necessarily cease when the date of sunset arrives. Sunsets can effectively be rolled over. But even if they are rolled over, they are an important instrument, because they basically ensure that the full parliament will actually examine this legislation again, in this case in four years, as Senator Patrick has suggested for the sunset period. That's very important with legislation like this, which is draconian and removes fundamental rights and freedoms from Australian people.

So, anyone who is opposing this is just basically opposing a simple check and a balance. And to forestall the obvious argument that I suspect will be made against what I've just said—which is, 'Oh, we've just agreed that the PJCIS should review this division'—I'd just remind Labor and Liberal senators that in fact the crossbench, which is actually operating in a very constructive way here this evening and has obtained the support of the Senate in one of Senator Patrick's amendments, is not represented on the PJCIS. It is a closed shop where the dirty deals get done between the two major parties in this place to keep marching us down the road to a police state and a surveillance state in Australia. That's what happens in the PJCIS. The control freaks are happy, but those of us who want a genuine debate in this country about whether we would prefer to lose fundamental rights and freedoms or take a bit more risk in our lives and come down against the removal of fundamental rights and freedoms—and I am squarely in that camp, by the way, if you hadn't picked it up—are not happy with the PJCIS review, and we want to see the full parliament required to at least consider this legislation at a regular interval. Senator Patrick's amendment that would seek to create a sunset clause in this amendment bill is an appropriate mechanism to do that, and it will be supported by the Australian Greens.

I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by Senator Patrick for a sunset provision. I must say that Labor is persuaded by the debate in the Senate that whilst these do not represent a significant extension of powers—indeed, you could proffer the position that this is a streamlining and a clarifying piece of legislation—nonetheless it is a change of police powers at our airports. Given that the Senate has just decided, without a division, to support a review of this legislation, Labor sees no harm that would be done by supporting this amendment to insert a sunset provision. Indeed, if the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is going to conduct a review of this legislation in three years time, it is not an unreasonable position that the parliament would then make a decision based on the outcome of that review and need to take an affirmative decision, one way or another, on whether to extend these new powers being provided to the police.

I do need to put on record that Labor strongly supports the Australian Federal Police and strongly supports measures that seek to keep our nation safe from, in particular, the persistent threat of terrorism and of bringing drugs and other contraband in through our airports. And Labor understands the important role that our airports play in terms of jobs, economic growth, tourism and the economy more broadly. However, when we have an extension of powers and it raises questions about whether those powers are being used effectively, and it does no harm, it is appropriate that these powers be reviewed. Given the fact that the Senate has just voted for an amendment supporting a review, and done so without division, Labor is persuaded by the arguments put by Centre Alliance. Perhaps I was almost dissuaded by the argument put by Senator McKim—as he enters the chamber! However, notwithstanding the comments from Senator McKim, Labor is convinced that it does no harm to support a sunset provision given that the Senate has supported a review. Therefore, we will be voting for the amendment.

Once again, I reaffirm the Morrison government's firm commitment and duty to protecting Australians and our international visitors from the very real and unique threats to our aviation environment posed by violent extremists and nefarious organised crime groups. On that basis, we will not be supporting the amendment put forward by Senator Patrick.

Senator Patrick seeks to amend this bill to provide that these new measures, measures developed to keep the Australian public safe, are repealed, sunsetted, after four years. Airports are attractive targets for terrorists and focal points for serious and organised crime groups seeking to expand their illicit operations both within Australia and abroad. Currently, police rely on a patchwork of Commonwealth, state and territory laws to address the criminal safety and security threats at major Australian airports. The measures in this bill will address some of this complexity by giving police consistent and appropriate powers to respond to these threats and protect Australians.

The threats to our aviation network are not static and are not simply going to disappear or diminish in four years. We need to ensure that police powers continue to evolve in parallel with the threat environment. The new powers in the bill were developed based on operational advice from the AFP. The AFP will continue to monitor security threats to major airports from terrorism and serious and organised crime. For these reasons the government will not be supporting this amendment.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) be agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I won't hold the Senate up for long on this, but considering we do have a number of senators in here who haven't been in to listen to the debate, I just want to warn them again that we are walking down the road to a police state and a surveillance state in this country. We are giving our security agencies, including the AFP, powers they don't need, powers they haven't made a case for.

This government has repeatedly failed to make a case for this legislation. The terrorism threat level in this country is unchanged for many years. I actually think we've had two elections since the terrorism threat level changed in this country. I asked repeatedly in Senate estimates in the past whether the department, including the AFP, had evidence that airports were increasing in their threat profile at any greater rate than any other infrastructure around the country. There was no evidence provided.

So, senators, you are collectively walking this country down the road to a police state. This will join the well over 200 pieces of legislation in the last 20 years that have taken away the fundamental rights and freedoms we used to send people overseas to fight and die to protect and enhance—including members of my family. You are now giving these powers away willy-nilly with no rationale and no argument. This is a sad day. It is a dangerous day for this country. The Australian Greens remain strongly opposed to this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019 implements recommendation 2.4 of the Hayne royal commission into misconduct in the financial services sector. Six months after the commission's final report, the bill ends grandfathering arrangements for conflicted remuneration for financial advisers. The royal commission highlighted the extent to which conflicted remuneration can erode member balances and lead financial advisers to provide advice that could be at odds with members' best interests. Speaking on the banking royal commission's final report, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said:

Grandfathered conflicted remuneration can entrench clients in older products even when newer, better and more affordable products are available on the market.

The practice for conflicted remuneration or commissions for advice has been ingrained practice in the financial sector for a number of years. Ending these grandfathered arrangements will provide certainty to consumers and make clear to the sector what is expected of them.

Labor will be supporting this bill. Prosperity and fairness are core Labor values. They are values that should be central to Australia's financial services sector. Labor led the charge for a strong and fair financial sector. Labor instigated the sweeping reforms in financial advice in 2012 and, when it became clear that more needed to be done, Labor called for a royal commission two years before the coalition were dragged to implement it. That is why we are committed to implementing all 86 of the Hayne royal commission recommendations.

We will be holding this government to account on the implementation of these reforms. They never wanted a royal commission into the banks in the first place. This government voted against it 26 times before they were forced into it. Mr Morrison was so opposed to the idea of a royal commission that he was dragged into it by the banks themselves, and the Morrison government are now dragging their heels on implementing the reforms that could clean up the banking sector and get our financial services sector back on track. Since the election, we are only now seeing the first legislation relating to the royal commission being brought before the parliament. This government is big on talk and slow on action. According to the government's own implementation road map, only eight recommendations out of the 76 have been implemented by the government since February.

While this bill will end conflicted remuneration, it won't do so for almost two years. Conflicted remuneration has been proven to lead to poor advice and poor member outcomes. These arrangements shouldn't remain any longer. The government had a chance to act sooner. In February, Labor tabled a bill in the House of Representatives that would've done what Commissioner Hayne recommended and ended grandfathering arrangements for conflicted remuneration. That bill would've come into effect a full year before the coalition's bill will even start. It would have ended commissions for good, and it would have done it sooner.

Labor is determined to see these arrangements end. Consumers cannot continue to fall victim to the damage of commissions that leave them in poorly performing products and saddled with excessive fees. This government is moving at a glacial pace—so slow that even the banks are moving faster than them to clean up their own poor practices. In June 2018, Westpac announced that they would remove grandfathered commissions on the accounts of 140,000 clients. In August 2018, ANZ announced they would start rebating commissions to clients on the OnePath platform. In September 2018, NAB also said they'd start rebating grandfathered commissions to their own clients. And in October of last year, the Commonwealth Bank committed to rebating nearly $20 million to 50,000 clients of Commonwealth Financial Planning.

The sector is ready and able to end the conflicted remuneration practices. The coalition has always been dragged to the table when it comes to reforming financial advice. It wasn't too long ago that the coalition were voting against reforms to end commissions. It wasn't until Labor introduced the Future of Financial Advice reforms in 2012 that members gained protection from conflicted advice.

