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

In the time that's left to me—last evening I had some things to say about both the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019, and the character of the government's failed approach to energy policy. I'd just say this afternoon that Labor's support for the bill is conditional on the improvements that will be the subject of amendments in this place to prevent the partial privatisation of energy assets. We know from decades of experience that public services and assets don't get better after privatisation, they get worse. One of the principal drivers of the sustained rises in energy prices over the course of the last couple of decades has been a failed approach to energy privatisation. It hurts communities and families and it spells job losses—particularly in regional communities and in good, quality jobs—a decline in the quality of services, higher prices and knock-on effects for local economies.

The Senate inquiry into this bill heard evidence that, unless a government owned corporation is in genuine competition with another government owned corporation, the country risks privatisation occurring in the event of divestment. The Queensland government raised similar concerns to the inquiry, with their submission setting out three different ways that the bill in its current form allows possible privatisation to occur. The first one is the situation set out by Dr Emerson, where a divestiture order could force a government owned electricity generator to be divested to a private corporation due to government entities not being in direct competition with one another. The second pathway allows for state governments to elect to proceed with privatisation in the case of a divestiture order. Thirdly, organisations that are not state authorities but which hold public assets would be able to divest to private companies. In the case of Queensland, Energex and Ergon Energy are both subsidiaries of government owned corporations that currently hold public assets.

It's unacceptable to Labor for this bill to contain any provision that clears a pathway to privatisation of government owned electricity generators. Our amendments to the bill remove those loopholes and protect against the privatisation of national or state assets in electricity. This is the only way that Labor will support the passage of the bill. There needs to be zero prospect of any state owned asset being privatised if it's forcibly divested.

Secondly, Labor has moved additional amendments because we're concerned that the bill in its current form puts workers at risk, in the event of divestment, of losing their protections and entitlements under the Fair Work Act. The transfer-of-business provisions under the Fair Work Act are designed to protect workers when a business changes hands from one company to another. This acknowledges that, when an employer buys or sells a business, the sale may affect the employment and entitlements of the employees already working for the business and seeks to make this transfer as fair as possible.

Under the transfer-of-business provisions, workplace instruments that covered employees of the old employer continue to cover those employees employed by the new employer, which means that workers can transfer across on their existing award or collective agreement entitlements and be assured that their pay and conditions and, critically, their redundancy pay that they rely upon for security and to live and feed their families will be the same when the business changes hands. This transfer of entitlements and protections only comes into effect if a connection exists between the two employers.

That's why we're moving this amendment—to ensure that workers affected by divestment have all the protections they deserve under the Fair Work Act. We will always act in the interests of workers' rights, workers' wages and workers' job security, and we will only proceed with this bill on that basis. Labor will support the bill on the basis that the privatisation amendment and the workers' rights amendment are adopted. We're pleased to see that the government has adopted these provisions.

I will take the opportunity to say that we're very sceptical about the broader benefits of this legislation. What really needs to occur in this country is for the people in decision-making positions in the government to approach the issue of energy policy with some moral seriousness. They are responsible for the administration of energy policy at the Commonwealth level and through the COAG mechanisms. They have a responsibility to ensure a future for the energy sector, with more renewable energy, not less, with more energy security, not less, and with lower prices for consumers and businesses. That means government need to adopt a serious energy policy for the future of the country, something that this gang over here has so far refused to do.

In contributing to this legislation debate this morning on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019, I cannot escape the context of our collective communities suffering across the nation today. We have, as we sit here, over 100 fires burning across New South Wales and Queensland, as well as fires burning on fronts in South Australia and in my home state of Western Australia. There have been more than 200 homes destroyed so far by these blazes, and many more buildings, including schools, have been affected in some of the worst-hit communities on the mid North Coast. More than 600 educational institutions, including TAFEs, will be closed for the rest of the week. We have an entire state which has been placed under a state of emergency. More than 20,000 people have been evacuated, and ADF personnel are on stand-by to assist in evacuations across the states of New South Wales and Queensland. Just as I entered the chamber, a catastrophic fire warning had broken out in the New South Wales region of Thunderbolts Way. And we have tragically seen three lives lost and many more injured.

I cannot think of a clearer definition of a moment of national crisis and emergency than that which we are now in. All across our country, people are fighting to defend their homes and their communities. Over a million hectares of habitat, some of it pristine and virtually irreplaceable, has been lost, burning in regions that have never burned before. The Bureau of Meteorology informed us this morning that this is the first day in Australia's historical record where not a drop of rain has fallen on any section of our ancient continent.

We know that these are not normal events, that this is not a natural disaster that we are in the grip of but is being driven by climate change. We know that climate change is being exacerbated by the burning of carbon emissions, the primary culprit of which is coal. Coal is the villain of the piece, yet what has the government dragged into this chamber this morning? It is nothing less than a friendless brain fart of a piece of legislation which seeks to invest the government with the power to keep open and running clapped-out, aged infrastructure that contributes to this climate disaster. It is driven by the dual factors of their ideological clinging to this old way of doing things, this old way of generating power, and the fact that they are bought, sold and funded by megacorporations which are still seeking to make profits from this industry, even though they know it is coming to the end. These are corporations without a shred of moral fibre, whose compasses long ago were cast overboard. These are organisations who, in the full knowledge that they will not exist in a financial capacity within the decade, are simply positioning themselves to do the equivalent of ripping the copper wire out of the walls before they leave the joint to burn down. That is being facilitated this morning by a so-called opposition.

I was very interested to hear yesterday members of the opposition talk in eloquent terms about how they see themselves now as a constructive opposition. It is an absolutely incredible thing to watch the Albanese Labor opposition metamorphosise from an oppositional political grouping into something more akin to a kind of governmental constructive-feedback working group: 'We won't oppose you on anything, really; we'll just tweak here and tweak there, and as long as you listen to us, ScoMo, and give us a bit of a win, we'll just kind of let you get on with it.'

Senator Steele-John, I remind you to refer to others in the other place by their correct title.

I thank you for that reminding, Madam Deputy President. I cannot think of a more profound dereliction of duty in this moment of national crisis than to seek actively to make a problem worse. That is what this legislation does. We know that coal is at the core of the climate crisis. We know that these national events are not normal, that we are right now living in the midst of a climate emergency, yet this government brings in legislation that seeks to keep the culprit in business, that seeks to bend the powers of the Australian government to that shameful—shameful!—purpose.