In 2014, the coalition government were quick to move to water-down these reforms. In particular, the coalition sought to wind back the best interest duty and restrictions on conflicted remuneration. In other words, this government thought it was a good idea to wind back protection for members and to support the interests of financial planners who were conflicted in their advice. It took Labor and a coalition of common sense to disallow these reforms.

The coalition would have you believe that they're on the side of consumers. Nothing about their history suggests this is true. This government cannot be trusted to put consumers' interests first and cannot be trusted to implement the banking royal commission recommendations. Even more recently, the government have bungled reforms to professional standards in the advice sector. The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority has gone through three CEOs in 2½ years since it's been operating. The government has pushed back the deadlines for advisers to meet key educational and qualification requirements. The chaos in delivering on these reforms is diminishing standards in the financial advice sector, and it's consumers who pay the price.

At every turn, this government has sought to delay, water-down or vote against cleaning up the finance sector. Only Labor has been consistent in pushing for reforms to the banks plagued by scandal. We don't intend to stop, and we will be holding the government to account on implementing the banking royal commission's recommendations. Labor believes that this is only the first step in ending conflicted remuneration in the finance sector. Commissioner Hayne said:

Advisers facing a conflict between self-interest and duty have too often sought to strike some compromise between the two competing forces rather than, as the law has required, to give priority to the interests of the client or member.

More needs to be done to ensure that intermediaries are acting in the best interests of their clients. Labor believes that ending exemptions for listed investment trusts, life insurance and other financial products should also be considered. Labor wants to see a prosperous and fair financial sector. The sooner the banking royal commission recommendations are implemented, the stronger our finance sector will be.

This chamber has seen some fireworks on this bill over the last seven years since I've been here. It's a bit sad to see this go through with such a fizzer tonight, with hardly anyone on the speaking list and with not even a full time allotment taken up by the Australian Labor Party, considering the pedigree of the legislation we're dealing with and all the debate that we've seen over the years, both in the House and here, culminating in a royal commission, with $77 million of taxpayers' money going into looking at the financial services sector and what many of the senators had known for years needed to be thoroughly reformed.

Let me say, tonight, I welcome the first piece of legislation from this government following the Hayne royal commission. I look forward to, as I understand it, over 20 pieces of legislation that are likely to come before the 46th Parliament.

This issue we're dealing with tonight, conflicted remuneration, has been at the heart of the problems that we've seen in the financial services sector in Australia. I've openly admitted in Senate inquiries going back to 2012 through to the debates we had in 2016-17, that I was part of that culture. I worked in a financial services company for many years. I understood that sales based culture within newly vertically integrated companies—that is, banks, like the Commonwealth Bank and the National Australia Bank, and a whole range of other financial services companies. They had seen the chance to grow their earnings and grow their profits by bolting on new businesses, new platforms, allowing their customer bases to be their main asset and being able to cross-sell a whole range of different products to their customers and of course reap the profits from doing that.

But of course that raised the fundamental issue about what happens if you have a sales based culture in your organisation—that, by the way starts at the top; it starts with the CEO. The Greens have put forward a private senator's bill in this place, incidentally, to cap CEO pay. And Senator Bragg: I may bring forward the legislation again in a slightly changed form so we can have that debate again. The sales culture starts with CEOs, and—pardon the use of this term—it trickles down to the staff and the salespeople on the booths, all the way down the banks. It's about driving revenue. It's about meeting targets. The problem with that, while it might be good for the banks, is that it hasn't always been in the customer's interests. I can say from my experience working in financial services and having seen what I've seen over dozens of Senate inquiries that it often isn't necessarily in the customer's interests.

So what exactly is conflicted remuneration? It's 2019, and this issue was raised squarely and firmly in the Ripoll report in 2009—nearly 10 years ago. The Ripoll report identified significant structural tensions in the finance industry that give rise to conflicts of interest and affect the advice consumers receive. The report says:

On one hand, clients seek out financial advisers to obtain professional guidance on the investment decisions that will serve their interests, particularly with a view to maximising retirement income. On the other hand, financial advisers act as a critical distribution channel for financial product manufacturers, often through vertically integrated business models or the payment of commissions and other remuneration-based incentives.

The Ripoll report then noted different ways in which advisers can be paid or remunerated directly or indirectly by product manufacturers for their clients' financial decisions, concluding:

These payments place financial advisers in the role of both broker and expert adviser, with the potentially competing objectives of maximising remuneration via product sales and providing professional, strategic financial advice that serves clients' interests.

So what did we do about this sales based culture? I remember raising this issue several times in this chamber, including during question time, and being told that what we'd seen in the financial services industry was just a few rotten apples. Well, I didn't believe that was the case. I believed that because of conflicted remuneration and because of a sales based culture this issue was systemic. I actually remember in 2015 asking Senator Brandis this exact question and asking him whether he would support a royal commission into banks and financial services. And I remember him getting up and saying, 'How dare you slander an entire industry'—that this is just a few rotten apples. Well, the few-rotten-apples excuse went out the door, and I think what we heard in the royal commission was very telling. But, to be truthful, a number of us had heard very similar stories when we'd attended multiple Senate inquiries, going back to 2012.

I want to just talk through a brief time line before I get to the royal commission and what their recommendations were. To Labor's credit, following the Ripoll report they introduced the first FoFA—future of financial advice—legislation in 2011. That was brought before this place in June 2012. At the time it was decided that changes to conflicted remuneration wouldn't be effective until 2013, but there were a number of carve outs on that conflicted remuneration, including grandfathered commissions—commissions that financial advisers and financial advice companies could keep in place. I remember the lobbyists coming into my office, as I'm sure they came into other senators' offices, at the time, saying: 'This will affect the price, for example, that we'll get if we sold our business; these contracts were entered into in good faith,' et cetera.

Because the conditions placed on FOFA in 2012 were voluntary—they weren't mandatory until 2013—we saw a change of government and therefore a change to the approach of FOFA. We saw legislation brought before this place by the Abbott government called the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014. That didn't pass this place because there was significant resistance from Labor, the Greens and the crossbench. But, before I get to that resistance, I do want to point out that the banks, especially the big banks—I remember questioning the Australian Banking Association in a Senate inquiry. And, having worked in finance myself, I asked why the banks hadn't changed their front-end systems and their back-office systems to account for the FOFA laws if they knew they were coming from 2012 to 2013. The ABA spokesperson at the time said, 'Senator, that's because we had a deal with both Labor and Liberal that, after the election, the FOFA laws would be changed.' In other words, they were pretty confident that those FOFA laws were going to be weakened and diluted in their favour. While Labor got their mojo back and went hard at trying to regain the ground on the FOFA legislation and years of their hard work going back to the Ripoll report, the coalition did bring before this place both a bill, as I mentioned, and regulations to weaken the FOFA laws, the Future of Financial Advice laws.

That was one of the more colourful times that I remember of my short seven years in the Senate. I actually felt the wind change in this chamber when we defeated those regulations. I remember Senator Muir came on board. That was maybe the first time he'd ever voted against the government. Recently, it's been written in about books just how much pressure the crossbench were under from Senator Cormann to make sure we didn't disallow those FOFA regulations. But, in the end, to his credit, Senator Dastyari rounded up the troops and got everyone together, including Senator Xenophon and the Greens. We formed an alliance—which had quite a rude acronym, which I won't mention in the Senate today—that was designed to try and defeat the weakening of these FOFA laws, and that's exactly what we did. I think things changed for the Palmer United Party after that. We saw Senator Lambie leave the Palmer United Party. We saw Senator Muir stand up, and we started to actually have a real opposition in this chamber, especially to weakening financial advice at a time when we could all see, through multiple Senate inquiries, the evidence and testimonies from victims and the scandals which were breaking weekly in the financial news, by journalists like Adele Ferguson and others. And a number of whistleblowers came forward.

To provide a backdrop for this, we had a campaign for a royal commission. I'm only saying this because I heard Labor mention this several times in their contribution. Let me get it on record again that the Greens were the first political party to campaign for a royal commission into the banks and financial services. I was on the original inquiry, with Senator Mark Bishop, when the committee recommended as one of its 90 or so recommendations that the Senate consider a royal commission. The problem for Senator Bishop was that, while he had his heart in this, the Labor Party squarely didn't. And, while Senator Williams had openly called for a royal commission into the banks because of his experience before he became a senator, neither his party, the National Party, nor the Liberal Party had their hearts in a royal commission into the banks. So the Greens took on the role of agent provocateur. We pushed and we pushed. And Labor in this chamber voted against Greens' calls for a royal commission. They like to highlight how the Liberals voted against their cause over in the other place, but it took the Greens two years, working with the crossbench, to get Labor to support the cause for a royal commission into the banks. And I think it's the best thing that Mr Bill Shorten did when he was Leader of the Opposition, and it very nearly won him the 2016 election.

Once we had a Greens private member's bill pass this place—it was certainly the first time that a private member's bill of mine passed the Senate—and it was not a bill for a royal commission, because we can't call for a royal commission in parliament but we can call for a parliamentary commission of inquiry, which is a royal commission that reports to parliament and not the executive. It has only ever been used once in Australia's history. The UK parliament had a similar look at the use of parliamentary commissions of inquiry around the Iraq war and also issues with their financial services industry. The Greens private member's bill passed the Senate and it bounced around in the House. It was looked at by a number of Nationals, renegade LNP members of parliament and a whole range of people who wanted a royal commission. Senator O'Sullivan, in the end, threatened to put up his own bill for a parliamentary commission of inquiry, but, if the Greens hadn't discovered that, explored that, normalised that and got it through here, it would never have happened. And, may I say, the terms of reference for that parliamentary commission of inquiry that were put up by the Nationals pretty much copied the Greens' terms of reference, and the final terms of reference for the royal commission put up by Senator O'Dwyer were pretty much exactly the same as the terms of reference for the Greens' parliamentary commission of inquiry.

So I would say it was the team effort of everyone involved in this place to try and get a proper probe into the banks and the financial services industry—into the rotten heart of why we'd seen so much fraud, deception and misconduct. What was one of the key recommendations of the royal commission? To remove grandfathered commissions. There were many recommendations and this one, no doubt, has been fairly easy to legislate. But I will say on record too that the Greens voted against the original FOFA legislation that allowed the grandfathering of these conflicted remunerations, because we felt they needed to go.

Here, tonight, we finally get to put an end to what I think has been a very sorry saga and chapter in Australia's financial services history. A number of people I know, including friends, are financial advisors, and, having worked in this industry myself, I understand the critical importance of good financial advice. Indeed, the financial services industry was hoping to get good legislation in place and get a new start so that there could be increased confidence in the services that it wants to offer Australians—services that I feel are absolutely critical for all of us to better understand how we plan for our retirement and how we budget.

The royal commission noted that certain arrangements made before the FOFA reforms came into force in July 2013 that would have otherwise fallen within the ban on conflicted remuneration remain excluded from the definition of 'conflicted remuneration'. According to Justice Hayne:

... despite it being recognised that the grandfathered forms of remuneration are conflicted remuneration (because they could reasonably be expected to influence the choice of financial product recommended by a licensee or representative to retail clients, or could reasonably be expected to influence the financial product advice given to retail clients by the licensee or representative), charging and receiving these exempted forms of remuneration has been permitted to continue.

And:

At the time the grandfathering arrangements were first introduced, participants in the industry could say that sudden change in remuneration arrangements may bring untoward consequences for countervailing benefits that would not outweigh the harms of disruption ... Even if the arguments relied on to justify the grandfathering exception were valid when that exception was introduced, it is now clear that they have outlived their validity.

This is obviously not going to fix all the problems that we've seen in the financial services industry emerge in recent years and there's a number of other things we have to do. I noted this morning the Treasurer's call to the ACCC to probe the banks. That's certainly something the Greens are going to support because the Greens actually wrote to Justice Hayne in a 90-page submission, and we've been calling for the ACCC to regulate the banks and take over from ASIC the retail role in the regulation of the banks—keeping ASIC on the wholesale market side of the equation and having the ACCC regulate the banks on the retail side of the equation. They're a fearless, trusted watchdog, and that's no doubt why the government has appointed them to this probe.

But I can't help being a little bit cynical that the Treasurer's popular—dare I say populist—zeal to make sure that interest rate cuts are passed on in full looks like a very neat distraction from the signal, or the warning or the message, that continued cuts to record-low interest rates are telling us: the economy is in trouble. It's very convenient to distract away from what we should all be discussing, and that is if we're getting to a point where monetary policy is becoming ineffective. I remember my lecturer at university saying, 'Once it reaches that point, it's like pushing a piece of string.' It's very difficult to get it to work for you.

There are other things we need to be doing in this country if we're sailing into such strong headwinds. It seems to me that not only is the Treasurer talking about the banks not passing on interest rates a good distraction from the warning that we should all be feeling from cuts to record-low interest rates but also it's an attempt to continue to inflate the housing market and talk up the housing market. All this money in the economy is going to unproductive investment in the housing market when it could be going to productive investment like long-term infrastructure projects. For three years now, the Greens have been banging the drum on this. In 2016 we not only took a policy to significantly increase infrastructure spending but took a policy for an infrastructure bank on how we would finance it—a government-run infrastructure bank.

While I've got a minute and 12 seconds left, let me say that, while we're on the subject of mortgages, why don't we have tracker mortgages, or mortgage trackers if you like? Mr Greg Medcraft used to talk about this a lot. Why can't we offer products like that through the Reserve Bank or through a people's bank, a publicly owned bank? There are so many things we could do to fix this problem rather than just hold an inquiry into the banks. We know the government is not going to legislate the banks to pass on full interest rate cuts, so what's the point?

There are really good alternatives. You copied our idea on bank portability. We're very happy about that. You came onboard with the call for a banking royal commission. You came onboard with the Greens' 10-year campaign to get a levy on the banks. Why not increase the levy to 20 basis points? Give equal risk weightings to all banks, rather than penalising the smaller banks that don't have that too-big-to-fail guarantee. There are so many good things we can do in this chamber if we work together. So I'm glad this has happened tonight. This has been a seven-year-long road for me, but an even longer road for others. I commend this bill. (Time expired)

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019 is a great example of our government getting on with the job of implementing the Hayne royal commission. Over the next year or so in this place, we can expect to see a lot of legislation. In fact, I would say that you will see more legislation relating to that review than you would see across almost the whole government. This is very much the long kiss goodnight to commissions, and especially in respect of commissions that have been paid on the back of compulsory super. That is a very good thing. I think there have been many instances where people have, in fact, been paid handsomely with an annuity payment stream for not really doing a lot of work. As Senator Whish-Wilson has pointed out, it was the 2010 so-called Ripoll inquiry's recommendation 4 which simply said:

The committee recommends that government consult with and support industry in developing the most appropriate mechanism by which to cease payments from financial product manufacturers to financial advisers.

That was 10 years ago. I think that's important to put on the record. I understand—and I respect that there will be some consternation within the financial advisory sector—about the loss of these revenues. But the reality is this was at the end of 2009 and we're now in 2019, so there's very much been a long kiss goodnight.

If anyone was unsure about what the Hayne royal commission was all about, it very much focused on the systemic malfeasance in the wealth management sector, which I think had shocked many people. I think many people, including myself, who had opposed a royal commission were made to think very carefully about what was presented to that inquiry. People talk about a banking royal commission a lot, but it was, in fact, significantly weighted towards malfeasance in wealth management. I think there was a culture whereby people were able to effectively take this money and not do a whole lot of work, which Hayne himself pointed out in the section on fee for no service. He pointed out that there could be no justification, effectively, for this sort of behaviour.

We have acted swiftly to implement this review, this very significant body of work presented by Commissioner Hayne. As I said, the scale of the malfeasance in the wealth management sector has shocked many, myself included, and this bill basically puts an end to these payments over the next two years. I'll repeat it again for the record: I understand that there will be some financial advisers who will feel aggrieved about that, but the fact is our government have shown, I think very credibly, that we are absolutely on the side of the worker, the saver and the retiree. It was very important to demonstrate that there could be no justification for these payments to continue beyond 2021 when you consider that there has been the writing on the wall now for a decade—that this sort of business model, in the end, especially where it was built around compulsory super, was going to come to an end. I very much commend this bill to the Senate. I think it's an appropriate bill as part of a package on advice.