We in this place cannot quite grasp what it is like to be on one of these fire fronts today, what it is like to live in the knowledge that tomorrow your home might not be there. Thousands of members of our community are right now engaged in that fight to defend home and environment against these fires. They are heroes for participating in that practice, but they are being let down this morning by this government and this legislation. It's not enough that fire chiefs couldn't get a meeting with the relevant minister. It's not enough that our Prime Minister has turned down international assistance and ruled it out. It's not enough that he and this government continue to prospect even greater sources of carbon to open up, like those in the Beetaloo Basin, pursuing environmental vandalism with a zeal that borders on perversion. But, on the very day when we are in the grips of this, you bring this legislation in, you propose to make the problem even worse by stopping, you know, not necessarily the most community-minded organisations—I mean, these are privately run power entities; they're hardly going to make the Christmas list of the most charitable organisations, the warmest and cuddliest, but even they know they want to get out of the business of this dying industry.

You've been confronted with the facts and you're trying to get away from them. You're trying to use the powers of the government to bend reality to fit your distortion that you have crafted because of decades of taking corporate donation, corporate donation, corporate donation again and again and again until you can't see the world past the green blindfold you've put on.

Beyond the issue of whether or not it is right, proper or consistent for a Liberal government to be—I mean, really, we do see in this piece of legislation the absolute fallacy of the idea of the hand of the free market and how quickly the Liberal Party is willing to abandon those notions whenever it doesn't fit the narrative. It really is an absolute joke, the amount of times you people come in here and preach the benefit of the free market—ridiculous an idea though it is—and yet here we have a circumstance in which certain markets are clearly trying to transition and you are putting the powers of your Liberal administration in the way. I would laugh, but that type of hypocrisy is par for the course in this place.

The feverish attempts that this government has made in the last two days to escape the reality of climate and the emergency that it has created is a national disgrace. You have written off the legitimate concerns of communities on the fire front, the lived experience that what is happening in these communities is not normal. You have disregarded it as merely—what were the words the Deputy Prime Minister used the other day, the 'woke thinkings of inner city latte-sipping hippies'? What an absolutely disgraceful contribution. What an absolutely petty, small statement to make on a day like that. The man might as well go outside and proclaim the sky is purple as declare that there is no link between climate and fire.

You have been told that this would happen, that this link existed. The major parties in this country have been told since 2006 that their continued addiction to fossil fuel donations, that their continued advocacy for these industries, would lead to exactly the natural disaster that we are now in the grips of. You have been told again and again and again and again, and you have utterly failed to act.

You had your chance and you blew it.

I will take the interjection—

Senator Steele-John, stop. Senator Watt. Senator Watt, I'm calling you to order. Please continue, Senator Steele-John.

I take the interjection, through you, Madam Deputy President, from the rather excitable senator from Queensland, Mr Watt. Now he is carping, as the Labor Party are so prone to do, in relation to their much-vaunted 2007 proposal of an emissions trading scheme. Let me tell you, Senator Watt, via you, Madam Acting Deputy President: the reality of the proposal that you put forward was that it did absolutely bloody nothing to address climate change. It was crafted by the very corporate interests who have taken control of both sides of this parliament for the last two decades. It was thoroughly—

Senator Steele-John, thank you. Senator Smith?

I just remind the senators who are busy interjecting with each other that, while on one level they're trying to bring attention to the seriousness of the challenges that face our country at the moment, their actions and their commentary in the Senate betray them on that. Perhaps they might want to reflect a little bit more broadly—

Thank you, Senator Smith. Interjections are disorderly. I have called the senator concerned to order. I would ask all senators to be respectful. The senator has the right to be heard in silence. Senator Steele-John, some of your language is a bit borderline. I haven't pulled you up, because it's not unparliamentary according to the code, but I think you can probably do better. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I will take Senator Smith's point and I will return with razor-sharp focus to the piece of legislation which he has put before this parliament today. There is not a scientist in this country—there is not a qualified individual on the face of the earth—that would say anything other than that there is a direct causal link between the burning of coal and the creation of dangerous climate change. And there is not an individual—a scientist or any other qualified person—who would deny the link between climate change and the disasters which we are experiencing today. It is hypocrisy in the extreme—it is inappropriate beyond words—for this government to propose that, in this moment of national crisis, we should be using the powers of the federal government to maintain a system of burning coal for energy generation. That is what this bill seeks to facilitate. You, funded by your corporate backers, interested only in your continued political survival, have played a role in driving our country to the edge of an ecological abyss from which we may never recover. Your selfishness and your ignorance have known no bounds for decades, and now our communities are paying the price, just as your spinelessness—your contemptible inability to formulate yourselves into anything like an opposition, anything vaguely approaching an organisation capable of countering the bunch of self-obsessed corporate elites that is the Liberal Party—has let this community down again and again. We heard your feeble mutterings in the chamber yesterday about the idea that, at some other point in the future, it might be the appropriate time to raise the issue of climate change. Now! Now! Now!

In the past, when we as a community have confronted issues of national tragedy and crisis, such as we did after Port Arthur, we have come together as a nation and acted. We had a national firearms agreement within 11 days. How dare you suggest that our country is beyond the ability of rising to a similar challenge. How dare any of you suggest that, in this moment, at this time, it is appropriate to be prosecuting a piece of legislation with the aim of propping up coal. You are no better than a bunch of arsonists—borderline arsonists—and you should be ashamed—

Senator Steele-John, I've got a point of order. Senator Watt.

We are used to Senator Steele-John's lectures—

Senator, what's your point of order?

but it is highly offensive for him to refer to members of this chamber, regardless of their political party, as arsonists.

He hasn't—

It is an indication of the lengths that the Greens will go to to make their political point and I ask him to withdraw.

Senator Watt, you are now getting into a debating point.

I will not withdraw.

He will not withdraw.

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Steele-John was not making a direct reference to any senator in particular. Please continue, Senator Steele-John. There is no point of order.

There will come a time, Senator Watt—

If you're seriously going to call senators arsonists—

Senator Watt, order. Senator Faruqi, a point of order.

Madam Deputy President, despite your ruling that interjections are disorderly, Senator Watt continues to interrupt Senator Steele-John. I would please ask you to call him to order.

I am calling people to order, Senator Faruqi. I'm asking senators to allow Senator Steele-John to continue his contribution. He has the right to be heard in silence.

There will come a time when the Australian community shall look back on this moment and ask what we were doing to help as they were fighting fires on the front, as they were defending their homes—

I beg your pardon, Senator Steele-John. Yes, Senator Gallacher.

Standing order 193(3):

A senator shall not use offensive words against either House of Parliament or of a House of a state or territory parliament, or any member of such House, or against a judicial officer, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.

Thank you, Senator Gallacher. I have made a ruling. I am, however, willing to review the tape. I will do that and if I have erred I will come back and advise the Senate. Please continue, Senator Steele-John.

There will come a time when the Australian community will look back and ask itself a simple question: what were we doing when they were defending their homes, when they were protecting their communities, when they were defending precious natural habitat? What were we here doing? The answer this day, as has been the answer on so many occasions since I have entered this place, is making the problem worse, because it was too difficult to do otherwise or because somebody was paying us to do it. That is the only answer that they will discover in this place and they, like me, will be disgusted and ashamed at the weakness, at the cowardice, at the self-interest and at the ignorance that led us to this moment. They will condemn you, as you should rightly be condemned, and hold you accountable at the ballot box and beyond. I thank the chamber for its time.

I am extremely disappointed by the tone of the contribution we just heard from Senator Steele-John. I'm extremely disappointed, but I'm not entirely surprised, because we are used to contributions like that from Senator Steele-John and his colleagues in the Greens party to take the opportunity in moments of national crisis for political pointscoring and using highly inflammatory language that does no credit to them or to anyone in this chamber.

We're pretty keen to get on with this debate, so I won't spend a lot of time on this, but for Senator Steele-John to refer to members of this chamber as arsonists, on the very day that we are told by fire chiefs that we are seeing conditions that this country has never seen before, is beyond offensive and beyond the pale. I would encourage Senator Steele-John and every member of the Greens to reflect on the way they are carrying on, the political pointscoring they are engaging in around bushfires and in referring to other members of this chamber as arsonists. I would never—

But I'm telling the truth.

I take the interjection. Senator Steele-John is saying that it is telling the truth. He has now had multiple opportunities to resile from those disgusting comments that he has made—

Truthful comments.

Comments that he continues, through interjections, to say are truthful—that members of this chamber are arsonists. It might be a good idea for someone who has been here a little bit longer, like Senator McKim, to have a bit of a chat to Senator Steele-John about whether it is appropriate on the day that this country is facing bushfires—if we're not lucky, people may die and people may lose their properties—to be referring to anyone in this chamber, regardless of their political party, as an arsonist. As I say, it is beyond offensive and beyond the pale.

Labor has already made its contribution, through Senator Wong, on the bushfires. We have already flagged that we have serious concerns about the way this government manages the issue of climate change, and we will take up those matters. We have many differences of opinion on many matters with members of this government, with members of the Greens and with members of One Nation, but the idea that we would come into this chamber—or go outside the chamber—and call another member of parliament who we disagree with an arsonist, a murderer, an armed robber or any other form of criminal is something that I would never contemplate. I play politics pretty hard—I will be honest about that—but I will never liken another member of this chamber to an arsonist, a murderer or any other criminal. I would encourage Senator Steele-John after this debate is over to think about what he said and maybe issue a public apology for what he has said, for the slight that he has cast upon everyone in this chamber, on the day when this nation is facing a great challenge.

Moving to this bill, I rise to make a short contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. I note, as Senator McAllister has outlined on behalf of the opposition, that there are a few matters outstanding, particularly in relation to the safeguarding of workers' entitlements, that we do hope to resolve with the government at the committee stage. Australia is suffering through the worst energy crisis it has experienced in decades. It is not good enough that the Liberals and Nationals in this Morrison government do not have a real energy policy after six years. Since 2015, under this government gas prices have tripled and wholesale power prices across the National Electricity Market have skyrocketed by 158 per cent, smashing household budgets and jeopardising tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The Liberal-National government have made 16 attempts to come up with a national energy policy and have been unable to agree with each other the whole way along. That is why we continue to find ourselves in this utter mess where we don't have an energy policy from the government, and, meanwhile, prices rise and reliability goes down.

This bill, sadly, will not end this energy crisis, which is the making of the Liberal-National government. If this government were serious about ending the energy crisis, it would come back with an actual energy policy, maybe one like the National Energy Guarantee, the NEG, which Prime Minister Morrison and Treasurer Frydenberg both said would bring down power prices by an average of $550 according to the government's own modelling. But instead we have a jumble of policies with no vision, no guiding principle and no policy coherence. Now, as another example of that, we have this bill, the so-called 'big stick'. Labor was critical of this bill in the last parliament. It risked doing harm and it seriously risks the privatisation of state owned electricity generators, something that we are very conscious of in Queensland.

We have seen the damage that privatisation of energy assets—in particular, electricity generators—causes in other states. In other states, Liberal and National state governments have privatised generators, transmission lines and distribution networks, and that has led to job losses, higher prices and less power reliability. In Queensland, this has been a very big topic of debate over the last couple of state elections. First off, we saw former Premier Campbell Newman from the LNP go to an election promising to sell off Queensland's power generators, transmission lines and distribution networks. Fortunately, he was defeated with that proposal by the Palaszczuk Labor government, and that's why our power assets remain in public hands in Queensland.

Not content with that, Premier Newman's former Treasurer, Tim Nicholls, as leader of the LNP went to the recent state election, again, seeking to privatise Queensland's power assets. Again, fortunately, due to the efforts of unions, the Palaszczuk government, Labor members and concerned communities, we managed to prevent the LNP from privatising our power assets. As a result, in my home state of Queensland we have some of the lowest power prices in the country, due to the fact that our energy assets remain in public hands.

Queenslanders and Australians as a whole do not want to see their essential services, like power, privatised. They do not want to see their power prices increase and they do not want to see the reliability of their power systems decline as a result of privatisation. That's why, over the course of this debate, Labor has pressured the government to stiffen the protections in this bill against future power privatisation. Our concern is simply this: by allowing for divestment and the breaking up and selling off of power assets, that is inevitably going to lead to privatisation. I'm very pleased that the government has taken on board our suggestions and will strengthen this bill to prevent privatisation. I'll leave my contribution at that, but we are pleased that the government has backed down on this matter.

I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. We know that this government will use the power in this bill to keep coal-fired power stations operating for longer. This is all about funnelling taxpayer money to coal-fired power stations. We also know that the future is in renewable energy—the future of our country, the future of our planet and all those who live on it, the future of our young people and the future of those who need a just transition from coal into long-term sustainable jobs.