One final thing, if I may, on advice: I think financial advice is very important. One thing that I know that we will all be conscious of is: we don't want to put good financial advice outside of the reach of the average income earner, and I think there is a natural pendulum shift that's had to occur because of the scale of the wrongdoing in that sector. But I know that the minister and the executive government will think very carefully about all the future steps that are taken beyond this bill, which is proportionate and appropriate, to ensure that people can actually get financial advice. That's because it is important that people engage and think about what their objectives are, and I do worry about the idea of compulsory super being this idea that it's going to solve all your problems—that set-and-forget mentality. We want people to get good advice; we don't want it to be conflicted. It's been too conflicted in the past and built upon the compulsory super system, which has, I think, a number of problems. I certainly commend this bill to the Senate as a very important part of our response to the royal commission.

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019. Might I say, I didn't need a royal commission to know that it was always going to end up like this, because, basically, markets are predicated on a risk-reward return, and the people who were earning the fees on these products weren't taking the risk. When you go and force people to give up 10 per cent of their income to people that they don't know for the entire period of their life, they're unsophisticated investors and you're going to get an occasional six-month return statement that says, 'Your fund has grown by plus two per cent,' that's not very good disclosure.

I'm really pleased that I'm here to support this because, when I first started off in finance in 1991 in public practice, in accounting, our financial advice was simply straight-up business services. You pretty much charged for your bookkeeping and preparing the tax return. You'd set the structure up, and that was it. You generally invested in hard assets—none of this paper-shuffling stuff. So well done; this is a great bill.

This bill amends the Corporations Act to end the payment of the grandfathered conflicted remuneration of financial advisers. Conflicted remuneration refers to remuneration paid to financial advisers by product issuers, which can influence the advice they provide to retail clients about the product. When the ban on conflicted remuneration was introduced in 2013, already existing arrangements to pay this remuneration to financial advisers were grandfathered so that the ban did not apply to them. Grandfathered conflicted remuneration presents an ongoing conflict of interest, which can harm retail clients by potentially entrenching customers in older products even when newer, better and more affordable products are available on the market. Ending grandfathered conflicted remuneration was a key recommendation of the Hayne Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. Commissioner Hayne called for the end of grandfathering in the royal commission's final report, stating, 'There can be, and is, no justification for maintaining the grandfathering provisions.'

The following sections have been highlighted by my Senate colleagues, but I will touch on them again. The act includes provisions that ban conflicted remuneration and certain other remuneration in relation to financial advice provided to retail clients. These provisions aim to more closely align the interests of those who provide financial product advice with the interests of their retail clients. In particular, division 4 of part 7.7A of the act bans the payment and receipt of benefits which have the potential to influence financial advice provided to retail clients about financial products. Division 5 of part 7.7A of the act bans platform operators from accepting volume based shelf space fees. Division 5 of part 7.7A of the act bans financial services licensees and authorised representatives of financial services licensees from charging asset based fees to retail clients in relation to borrowed amounts.

These divisions generally apply to benefits given or, with respect to asset based fees on borrowed amounts, fees charged from 1 July 2013. However, there are currently exemptions to these divisions for grandfathered arrangements. Under the grandfathering provisions, the bans on accepting and giving conflicted remuneration do not apply to benefits paid under arrangements entered into before 1 July 2013, except with respect to benefits given by a platform operator. The ban on charging volume based shelf space fees does not apply to benefits given under arrangements entered into before 1 July 2013. The ban on charging asset based fees—one of my favourites—to retail clients on borrowed amounts only applies to the extent that the borrowed amounts are used, or are to be used, to acquire financial products on or after 1 July 2013.

On 1 February 2019, the final report of the royal commission recommended that grandfathering provisions for conflicted remuneration should be repealed as soon as is reasonably practicable. On 4 February 2019, in its response to the royal commission, the government announced that it would end the grandfathering of conflicted remuneration to financial advisers, effective from 1 January 2021, and mandate that previously grandfathered conflicted remuneration be rebated to customers.

On 22 February 2019, the government released an exposure draft bill to this effect for public consultation. The draft bill also provided for regulations to be made to provide for the pass through to customers of the benefits of any previously grandfathered conflicted remuneration, remaining in contracts after 1 January 2021. Submissions were received from a number of stakeholders, including industry bodies and consumer groups.

On 28 March 2019, the government released exposure draft regulations for public consultation. These draft regulations also provide details on how benefits must be rebated to customers and details of record-keeping obligations on persons required to pass through benefits. These draft regulations also repealed a number of other grandfathering. The bill removes grandfathering arrangements for conflicted remuneration and other banned remuneration effective from 1 January 2021.

In summarising, as part of ending grandfathering, the government will also make regulations prior to 1 January 2021 that will repeal a number of other grandfathering arrangements which are contained in part 7.7A of the Corporations Regulations 2001. The bill also enables regulations to provide for a scheme under which amounts that would otherwise have been paid as conflicted remuneration are rebated to affected customers. The government's reforms will benefit customers by better aligning adviser and client interests, so that retail clients can receive higher quality advice and stop paying higher fees to refund grandfathered conflicted remuneration.

This bill fully implements the recommendation of the Hayne royal commission and, importantly, goes further by providing for the pass through of grandfathered benefits to customers where grandfathered commissions remain payable in contracts after 1 January 2021. This ensures that it is customers, and not product issuers, who benefit from these reforms. The coalition government is taking action on all 76 recommendations contained in the royal commission's final report. This bill reflects our commitment to deliver on these recommendations in a timely manner to restore trust in the financial system. Ending grandfathered commissions paid to financial advisers will lift the quality of financial advice to provide better outcomes for customers.

This government is getting on with the job of delivering meaningful reforms to improve customer outcomes and build a stronger economy. I commend this bill to the chamber.

I rise also to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019. I'll echo some of the points made by my coalition Senate colleagues already in this debate, but I have another couple of observations that I would also like to add about the process of implementing the recommendations of the royal commission, the pace at which we are doing it and also some of the concerns raised by industry stakeholders about this and other aspects of the royal commission recommendations.

As other senators have noted, this is an amendment to the Corporations Act to bring to an end the grandfathering that was put in place previously when conflicted remuneration was banned for financial advisers. It was previously paid to financial advisers by product issuers in a way which could have influenced the advice that they provided to their clients about the product. When it was banned in 2013, already existing arrangements to pay this remuneration to financial advisers was grandfathered so that the ban did not apply to them.

As a general principle, I think that when we make changes in this place to existing arrangements grandfathering is a good thing that we should largely adhere to. It is a fair thing to do for people who have lawfully entered into arrangements consistent with the policies of the day, in good faith, and if we are changing the rules on them it's fair that those rules apply prospectively and not retrospectively. In this case, however, the act of banning conflicted remuneration for future products but leaving it in place for some grandfathered products has led to a perverse set of outcomes. If you are a financial adviser and you have clients who you are receiving ongoing commissions from for products you have advised that they take up, you have an in-built incentive to maintain their existing patronage of those products even if newer and better products come on to the market. You are disincentivised from drawing their attention to new products because it will cost you money.

In this case grandfathering has led to some perverse outcomes and that's why it came in for such sustained and heavy criticism from the royal commission, and such a clear recommendation from the royal commissioner, because it presents that ongoing conflict of interest that if the government didn't take action to resolve would lead to ongoing perverse outcomes that are not in consumer interests. We do not want retail clients to be entrenched in older and inferior products just as a result of maintaining the best interests of their financial adviser, rather than their client. That's why this is a key recommendation of the royal commission and that's why the government is swiftly bringing an end to it. As the royal commissioner himself said, 'There can be, and is, no justification for maintaining the grandfathering provisions,' and the government agrees.