Just last week I was in Newcastle listening to the community around the Hunter, the experts and local government. Everyone there understands the need to transform our energy systems from dirty polluting ones to clean renewable ones. Everyone is talking about transitioning out of coal. But all of the energy of this government is directed towards keeping clunky, old, outdated and polluting coal-fired power stations open. They are so beholden to coal and coal barons that they have shut their eyes to what's coming. The future is renewable, and the time is now to grab this opportunity and run with it. We could be leading from the front on renewables in this country, but here we are debating legislation that will keep us firmly stuck in the past.

Liddell, in my home state of New South Wales, is the eighth most polluting coal-fired power station in the country, emitting 7.8 million tonnes of pollution per year. It is an environmental catastrophe, a health disaster and a complete failure of policy by this government to look to the future. When I visited Liddell, more than two years ago now, the workers and the company were already saying that they wanted to see that station shut down. They told me that this power station is 1960s design and technology. It was a battle to keep it going every single day. They recognised then what the government still cannot: Liddell and other coal-fired power stations must close to move to clean, green renewable energy.

The federal government's inability—or unwillingness, rather—to stick with any semblance or skerrick of a climate policy is truly astounding. Coal-fired power stations, such as Liddell, have been operating without modern pollution control technologies and they have been allowed to get away with it for years and years. Nowhere else would this kind of destructive technology be allowed to operate, given its immense cost to the planet and its disastrous consequences for the people who have no choice but to breathe in the pollution it creates. By extending a lifeline to coal-fired power, this bill takes away from the lives of thousands of people who will suffer health problems from pollution in the Sydney Basin if these coal-fired power stations are allowed to continue to operate for decades to come. It also takes away from the millions who are already facing the consequences of the climate crisis.

Coal combustion is one of the biggest sources of pollution in New South Wales. The particles emitted can enter the bloodstream and enter the lungs, and winds drag these particles to major pollution centres in the Sydney Basin. It's quite indisputable that coal is also one of the biggest contributors to the climate emergency we are in now at this very moment. As New South Wales burns in catastrophic bushfires and is under a state of emergency, it is reprehensible that this government will take public money and hand it over to coal-fired power stations. It is truly reprehensible. The science is indisputable. Coal is one of the leading causes of warming of our planet. There is a direct link between digging up and burning coal and the climate crisis that is seeing unprecedented bushfires across New South Wales.

Do you, the government, understand that you are actually failing people? You are failing the people who have lost homes, lives and loved ones. The job of the government is to protect people, and you're completely and utterly failing in that responsibility. You have to face the reality that, by propping up coal, by not acting on the climate crisis, you are part of the problem. You are making things worse. By burning coal and through the impact that it's having on the climate emergency, of course we know that there is an increasing risk of frequency and intensity of bushfires. We also know that it's making fire seasons longer and more dangerous. You have to face up to this reality and face up to this truth. Don't blame and vilify people who point out the truth to you.

The Mid North Coast of New South Wales is a place that I called home for many years. It's where I lived and worked. It's where my children grew up. It is being ravaged by raging fires. My friends there tell me that they thought the end of the world was coming. My heart goes out to all those who are again today facing this prospect of a catastrophic fire. Stay safe. We send you solidarity and strength. We also want to send the same solidarity and strength to the fireys, the emergency services and the volunteers who put their own lives at risk to protect us, our environment and our community.

We need real action to move away from fossil fuels so we can protect people and the planet. By doing nothing, you are failing our communities. To be frank, if this doesn't wake up this Prime Minister and this government from the climate stupor that they're in, I'm not sure what is going to. But, then again, it's not really a surprise for anyone, is it? This government is so beholden to the coal lobby. It is a loyal servant of the coal lobby. Even energy companies want to shut down coal-fired power stations, because they know that the future is in renewables. They know this polluting, old, clunky, breaking-down technology is on its way out, and it's only a matter of time before Australia has to reckon with this.

Renewable energy is the cheapest form of electricity. With the right policy New South Wales, and even Australia, could become a renewable energy superpower, but years of bad policy between the New South Wales government—that's my home state; I have to point it out—and the federal government have made sure that we remain stuck in the past. Our grid is still largely a set of wires out of coal mines. The government now needs to build the grid out to where the sun shines and where the wind blows. Renewable energy can unlock the potential, creating clean energy jobs, but this bill will get in the way of the progress that we desperately need. If the government is genuinely concerned about market concentration, as it says it is, then the government should be moving to strengthen the ACCC. The Competition and Consumer Act should be reviewed to introduce divestiture powers across the economy. The ACCC has said that this bill won't lower power prices, and, even if it does, the effect will be so small as to be negligible.

If the bill were just about electricity prices, as some in the government wish to claim, the government would have accepted Greens amendments that made clear that the bill could not be used for the purposes of forcing a company to keep an asset such as Liddell running beyond its accepted life, but they did not. We know this bill has one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is to keep one of Australia's dirtiest power stations open. The Greens will not stand for this. We oppose this bill and will continue to oppose all attempts to keep Australia stuck in the past. The future is renewable and it is coming, whether you like it or not. One day you will run out of roadblocks. We will make sure of that. The only way is to have a plan, just transition to renewable power, with jobs and safety for coal dependent communities and everyone else.

As deputy chair of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which reviewed the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019, I want to talk about this bill, not about climate change or coal or anything else. It is my view, supported by the documentary evidence, that this appears to be another poorly drafted bill which is full of unintended consequences and creates uncertainty rather than certainty. It is the view of the Law Council that it may be subject to legal challenge, which, ultimately, would negate some of the attempts to prohibit energy market misconduct. I'm not going to make a large contribution. I'll just put a couple of things on the record.

On 31 August 2016 I was in this chamber talking about the only entity to have been taken to court by the regulator and fined. That was Snowy Hydro, which was fined $400,000 and asked to pay $100,000 towards the regulator's costs for not meeting the requirements of the regulator. At that time, that entity was owned by the federal government, the New South Wales government and the Victorian government. That is the only proven case of misconduct in this space and is so to this date. The ACCC and other witnesses were questioned recently at the inquiry hearing in Sydney. I asked whether any other entity in the marketplace had been found to have done the wrong thing, and the answer was no. It is only Snowy Hydro, which coincidentally was owned at the time by three governments. The only exception to that is that the ACCC found that a couple of government owned generators and operators in Queensland appeared to be heaving a bit of money into the state government's coffers at the expense of consumers.

Here we have what is called 'big stick' legislation, whose main customers appear to be either a state government or the federal government, because Snowy Hydro when it gets to the upgrade will be one of the largest players in the marketplace, and is, coincidentally, the only one that has ever been caught doing the wrong thing. Red Energy, which is the energy arm of Snowy Hydro, makes more from electricity generation than AGL, which incidentally does a whole lot more supply. If there is any prohibited conduct going on, the minister may be well advised to have a look in his own direction at areas which he can control quite simply and easily. The evidence to the committee was not that there was a significant amount of misconduct going on amongst the retailers generally. What was found was that smaller retailers, with higher cost structures, were being used to set a higher floor price than perhaps those who had a greater ability to set a lower floor price. That's what the ACCC found.

So it's a really interesting piece of legislation. On the balance of the submissions—and I'm not talking about a dissenting report; I'm talking about the Economics Legislation Committee's report—there isn't a lot of support coming from all of the disparate sectors that are involved in this space, and there is not a lot of unanimity about the effect that this bill will have. The minister in his own tabling speech said it was unlikely to be used. When you look at the way it would be used by the Treasurer and the other entities in the legislation and at the legal challenges that any or all of those actions may face, you see it's unlikely to be used on a great number of occasions, because the prohibited misconduct would have to be identified, proved and actioned in quite a discreet way. Once again, I put on the record that the only people that have actually fallen foul of the regulations in this space are Snowy Hydro, and there have been some adverse comments about the conduct of a Queensland government owned generator or two in that space. The industry doesn't appear to have fallen foul of the regulator.

Why this big stick legislation is required is a little unclear to the industry, and that's their submission back to the committee and faithfully captured in the committee report. We will support this legislation because, in opposition, there's not a lot you can do other than try to make things a little better. We have tried to make things better in that, if there is a divestiture of a coal-fired power plant, workers will be protected in that divestiture and communities will be protected in that divestiture. We well know—you and I, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett—that the town of Port Augusta went through a closing of a coal-fired plant, and we know the disruption that can cause for a community and the length of time it takes people to get over it. We'll be hoping that those sorts of protections are agreed and in the legislation, and with that I will cease my comments.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. I wish to make a contribution to this debate because this is an important debate and I'm deeply concerned about where it's going to lead this country in the future. I disagree totally with those that claim that this has nothing to do with climate change. Anybody that thinks that obviously has not been paying attention to the issues around energy generation and its contribution to our worsening climate emergency.

This bill provides the government with new powers to prohibit conduct in relation to energy retail, contract and wholesale markets. It represents the latest round of the government's ideological war on a rational energy transition to renewable energy. It is clear the main motivation for the bill is to enable the government to bully power companies to keep unreliable coal-fired power stations open longer—the first being Liddell. The critical concern for us is the increased uncertainty this bill and the powers contained within the bill create for investors in an already uncertain energy sector.

There were many people and many organisations that presented evidence to the committee to indicate their opposition to the bill and the concerns they had about the uncertainty. A number of legal bodies and policy experts, including the Grattan Institute and the Law Council, have expressed deep concerns. The reality is that pollution is increasing year after year, and electricity prices have continued to rise under this government. I'm particularly concerned about the future of energy production in this country that, if left as is, will continue our climate change emergency.

I'd like to draw the Senate's attention to a report recently released in Western Australia that demonstrates just how much pollution is going up under this government and, particularly, what some people think is a remedy to our climate change crisis—liquefied natural gas, LNG. The Conservation Council of Western Australia report is titled Runaway train: the impact of WA's LNG industry on meeting our Paris targets and national efforts to tackle climate change. This is the first time a report has investigated the full impact of greenhouse gas emissions from WA's LNG, and it's findings are starkly alarming.

The report found that Western Australia's LNG industry is single-handedly cancelling out the entire country's efforts to tackle climate change and carbon pollution. Australia has a commitment, as we know, under the Paris Agreement that requires pollution to be reduced by 26 to 28 per cent from the 2005 baseline year. But the current and proposed LNG projects will threaten this target by adding 41.6 million tonnes of pollution a year. This additional pollution is equivalent to a 61 per cent increase on WA's 2005 emissions baseline and an eight per cent increase on Australia's 2005 baseline.

As a result, WA's LNG pollution is single-handedly breaching the Paris Agreement. While there has been progress by some states in achieving emissions reductions, WA's emissions have risen by 23 per cent since 2003. Emissions from current WA LNG facilities make up 36 per cent of WA's total annual emissions. If the proposed Woodside Burrup Hub expansion is approved, opening up the Browse and Scarborough gas fields, emissions from WA's current and proposed LNG facilities will account for 47 per cent of WA's annual emissions. Pollution from WA's current and proposed LNG facilities, combined, will be as high as the total annual emissions from countries such as Ireland, Sweden, Hong Kong and New Zealand. This, quite frankly, is disgraceful.

Part of the problem is that there are no effective controls on carbon pollution on big polluters like Chevron and Woodside. The WA government's measures to control and regulate carbon pollution from LNG remain totally ineffective at constraining pollution growth from the sector. Our big corporations are able to pollute our country and get away with it. WA's LNG pollution is out of control and having a damaging impact on our efforts to reduce emissions. The rapid expansion of LNG pollution in Western Australia is the most significant industrial driver of carbon pollution increases in WA and Australia as a whole.

The most significant finding from the report is that over the next 12 years the total cumulative emissions from WA's five current LNG facilities will cancel out our entire abatement expected to be delivered under the emissions reduction scheme. We were devastated when we saw this report that was released just last week. Gas, for those of you that think it is, is not our savour. This bill is not our savour. We need real action on our climate emergency, and we need it now.

Let's be clear about what this legislation aims to do. This legislation, although it is dressed up as a bill to address electricity prices, is a sham. The main purpose of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019, is as a stick to bully power companies, to keep unreliable, old and dirty coal-fired power stations open longer. That's what it is aiming to do. Just think about that today. Today, as we are here in Canberra, the catastrophic fire conditions in New South Wales—the first time that catastrophic fire conditions have been declared in New South Wales—is the sign, if ever we knew one, of the fact that we are in a climate emergency. The fire emergencies that we are facing at the moment in eastern Australia are a direct reflection of our climate emergency.

The timing of this bill could not be starker. What we should be having in this parliament today is legislation to deal with the fact that we are in a climate emergency—legislation that would be keeping people safe rather than legislation that is just going to make our climate emergency worse. It is going to continue the pollution for longer. It is going to prop up coal-fired power stations and allow them to continue for longer. It's the exact reverse direction to what this parliament should be considering today.

We need to get serious about this. We need to get rid of legislation like this. It is all about the government supporting their corporate mates, supporting the people who are deeply invested in coal, gas and oil and who just want business as usual to continue, but we can see what business as usual is creating. The conditions around us are because of our climate emergency. Yes, Australia has had bushfires before, but we have never had catastrophic fire conditions in the places where they have been declared today. We know what needs to happen and that is for us to get out of coal, gas and oil.