These reforms will benefit customers, because it will finally completely align adviser and client interests, so that retail clients can receive higher quality advice and cease paying higher fees to fund this ongoing grandfathered conflicted remuneration. This bill not only fully implements the royal commission's recommendation but actually goes further in a way which I will touch upon in a moment. But we believe that ending these conflicted remuneration arrangements will lift the quality of advice and provide better outcomes for customers.

I mentioned that, in some respects, this bill goes further than the recommendations of the royal commission—and, I believe, in a positive way. The government recognises it is essential that these arrangements are brought to an end as soon as possible. That's why an end date of 1 January 2021 was chosen—which achieves this outcome but also recognises the fact that ending this grandfathering is not a straightforward exercise for all financial advisers and will have a significant impact on the industry. There are some advisers and product issuers who will need to renegotiate their remuneration arrangements to remove these conflicted payments, and they may also need to renegotiate their arrangements with their clients to adjust for the fact that they are no longer going to be receiving this as compensation for the advice that they provide them.

So some product issuers will have to build new systems to pass through the benefits of previously grandfathered commissions to the retail clients. However, we do know that there are some players in the industry, due to the nature of their business or their size or scale, who have the capacity to move quickly and to end these practices more quickly. The government strongly encourages any player in the industry who is able to do that to do so as soon as possible. In doing so, we want to make sure that, if they do bring it to an end prior to the 1 January 2021 start date of this legislation, those rebates that would otherwise be collected by the adviser are in fact passed through to the clients and not held by the adviser. That's what we've asked ASIC to monitor and report on industry actions for the period from 1 July 2019 to 1 January 2021. As chair of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which has oversight of ASIC, I will be asking ASIC about their progress in observing this and making sure that advisers are adhering to this.

I want to turn now to the government's implementation of the royal commission recommendations more broadly. As has been noted, there were 76 recommendations and the government is in fact taking a number of additional actions on top of the 76 that were recommended, some of which were recommended to government and some of which were recommended to industry. By the end of this year, the government has committed to ensuring that 20 of those commitments—about one-third of what the government has agreed to do—will be implemented or have legislation before the parliament. By the middle of next year, we commit to ensuring that 50 of those commitments—which is close to 90 per cent of the government's commitments—will have been implemented or have the legislation before the parliament. By the end of 2020, all recommendations that the government has promised to take action on will be introduced to parliament.

That is a very, very swift pace of change. This is incredibly complex, extensive legislation that requires very careful drafting and consultation to ensure that it achieves its intended objectives. Doing so in such a swift way is something that the community certainly expects of us. The government needs to do it quickly but should not do it any more quickly than is necessary to implement it correctly. We do no-one any favours if it is rushed and not done wisely. One of the important aspects of the government's commitment is that in three years time, when all of these recommendations should be legislated and implemented, the government will establish an independent review to assess the extent to which changes in industry practices have in fact led to improved consumer outcomes and whether any further reform is necessary. Ultimately what we are aiming to do is improve outcomes for consumers. It is vitally important, when we engage in such extensive and considerable change, that we ensure that the intended objectives are being met and achieved.

Similarly, there will also be a review of the regulators' actions at the same time. That is because one of the findings of the royal commission was that not only did our financial institutions fail us; our regulators failed us, and our oversight mechanisms for our regulators were insufficient and inadequate. The new oversight mechanisms that the government is establishing, including an expert financial regulator for our other regulators, will be able to conduct a review of their conduct.

Finally, many of us in this place have received representations from the industry about this change. They have revolved around a couple of concerns. One is the time line for this change and the other is the impact of these changes on customers who might not otherwise be able to afford up-front financial advice and may have to pay out of pocket to do that. I don't doubt the sincerity of the industry in raising these concerns with the government. But faced with such clear recommendations from the royal commission, and the findings of the royal commission that these practices will lead to substandard and in some cases unethical advice to clients, we as a government have no choice but to implement it and implement it swiftly—as we are doing. What I would say to industry is that if you are right, if you believe that this will lead to unintended consequences, then the burden is on you to collect the evidence of those unintended consequences occurring in fact and present it to government as part of the in-built review mechanism that I referred to that will take place in about three years time. That will be an opportunity to demonstrate, if the parliament has erred in the view of the industry, that there is in fact hard evidence of that happening, and we will be able to take action to address that.

I think we in this place should all share a concern—and I've heard other senators mention this—that, as a result of not only changes like this but also the cumulative effect of all the changes that are happening in this space, we don't make financial advice unaffordable and inaccessible for ordinary customers. Wealthy people have always been able to, and will always be able to, afford financial advice. We don't need to spend too much time worrying about their capacity to get it. But, in an era when we know financial literacy is not as strong as we would like it to be and when financial products are becoming increasingly complex, it's vitally important that all Australians, no matter what their means, have access to really good, high-quality, affordable financial advice. We certainly wouldn't want, as a result of unintended consequences of changes like this, financial advice becoming inaccessible or unaffordable. I think that's a goal which we all share and which we're all mindful of, and I'm sure, going forward, that it will be a key aspect of the review mechanism that is put in place. So, with that, I commend the bill to the chamber.

I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019. This bill amends the Corporations Act to end the payment of grandfathered conflicted remuneration to financial advisers. Conflicted remuneration refers to the remuneration paid to financial advisers by product issuers, which can influence the advice they provide to retail clients about those products. When the ban on conflicted remuneration was introduced in 2013, already-existing arrangements to pay this remuneration to financial advisers was grandfathered so that the ban did not apply to them. Grandfathered conflicted remuneration presents an ongoing conflict of interest which can harm retail clients by entrenching customers in older products, even where newer, better and more affordable products are available on the market.

The final report of the royal commission recommended ending grandfathering of conflicted remuneration. Commissioner Hayne, a former justice of the High Court, stated emphatically that grandfathering provisions have now outlived their validity and can no longer be justified. The government is acting on this recommendation. A ban on grandfathered commissions would bring all existing financial advice contracts into line with the 2013 ban on commissions under the Future of Financial Advice reforms. Further, Commissioner Hayne's report strongly rejected arguments that repealing grandfathering would be unconstitutional. It said:

It is time to ignore the ghostly apparition of constitutional challenge conjured forth by those who, for their own financial advantage, oppose change that will free advice about, or recommendation of, financial products from the influence of the adviser's personal financial advantage.

The Future of Financial Advice laws banned billions of dollars of trailing commissions, and it's now time to bring those commissions to an end. This is, after all, how we protect our consumers. Addressing legacy products at a later time will not defeat the purpose of removing grandfathering. Ending grandfathering will better align the interests of advisers and their clients, ensuring that clients in legacy products can benefit from better-quality advice and lower-cost products. After all, surely this is why we're here.

The promoters of failed investments like Westpoint, Storm Financial, Timbercorp and Great Southern, to name just a few, paid outsized commissions to financial planners to attract people into their schemes. This can no longer go ahead. These commissions were, as the bill calls them, conflicted remuneration. Those conflicts can no longer go forward. The government's legislation will end the grandfathering of conflicted remuneration paid to financial advisers by 2021. This is likely to be of most benefit to older investors. That is because they are much more likely to be in investments and superannuation funds where an adviser is being paid a trail commission—again, a conflicted remuneration. Sections of the financial services industry are calling for the deadline for the ending of grandfathering to be extended to give planners more time to adjust. However, it must be seen that the government's timetable should be adhered to. These advice firms have seen the writing on the wall for trail commissions and other conflicted remuneration for many, many years.

On 4 February 2019, the government released Restoring trust in Australia's financial system, the Morrison government's comprehensive response to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. In it, the government committed to take action on all 76 of the royal commission's recommendations and, in a number of important areas, go further. It represents the largest and most comprehensive corporate and financial services law reform package since the 1990s. Of the royal commission's 76 recommendations, 54 were directed to the government, 12 to the regulators and 10 to the industry. Of the 54 recommendations directed to government, over 40 of them require legislation. In addition to the commission's 76 recommendations, the government, in its response, announced a further 18 commitments to address issues raised in the final report of the royal commission. The government has implemented 15 of the commitments it outlined in the response to the royal commission's final report. These comprise eight of the 54 recommendations that were directed to the government and seven of the 18 additional commitments. Significant progress has also been made on a further five recommendations, with draft legislation either introduced to the parliament or released for comment or detailed consultation papers issued.