As people know, I've just had leave. My wife, Penny, died two months ago. Penny was one of Australia's leading climate scientists. In the aftermath of her death there have been outpourings of the importance of the work that she did as a climate scientist in leading and being part of teams with people saying, 'These are the projections for how Australia's climate is going to change.' Thirty years of work of those climate scientists, which Penny was a critical part of for the last 30 years, to say, 'Wake up, Australia. Here is the science. Here is what's going to happen to our way of life, to our safety.' We need to be taking action, so I've returned to this parliament on a mission. I have a purpose. Penny and I, for the last 30 years, had been a team of her being the scientist and me being the activist and then the politician, of putting the science out front, saying: 'Here it is. Here is what the impact of climate change is going to be.' Whether it's about the extreme fire risk that is putting people at risk; whether it's about the rising sea levels that are putting people at risk; whether it's about the change in the climate of our wheat growing areas, which is going to make them the same as the climate of the central deserts, this is what the science says. This is what this parliament needs to be paying attention to now. Instead, we are here debating legislation that is only going to make our climate emergency worse.

As I said, I am here with a purpose and that is, with the Greens, to continue to work to make sure that we do declare a climate emergency, that we do take action that is going to really be keeping people safe, rather than legislation like this which is just bullying companies to try and keep old, dirty, polluting coal-fired power stations open for longer.

I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.

The question is that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 be read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

I move government amendment (1) on sheet ZA499:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 22), at the end of Division 6, add:

153ZBA Arrangements or undertakings in relation to employees

(1) This section applies if:

(a) a body corporate (the old employer) has made arrangements or undertakings in relation to employees of the body corporate (whether or not those arrangements or undertakings bind the old employer); and

(b) the Court makes an order under subsection 153ZB(2) or (3) for the old employer to dispose of assets; and

(c) the old employer disposes of the assets to another entity (the new employer); and

(d) regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph before the disposal specify requirements in respect of arrangements or undertakings in relation to employees; and

(e) the arrangements or undertakings satisfy those requirements.

(2) The new employer must comply with the arrangements or undertakings.

(3) Subsection (2) applies despite anything in the Fair Work Act 2009.

I might make a few quick remarks on this amendment.

I had understood that the opposition would move its amendment on the same matter first.

I'm in the hands of the chamber. Senator McAllister, you have the call.

Thank you. I move amendment (1) on sheet 8794 circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 22), at the end of section 153ZB, add:

(10) If:

(a) a body corporate (the disposing entity) that is a national system employer (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009) is ordered to dispose of interests in securities or assets to a person (the receiving entity); and

(b) a provision of Part 2-8 of that Act would not apply, despite subsection (9), because a workplace instrument (the applicable instrument) that covered the disposing entity and an employee (the applicable employee) of the entity is not a transferable instrument (within the meaning of that Part);

Part 2-8 of that Act applies as if:

(c) a reference to an old employer in that Part included a reference to the disposing entity; and

(d) a reference to a new employer in that Part included a reference to the receiving entity; and

(e) a reference to a transferring employee in that Part included a reference to the applicable employee; and

(f) a reference to a transferable instrument in that Part included a reference to the applicable instrument.

(11) If:

(a) a body corporate (the disposing entity) that is a State public sector employer of a State (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009) is ordered to dispose of interests in securities or assets to a person (the receiving entity) that is a national system employer; and

(b) a provision of Part 6-3A of that Act would not apply, despite subsection (9), because a workplace instrument (the applicable instrument) that covered the disposing entity and an employee (the applicable employee) of the entity is not a State award (within the meaning of that Part);

Part 6-3A of that Act applies as if:

(c) a reference to an old State employer in that Part included a reference to the disposing entity; and

(d) a reference to a new employer in that Part included a reference to the receiving entity; and

(e) a reference to a transferring employee in that Part included a reference to the applicable employee; and

(f) a reference to a State award in that Part included a reference to the applicable instrument.

In the debate in the other place, Labor moved amendments to ensure that entitlements that are contained in registered enterprise agreements and in awards are preserved and protected for workers in the case of a forcible divestiture. Following the Senate inquiry into the bill, it became clear that a similar issue exists for non-registered agreements between workers and employers in the context of possible divestiture. The evidence suggested this was particularly significant at Liddell Power Station, where the workers have obtained important commitments from the employer, through their union, in relation to employment after Liddell's scheduled closure. The union and the workers understandably seek to preserve these commitments in the event of divestiture.

This amendment accepts that no worker at Liddell or elsewhere should be worse off as a result of divestiture, which is a remedy for prohibited conduct that workers themselves have no part in. This amendment will ensure that non-registered agreements between workers and employers, which provide workers with additional protections agreed by employers, should be safeguarded in the event of divestment. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

The government will not be supporting this amendment. The Senate would be aware that the government has already moved amendments in the House of Representatives to ensure that under any forced divestiture the transfer-of-business provisions in the Fair Work Act would apply and provide all of the appropriate protections in the context of transfer-of-business provisions to employees. The proposed amendment would cause the transfer-of-business provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 to apply more broadly in the case of divestiture scenarios than they would under any ordinary sale of assets. The proposed amendment would alter the way the transfer-of-business provisions in the Fair Work Act apply in the case of divestiture under the bill by expanding the types of arrangements covered by the transfer-of-business provisions. Where relevant circumstances are satisfied, the transfer-of-business provisions will ordinarily apply to a transferable instrument such as an enterprise agreement. The proposed amendment would expand the scope of arrangements to which the transfer-of-business provisions apply to a broader class of instruments, namely any workplace instrument. The proposed amendment would mean that there are additional rights conferred in the case of divestiture that are over and above those currently contained in the Fair Work Act 2009 for usual transfer-of-business situations.

Even more concerning from the government's point of view, it is unclear precisely what additional instruments the proposed amendments would pick up. It would be a blanket obligation under the legislation to act consistent with any non-registered agreement, and we don't believe that that is desirable. We believe that it is preferable, in sharing the same objective, to ensure that, in the context of a forced divestiture, employee entitlements are properly protected. We believe it is preferable to give the government of the day the discretion to deal with any such non-registered agreements on a case-by-case basis to assess the public interest in each circumstance. That is why the government flag that we will be moving government amendments to give the Treasurer the regulation-making power to deal with non-registered agreements in that way.

I place on the record the support of the Greens for the opposition's amendment. Of course, we want to find ways to ensure that workers are indeed protected, and particularly those in relation to the fiasco that this government has created for the workers of Liddell. Let me put clearly on the record: we are disappointed that Labor are voting with the government on this piece of legislation. Yes, there have been some improvements in relation to workers' entitlements, but the overall impact of this bill, making climate change worse by allowing these polluting clunkers of power stations to remain open for longer, is only going to make it harder and harder for Australia to transition in a way that the science, the community and anyone who understands what's going on today would accept needs to happen.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8794, as moved by Senator McAllister, be agreed to.

Minister, you have moved the government amendments. Do you wish to speak to it?

Just briefly. This amendment gives the Treasurer the power to make regulations to ensure that, when a body corporate disposes of assets under a divestiture order, the entity through which the assets are disposed of must comply with arrangements or undertakings that were made by the body corporate in relation to its employees and that satisfy requirements set out in the regulations. The government is confident that this amendment strikes the right balance between facilitating a smooth divestment process in the circumstances where divestiture is ordered while also protecting any rights or agreements previously negotiated between an entity which is subject to a divestment order and its workforce. But it does provide the appropriate level of discretion where the government of the day can make relevant judgements on whether a particular non-registered agreement is, indeed, in the public interest.

Labor welcomes this amendment by the government. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, we have been concerned to ensure that the workforce of a business that is subject to divestiture is not unfairly impacted by the operation of this bill. In particular, we are concerned to ensure that entitlements that are contained in non-registered agreements, essentially agreements between management and the workers, are protected. The reasons for this were explained by the Electrical Trades Union of Australia in their evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee during our inquiry into this bill. They explained that a divestiture order applied to an ageing generator that was scheduled to close would put at risk all of the good work that may have been done in planning to minimise the impacts of closure and disruption to the community. Another union went on to explain how this was particularly important in relation to Liddell, a power station in my home state of New South Wales. The committee received advice from the CFMEU that there exists:

… the commitment made by AGL Energy Ltd to "no forced retrenchments" with respect to the retirement of the Liddell power station. This means the company will, inter alia, rely on employee retirements, voluntary redundancies, redeployment to the nearby Bayswater power station and redeployment to other activities at the Liddell site.

In our earlier amendment, Labor sought to ensure that agreements like this were protected. This amendment now proposed by the government will allow regulations to be made to ensure that, when a business disposes of a power station or another asset under a divestiture order, the entity to which the assets are disposed must comply with arrangements or undertakings that were made in relation to employees. Labor expects that the government would use this regulation-making power to protect workers at power stations like Liddell if divestiture orders were made against their owners.

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment that I moved to this bill.

The question is that government amendment (1) on sheet ZA499 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 8799 together:

(1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add "and prohibition on Commonwealth support for coal-fired electricity generators".

[prohibition on Commonwealth support for coal -fired generators]

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 2), at the end of section 153A, add:

This Part also prohibits certain Commonwealth support for coal-fired electricity generators.

[prohibition on Commonwealth support for coal -fired generators]

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 22), after Division 6, insert:

Division 6A—Prohibition on Commonwealth support for coal -fired generators

153ZBA This Division binds the Crown

This Division binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. However, it does not bind the Crown in right of a State, of the Australian Capital Territory or of the Northern Territory.

153ZBB Prohibition on Commonwealth support for coal -fired generators

(1) The Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth must not, on or after the commencement of this Division:

(a) provide financial support or other support for the purpose (or for purposes that include the purpose) of the refurbishment or building of a coal-fired generator; or

(b) purchase, or assist the purchase or transfer of ownership of, a coal-fired generator; or

(c) provide financial support to an owner or operator of a coal-fired generator to use, fund, extend the life of or operate the generator.

(2) For the purposes of this section, financial support includes any support that involves a current or potential future financial exposure to the Commonwealth, including the Commonwealth underwriting investments or entering into other financial arrangements.

Exception—regulatory processes

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to support or assistance provided solely for purposes connected with the Commonwealth or authority:

(a) processing an application for an approval, licence or permit (however described) that is required under a law of the Commonwealth; or

(b) undertaking any other regulatory process under or in accordance with a law of the Commonwealth.

Exception—transition assistance or research

(4) Paragraph (1) (a) does not apply to:

(a) financial or other support provided in connection with a program that provides transition assistance to workers affected, or who may be affected, by the retirement of a coal-fired generator; or

(b) funding research by an approved research institute (within the meaning of section 73A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936), so far as the research relates to coal-fired generators generally and does not relate only to a particular coal-fired generator or particular coal-fired generators.

Exception—managed closures

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to:

(a) the provision of support in relation to a coal-fired generator; or

(b) the purchase, or the assisting of the purchase or transfer of ownership, of a coal-fired generator;

if the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the support, purchase or assistance is the managed closure of the coal-fired generator.

Subsection (1) has effect despite other laws

(6) Subsection (1) has effect despite anything in this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this section) unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

(7) Subsection (6) does not affect the operation of section 153ZC.

Executive power of the Commonwealth not otherwise limited

(8) This section only limits the executive power of the Commonwealth to the extent set out in this section and does not, by implication, limit that power to any other extent.

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (line 27), omit "5 and 6", substitute "5, 6 and 6A".

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (line 29), omit "5 or 6", substitute "5, 6 or 6A".

(6) Schedule 1, page 29 (before line 3), before item 2, insert:

1A Subsection 2A(1)

Omit "44E and 95D", substitute "44E, 95D and 153ZBA".

(7) Schedule 1, item 3, page 29 (line 8), after "XICA", insert "(other than Division 6A)".

(8) Schedule 1, item 14, page 31 (after line 11), at the end of the item, add:

(3) Subitem (1) does not apply to Division 6A of Part XICA of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, as inserted by this Schedule.

These amendments go to the heart of the problem and the grave concern that the Australian Greens have in relation to this particular piece of legislation. This bill, make no mistake about it, will contribute to making climate change worse. It will contribute to ensuring that pollution continues to rise and climate change gets worse and that disasters such as those we're experiencing across the country today will become more horrid, more frequent and more deadly. That is the horrid and awful truth that we are confronted with today. As policymakers, as decision-makers and as leaders in our communities we have been called into action by some of the most senior members of the emergency services bodies across the country and by scientists, who have said collectively that it is time to reduce Australia's carbon pollution, to get serious about climate change and to deliver climate change action. Instead, we are seeing from the government legislation dressed up as something to do with reducing electricity prices when, in fact, all it is going to do is keep the polluting and dangerous coal being burnt for longer in this country, which will contribute to more and more global warming, and more and more disasters as a result.