The government's implementation timetable is ambitious. Excluding the reviews that are to be conducted in 2022, under the implementation roadmap, by mid-2020 close to 90 per cent of our commitments will have been implemented. By the end of 2020 remaining royal commission recommendations requiring legislation will have been introduced. In this implementation roadmap, we set out how we will deliver on the remaining royal commission recommendations and on additional actions committed to. This will provide clarity and certainty to consumers, industry and regulators on the rollout of the reforms. The industry has no excuses for not having already transitioned their business to a fee-for-service model. The models are outdated and need to be changed now. I commend this bill to the Senate.

First, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019 amends the Corporations Act to implement a key recommendation of the landmark Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The bill will end the payment of grandfathered conflicted remuneration to financial advisers, with effect from 1 January 2020. Conflicted remuneration refers remuneration paid to financial advisers by product issuers which can influence the advice that they provide to retail clients about that product. When the ban on conflicted remuneration was first introduced, in 2013, already-existing arrangements to pay this remuneration to financial advisers were grandfathered so that the ban did not necessarily apply to them. But it's now been six years since that ban was first introduced. However, grandfathered conflicted remuneration remains a part of the financial advice industry.

There's a clear need to end these grandfathered conflicted remuneration arrangements in the financial advice industry. As Commissioner Hayne said in the royal commission's financial report, 'it is now clear that they have outlived their validity'. Australians need to be able to access high-quality financial advice that they can trust. This is critical to maintaining their financial wellbeing. Grandfathered conflicted remuneration compromises this objective by entrenching customers in older and poorly performing products. This is because financial advisers may be unwilling to switch their customers into newer or better products if it means the adviser will lose his or her entitlements to the grandfathered conflicted remuneration.

To be clear, the total value of grandfathered conflicted remuneration is substantial. When ASIC looked at the value of grandfathered benefits in 2014 it found that, on average, licensees indicated that grandfathered benefits were worth around one third of their total income, although substantially more or less than the average in some cases. More recently, the Productivity Commission found that 11 retail superannuation funds are estimated to have paid more than $400 million in grandfathered trailing adviser commissions in 2017—$400 million of everyday Australians' retirement savings being paid out in commissions. Retail clients will therefore be the major winner of this reform. The government's actions mean that they will receive much higher-quality advice and will stop paying the higher fees to fund those grandfathered conflicted remuneration arrangements.

The measures in this bill not only will end the payment of grandfathered conflicted remuneration but also will go further and require that any grandfathered benefits that remain in contracts after 1 January 2021 should be passed on to the affected customers. This will ensure that the entities required to pay grandfathered conflicted remuneration—the financial product manufacturers—are not able to keep the benefits they would normally pay to financial advisers for themselves. The benefits must flow to customers.

By ending grandfathered conflicted remuneration, the government's reforms will better align the interests of advisers and their clients. It will mean that clients can receive better-quality advice and stop paying the higher fees that result from paying those grandfathered conflicted remunerations to the adviser. To ensure that customers receive that benefit from the reform, the bill provides for regulations to establish the mechanism to pass these benefits on to clients. Specifying these requirements in regulations is the most appropriate approach because it provides the ability to make more-detailed rules on how benefits must be passed through and provides for flexibility to respond to changing industry circumstances in a more-timely manner. While a number of firms have already taken steps to end grandfathering, it is clear that this reform will be a significant change for the financial advice industry.

Ending grandfathering will potentially require renegotiation of existing contracts, and for product manufacturers it will require potentially significant systems changes to enable that rebating of the previously grandfathered benefits to clients. Recognising this, the bill provides a transitional period for the industry by ending grandfathering. It will take effect from 1 January 2021. However, this does not mean that the firms in question should drag their feet in making those necessary changes.

To increase the pressure on the industry to act swiftly to make those required changes, the government has issued a ministerial direction to ASIC to undertake an investigation into industry actions in the lead-up to the end of grandfathering. ASIC will investigate industry behaviour in the period of 1 July 2019 this year right through to 1 January 2021 to determine whether industry is in fact passing through the benefits of the removal of grandfathered conflicted remuneration to consumers. They will complement action that we have already taken to drive improved consumer outcomes in the financial sector and ensure that misconduct in the sector is appropriately punished.

Senator Brown's earlier assertion is entirely incorrect. In fact the government has moved swiftly to implement all 76 recommendations of the Hayne royal commission. Since releasing our response to the royal commission the government has in fact instigated and responded to the APRA capability review led by Graeme Samuel, AC. We have expanded the remit of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, AFCA, to require it to establish an historical redress scheme to consider eligible financial complaints dating right back to 1 January 2008, the period covered by the banking royal commission. We have also amended legislation to extend ASIC's product intervention power and to impose design and distribution obligations on all financial and credit products within ASIC's regulatory responsibility. The government has initiated work with the states and territories towards establishing a national farm debt mediation scheme and has released consultation papers on the removal of the exemption for insurance claims handling, the enforceability of financial services industry codes, the merits of universal terms of MySuper products and the superannuation binding death benefit nominations for Indigenous Australians. These actions demonstrate that this government is getting on with the job of delivering on the required reforms to improve consumer and small-business outcomes in the financial sector. Restoring trust in Australia's financial sector is part of our plan for a stronger economy. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill 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 this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise in support of the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019. Labor supports the measures in these bills but notes that the government has damaged the quality of Australia's world-class higher education system, having cut billions from universities by effectively capping undergraduate places and slashing research funding. The Liberals' record on education is abysmal. If we continue down this path, we will severely jeopardise our future economic growth, undermine the opportunity of individual Australians to meet their full potential and, very importantly, compromise our ability as a nation to compete with the rest of the world using the skills, the knowledge, the discovery and the invention of our own people. Despite the failures of the government, Labor will support this bill.

I too rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019 and the associated Higher Education Support Amendment (Charges) Bill 2019. I'm delighted to have this opportunity to speak on these bills, because, while they offer a modest change to our higher education sector, they demonstrate our overall commitment to streamlining, strengthening and providing record investment and opportunities for young Australians. These bills give effect to the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, cost recovery measures in the higher education sector. The 2018-19 budget included HELP cost-recovery measures through an annual charge and an application fee affecting higher education providers that are subject to these bills. Subject to their passage, these measures will provide combined savings of $11.7 million over 2019-20 to 2022-23.

In accordance with the government's charging framework and the cost-recovery guidelines, the department undertook a review of its activities in the higher education sector in 2017. This resulted in the coalition including the following HELP cost-recovery measures in the 2018-19 budget: firstly, an application fee to recover the Commonwealth's full cost of administering and assessing applications for registered higher education providers seeking approval to offer FEE-HELP under the Higher Education Support Act 2003; and, secondly, an annual charge on all higher education providers offering HECS-HELP and/or FEE-HELP assistance to partially cover the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in administering these programs. Charging for government activities already occurs in tertiary education sector regulators and in relation to administration and application processes under the VET Student Loans program.

We consider it appropriate and equitable that providers who utilise Commonwealth funding contribute to the maintenance and operation of HELP arrangements. Subject to their passage, the annual charge measure is to commence from 1 January 2020. These bills represent a reasonable change to these arrangements. As a government, we're ensuring that our higher education sector remains sustainable and ensuring that each and every young Australian is able to pursue every opportunity that comes their way. We're achieving this through delivering record investment in our education and careers pipeline. It is all made possible by having a strong and growing economy which is creating jobs and providing a strong investment environment.

Our record is there for all to see. We're delivering better education outcomes by increasing school funding, improving school outcomes, helping young jobseekers, delivering more apprenticeships, improving university education, and investing more in mental health for young people. All in all, we're investing record amounts in getting young Australians educated in the field of their choice and ensuring they're ready for their chosen career. We're doing this through ensuring schools and education providers have the resources they need to provide a world-class learning environment. We're also working with employers and peak industry bodies to ensure our education system is delivering the skills they need for their future employees to have. Just last week, the Australian government announced Scott Cam as our new Careers Ambassador—an excellent appointment which demonstrates our commitment to getting young Australians ready for and into jobs. Across government, young Australians are able to access a range of programs to get them into some of the more high-tech jobs of the future, including space, remote operations, coding, automation, robotics and artificial intelligence. These are all important industries for the nation, but they're particularly critical growth areas for my home state of Western Australia.

The government is taking a complete pipeline approach right from early learning, because we know a child's brain reaches 90 per cent of its full adult size by the age of five, through to primary school, high school and either tertiary or vocational education, depending on which direction they choose to go. As a government, we're investing record amounts in each and every stage of the education and training process, and we can do all this because we have a strong economy and because we're continuing to make our higher education sector sustainable. We're ensuring that the money that we invest into the future of young Australians is getting to where it's most needed and is delivering value and practical outcomes for students and their future employers.

Australian government funding for schools is now based on students' needs, as opposed to the patchwork model put in place by those opposite.

Oh, rubbish!

Despite their attack ads, their interruptions from the other side of the chamber and the pamphlets they drop in letterboxes that try to scare people and parents into voting for them through their social media campaigns, school funding is not just going up; it's going up by record amounts. Our guaranteed funding commitment invests an additional $37 billion in schools over the next decade to 2029. This increases the average funding per student by 62 per cent over the same period, so our record speaks for itself, and so does the record of those opposite.

For Western Australia, education and skills funding will be increased by $171 million from 2019-20 to 2020-21. Broader investment in my home state also includes $2.1 billion for quality schools, $158 million for national skills workforce development and $46.9 million for early childhood education—an area that I'm personally very passionate about. Commonwealth recurrent schools funding for WA will also increase from $2 billion in 2019 to $3.9 billion in 2029. This is equivalent to a Perth student funding increase of 71.8 per cent for government schools and 43.8 per cent for non-government schools.

But what does this record investment mean on the ground for those local schools and families in my community in Western Australia? I can break down this investment even further. This government's commitment to education will see funding for Armadale Senior High School increase from just over $2 million this financial year to $3.4 million over the next decade. Funding for Cecil Andrews College, which has a terrific STEM program, or STEAM as they call it in their school, is set to increase by around the same amount—from $2.1 million to nearly $3.6 million. And the Challis Community Primary School—another fantastic school in the south-eastern suburbs of Perth; a brilliant school with a wonderful program reaching and helping parents and students, particularly in early childhood education—are seeing their funding increase from $1.9 million to $3.3 million.

These are the practical, on-the-ground outcomes from our investment in Australian schools. In fact, Commonwealth schools funding has grown at a faster rate than state and territory government funding. From 2006-07 to 2015-16 Commonwealth funding for government schools has increased in real terms by 78.5 per cent on a per student basis. We have replaced Labor's multiple secret funding deals with a single, needs based national model of schools funding, and the results are there for all to see.

Our agreement is fair and provides certainty over the next decade. We're ensuring that our record funding commitment gets better results for Australian students, parents and teachers. We're also backing the full implementation of NAPLAN to ensure parents and teachers get transparency on student progress. We're improving teacher quality by testing trainee teachers to ensure that they are in the top 30 per cent for literacy and numeracy before they can teach in schools. We're also refocusing the Australian Curriculum on the essentials. We've also secured the agreement of every state and territory to work with us to improve results for all students.

On top of this, we're giving parents more choice by backing those who choose the school that best meets the needs of their child, including Catholic and independent schools. This is why we've created the $1.2 billion Choice and Affordability Fund. This means, in total, an extra $4.5 billion of funding will be available to non-government schools over the decade. This extra funding is not at the expense of government schools. From 2017 to 2029, Commonwealth funding for government schools will increase by 75 per cent per student and non-government schools will increase by 55 per cent per student on average.

Debate interrupted.

I rise tonight to speak on the wage theft crisis engulfing workplaces across this country, making it harder for young workers and migrant workers to make ends meet. There has been a rapid rise in allegations of wage theft and worker exploitation. In the past month alone, these headlines have caused shock and concern.

Sunglass Hut workers were underpaid by $2.3 million. An article in The Australian goes on to say, 'Sunglass Hut took seven months to report underpaying 620 workers by $2.3m, disclosing the massive underpayment to the Fair Work Ombudsman' but that 'Sunglass Hut will not be prosecuted after striking a deal with the ombudsman that will see the company make a $50,000 "contrition" payment'. Further, in the article 'Bunnings in a decade of super shortfalls' in The Australian, another corporate has been caught underpaying its workers, with Bunnings revealing on Thursday 'it has discovered an error in superannuation payments for some part-time workers that goes back almost 10 years'.

Another article from The Australian said:

Wesfarmers on Tuesday admitted underpaying 2000 current and 4000 former employees from its industrial and safety division an estimated $15m in superannuation, allowances and entitlements since 2010 …

…   …   …

It is one of the biggest instances of underpayment reported by a company and is almost double the $7.8m in wages and superannuation underpaid to more than 500 current and former employees by celebrity chef George Calombaris's hospitality empire.

Speaking of restaurants, we have the Chin Chin empire underpaying staff. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald said:

A detailed external audit shows that the high-end restaurant business that runs Chin Chin in Melbourne and Sydney underpaid staff by $340,000 in a single year, with one-fifth of the company's workforce affected.

The article goes on to say:

Some staff had been paid $10,000 per year less than they should have received as compared to the minimum rates of the award.

A further example—and a shocking one at that—is a recycler accused of $1 million in wage theft in the Sydney Morning Herald, which said:

A group of refugees and migrants were underpaid an estimated $1 million in a single year while working more than 70 hours a week in harsh conditions at one of Australia's biggest recycling companies.

There was a suggestion in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald from some of these companies that what really needs to happen is an amnesty on underpayments and wage theft. It said:

Some top restaurateurs say they have been left "scared" after several wage scandals in their industry, with calls for an amnesty to bring operations into compliance.

You would think, with headlines like that, a company involved in the hospitality industry would be keen to show that they're not interested in taking this action any further or in being caught up in any more wage theft scandals, but then it goes on to say that one of the restaurant owners said:

The so-called 'wage theft' has been culturally acceptable for decades … That's not because restaurant owners are driving Maseratis, it's because that’s how they survive and stay in the game.

These cases are shocking, and they are from one month of headlines under this government.

This government has been put on notice. In 2015, a large-scale wage theft of worker exploitation case involving 7-Eleven workers was uncovered. As Giri Sivaraman and Patrick Turner, two lawyers who worked on that case, noted:

7-Eleven employees were especially vulnerable to exploitation because they:

(a) possessed little understanding of Australian industrial law;

(b) were unaware of their entitlements;

(c) were not members of a union; and

(d) often spoke English as a second language.

These headlines shouldn't be happening. This government has been on notice since 2015 that wage theft is an issue, but they've chosen to take no action. Since that scandal, further wage theft scandals have been revealed, and the worst case—I'm very disappointed to report—is from my home in regional Queensland. As recently as 2018, the Electrical Trades Union discovered migrant workers being paid $30 a day to do work on a Townsville solar farm. This isn't just wage theft; this is slave labour—and it is happening in our country right now. But I want to make this very important point: the majority of employers do the right thing. When businesses underpay their workers, it hurts good businesses too. This is about protecting workers and protecting good employers.

There are a number of issues that have been identified as the root cause of the current wage theft problem. First of all, fewer workers are members of unions. The ability of unions to organise in workplaces has been reduced, and union powers to investigate wage theft have been restricted by conservative governments. I know exactly how hard it is to get a wage theft claim through the court system. It is incredibly difficult, and, without the backing of a union, it is very difficult for individuals, particularly young workers and migrant workers, to see that money back in their bank account.

Secondly, there has been an increase in migrant workers working in temporary employment, being exploited by bad employers, and undermining the employment of genuine, skilled tradespeople. Let me make this clear: there is a place for overseas workers in this country to work and to fill skills shortages. But what we have seen over recent years is an increasing reliance on temporary overseas workers by businesses who know that if they employ an overseas worker they are less likely to have an organised workforce. Finally, the inaction of this government for the past six years has led to a culture of businesses who are happy to do the crime because they know they will not do the time.

I acknowledge that the government has released a discussion paper, but it's just one of their many inquiries, reviews, discussion papers and consultation papers. If the government was really serious about tackling this crisis, they would have legislation before this parliament this week. Even so, this government's plan is fundamentally flawed. You can't criminalise wage theft on the one hand and reduce the power of unions on the other and hope that the problem will just get better, because it won't.

The Liberals' record on supporting young workers is woeful, and now they're trying to convince young Australians that they're here to help. We know that they cut penalty rates, and we also know that those rate cuts haven't resulted in one single new job. The Liberal-National government defunded TAFE to the tune of $3 billion. Now they've created a skills shortage, particularly in regional Queensland, and they are scrambling to fix it. They also lecture young people who can't go to TAFE, calling them 'job snobs' if they want to go to uni, but they won't fund TAFE so people don't have to go to uni—so they have to go to uni. The thing about going to university and calling people 'job snobs' is this: nurses and teachers go to university to get their qualifications. This government has no right lecturing people on their choice of what they want to do.

Finally, sensing that they may have a youth problem, what does this government do? They recruit the coolest, hippest, most woke tradie that they can think of to join their team, announcing that they will pay Scott Cam an undisclosed, commercial-in-confidence amount of money to be Australia's first national careers ambassador. This is such a good idea that the government won't tell us how much taxpayer money they are spending to make a few Instagram ads with—with all due respect to Mr Cam—a 56-year-old television host. I can see TikTok with 'Scott from The Block' already! Here's a hot tip: if you've won a Gold Logie, people under 25 probably don't know who you are.

This is a government that thinks that if they have the right spokesperson then Australians won't complain if you offer young people a PaTH internship that pays $4 an hour to wash cars. Young Australians don't need a career adviser. They need a government that will have the guts to stand up for them, to fund TAFE and to take real action on wage theft. But they won't get that under the Morrison government.

Yesterday marked the start of Anti-Poverty Week. This year the theme of Anti-Poverty Week is raising the rate of Newstart. This is one of the most effective ways we can reduce poverty in Australia. Newstart is too low, and everybody, except this government, seems to acknowledge that. Newstart is currently $559 a fortnight or $279.50 a week. This means a substantial portion of people on Newstart are living below the poverty line. The inadequacy of Newstart is causing hardship and poverty for people across Australia.

But on 20 September 2019 the rate of Newstart increased by a whole $3.30 a fortnight! This equates to an extra 24c a day. The government will tell you that the rate went up and that Newstart gets increased twice a year. This is one of their favourite lines, but let me ask you: do you think an increase to Newstart by 24c a day is a genuine increase? Everybody I've spoken to has said no.

When this increased a few weeks ago I asked people what they would spend their 24c a day on and here's what some of them said. 'My Newstart allowance went up by my rent assistance went down so the 24c a day increase will not really make a difference for me.' 'Great, it will go towards the $5 a week that my rent is rising by.' 'Saving for a stamp to send a thank you letter to Scott Morrison.' 'A phone call to Centrelink to tell them I should actually be on DSP.' 'Save it each week and in a 12 months' time you will have $87.60 you can retire on.' 'Saving it, not spending it all at once. To do so would be impulsive and foolish.' 'I think I will stimulate the economy by saving up and getting a haircut in three months.' 'The quality of my life has now improved. I have 24c more per day.' 'Wonderful, let's make it a treasure hunt. Let's go to the shops and see what we can buy for that amount.' 'Can't even buy a packet of chewies. If I save up I can buy two packets at the end of the fortnight.' 'If you save up this for nine days you can afford an eight pack of Wizz Fizz sherbet—the absolute peak of nutrition.' 'This is a difficult one to answer. Maybe I could get a gumball each day. That will really help me get into work.' 'I was going to spend it on a cup of coffee, but I will have to share it as I can't afford to get one by myself.' '$3.30, now I can afford an extra can of baked beans each fortnight.' 'I might put the heater on for five minutes.' As you can hear, some of these responses are in fact very funny and for some people that's the only way they can respond, because this is so ridiculous.

This increase of just 24c a day, so proudly lauded by the government, is quite simply outrageous. Twenty-four cents a day is a joke. You need to call it out for what it is. It's not a genuine increase, and the government must think the Australian community are idiots if they think they can sell such a ridiculous message.

Scott Morrison's claim, the Prime Minister's claim, that Newstart increases twice a year is misleading and disingenuous. It's a distraction from the fact that the government doesn't want to raise the rate. I personally don't think it's working and I think people see right through it. An overwhelming number of people are now joining the campaign to raise Newstart. Businesses, social service organisations, unions, industry groups and everybody with a heart and who cares about our community knows that Newstart needs to be increased immediately. And, of course, we do have some members of the coalition who also support an increase.

Despite the government's claim of an increase to Newstart, the truth is that there has not been a real increase to Newstart in 25 years. One of the reasons Newstart has remained so low is that it has a different indexation arrangement to other pensions and allowances in the social security system. Newstart is indexed to the consumer price index—and community standards have increased substantially since 1994, which is when Newstart was increased—and the consumer price index has not been keeping up with the rising costs of living.

In contrast, pensions are indexed to either the consumer price index or the pensioner and beneficiary living cost index, whichever is the higher. This means people receiving pensions, like the age pension or the disability support pension, have seen their payments increase more, in line with the increasing cost of living. Because of these differences in indexing arrangements, the gap between the allowances, pensions and wages has grown significantly over the past few decades. That's why I've introduced another bill to try to raise Newstart. This bill will end the poverty trap, because that's what we're in. It's important to keep talking about this during Anti-Poverty Week, because the rates are so low that people become stuck in Newstart.

The Foodbank report, which came out just yesterday, showed that, in a country as wealthy as ours, nearly 22 per cent of people are food insecure. Just this year, tax cuts for the wealthy were passed through this place, yet one in five people are going hungry. Of course, many of the people who are going hungry are children, and there are parents who are skipping meals in order to feed their children. This country doesn't even have a definition of poverty. How can we address it properly if we don't have a definition of poverty and a strategy to reduce poverty in this country? The amount of $3.30 a fortnight is not enough to bridge the widening gap that has developed with Newstart. It won't pull people out of poverty. It's not enough to help people meet the rising cost of food, medicines, bills and everyday basics. Last week, we started hearings for the Senate inquiry into the adequacy of Newstart. One witness last week said she eats three or four proper meals a week. The rest are cereal or porridge. Another told us that she gets rent assistance as well as Newstart but is left with $3.02 a day when all her costs are removed.

This Anti-Poverty Week we are going to continue to fight for a real, proper increase to Newstart. Increasing Newstart by at least $75 a week would make a huge difference to the lives of many Australians. Because we've been campaigning for that $75 a week for a while, there are now very clear calls for it to be higher than that. The more the government resists, the more people are getting further and further behind, the deeper their poverty is becoming and the greater will be the cost of making sure that people are able to catch up through an increase to Newstart. Such an increase would mean that people would be able to afford to eat three meals a day. They would have the bus or train fare to go and try to find work and to attend job interviews. They would be confident they could pay their electricity bill and not have to juggle bills.

We are a wealthy country. We can afford it. As somebody said during the inquiry last week, the government is collecting taxes; they're using those taxes to pay for the surplus. The witness said they'd prefer the surplus and their taxes that are building that surplus to be spent on increasing Newstart. It's a possibility; it's reachable; it's touchable. The government just has to acknowledge that Newstart is too low and stop demonising those people on Newstart. Raise Newstart. Address poverty. This Anti-Poverty Week, you can make a real difference by acknowledging that Newstart is too low and committing to raise the rate of Newstart. There are many of us in this place who have been campaigning on this issue for a long time, and we won't stop. Neither will the growing number of businesses, unions, workers and community organisations that all acknowledge the failure to increase Newstart and the impact it has on our community and on individuals within our community. We need to make sure our safety net really is a safety net. We need to raise the rate.

Senate adjourned at 22:09