We have been warned by scientists, by emergency services personnel and by our own children and next generation that we have to get serious about climate action and reducing pollution. This bill is going to make it harder for us even to get to the point of reducing pollution, because it will keep coal being burnt for longer and keep coal-fired power stations open and operating for longer—and the government wants to spend Australian taxpayers' money doing that. This amendment would at the very least try to curtail public money being spent keeping coal being burnt for longer and making climate change worse. That is a fundamental point. It beggars belief that we have a government that wants to spend taxpayers' money to make climate change worse by burning more coal and putting more pollution into the atmosphere, rather than deal with the emergency that confronts us today.

While I'm speaking about this, I will point out just how disgusted, how absolutely revolted, many people were to see the comments this morning by the former Deputy Prime Minister and former leader of the National Party, Barnaby Joyce, who—in the midst of the disaster that we are seeing unfolding, particularly in northern New South Wales over the past two or three days, in which people have died, homes have been destroyed and communities made distraught—had the gall to link the deaths of two people to whether or not they were Greens voters. That is absolutely unbecoming of somebody who is elected to this place, let alone someone who thinks he ought to be Deputy Prime Minister again. Marry his comments with the comments made yesterday by the current Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, who dismissed the very serious concerns that this issue is causing right across the country, particularly in rural and regional areas, where they are saying, 'Can we get some action on climate change, because our homes, our communities, our regions are now on fire.' What did Mr McCormack say? He said that climate change is just an issue of raving lefties from the inner city. It's not. This is an issue that is affecting the entire nation. It doesn't matter in what part of this country you live or were born. It doesn't matter how old you are, how rich you are, how poor you are or what you do for a job. Climate change is already having a huge impact. It is not a matter that affects just the inner city lefties. It is an issue that right now—today—is confronting the people of the bush, the very people that Mr McCormack is meant to represent. Between the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Barnaby Joyce, these two blokes are sounding more and more like the obnoxious uncles at a Christmas party, doing whatever they can to piss everybody off and upset them, to grab a headline and insult people. It's not the behaviour that we should be expecting from someone who is the Deputy Prime Minister or used to be the Deputy Prime Minister.

Senator Hanson-Young, that's not appropriate language. I'd ask you to restrain yourself and withdraw it. You have the call.

I don't know what you're referring to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You swore, Senator Hanson-Young.

The obnoxious behaviour—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Can you withdraw?

I withdraw the—I withdraw. Let me put it in a more direct manner.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you.

We have two men parading themselves out there on national radio and national television, one the Deputy Prime Minister, one the former Deputy Prime Minister, acting more and more like the obnoxious uncles at a Christmas party rather than acting like the leaders this nation needs to take action on climate change. It is unbecoming and revolting, and they should apologise.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The motion is that the amendments be agreed to.

Fellow senators—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You don't have the call, Senator Whish-Wilson. I've already put it. I said, 'The motion is that the amendments be agreed to,' well before you stood up.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I can do it. I will do it as an accommodation but, Senator Whish-Wilson, keep it parliamentary, please.

Thank you. I appreciate that, Chair. I just wanted to appeal to my fellow senators today. This legislation is nothing but a Trojan horse to support the coal industry. This amendment being put forward by the Greens that we are now debating removes the ability for this government to fund—using public funds—a coal-fired power station because it suits their politics. I can't say it suits their policy on energy or climate, because they don't have one. But it certainly suits their politics.

Let's put this whole thing into context. Ever since I have been here—I witnessed in my first two years as a senator the Liberal and National parties in opposition doing everything they could to undermine the clean energy package, which had been brought in by the Greens and Labor, that raises the world's gold standard legislation package to tackle the rising emissions that have led to global warmings and the climate emergency that we find ourselves in today. There has been relentless, cynical, ruthless campaigning to remove action on climate.

Let me tell you a little story, Chair. I remember Senator Christine Milne, when she was here, sitting in that chair across there, after campaigning her entire career inside and outside of this parliament to get action on climate. She wasn't the first Greens to be campaigning on action on climate change in this place. Ex-Senator Bob Brown raised it in his first speech, in 1996—over 20 years ago—the imperative for us to act on the biggest challenge to our society and our economy.

I remember when the last bit of legislation to rip up the clean energy package came before the Senate. This is after, in the other place, members of parliament had stood up and done their 'ring a rosie'—Mr Greg Hunt, Mrs Kelly O'Dwyer and so on and so forth—celebrating and destroying the only parliamentary action we've seen in a decade on climate change. I remember seeing that. And I remember seeing Senator Milne in the last moments of the debate, just before it went to a vote, and this is after nearly 14 hours of us sitting in this chamber, listening to the nauseating climate-denial politics of the opposition. Those who know former Senator Milne know she's a hard woman, but I saw her hand tremble as she packed up her files, as the vote went through, as the people were patting themselves on the back. I saw her hand trembling when she saw her life's work go down the drain. I followed her outside this chamber, in that room out there, and I witnessed something I never thought I'd see: Senator Milne breaking down in tears. But, being the person she was, rather than having me distressed, she said: 'Don't worry, Peter. We're still going to win this fight.' And we have never given up fighting for action on climate change. That's why we've raised this amendment today. That's why we consistently highlight the need for action.

I'm going to get my chance a little bit later to talk about the events we are witnessing around this country—the catastrophic events that CSIRO warned us about in 2006. I've fought hard with my colleagues to make sure this government hasn't cut funding to the exact agencies that monitor and manage the risks that it is so necessary for us to understand and prepare for in this climate emergency. We have consistently raised that the No. 1 issue for a government is to protect its citizens and that we are facing, from changing weather patterns, the greatest threat to our nation, to its economy, to its communities and to its ecosystems and its environment. In 2006 CSIRO warned us that by 2020 we would see the exact conditions that we have seen in New South Wales and Queensland. And it's not just New South Wales and Queensland; some of the changes we're seeing right around this country are off the charts. We have to do everything we can to act on reducing emissions and taking the strongest possible action, and this big-stick legislation today—and I commend my colleague Adam Bandt in the other place for his leadership in highlighting this—is just a Trojan horse to support the coal industry, which shouldn't surprise anyone who understands the modus operandi of this government. It is in the pocket of big business, doing the bidding of those who donate to its coffers to keep it in power.

I've got another theory for you, Chair and fellow senators. It's not just political donations. It's not just this broken democratic system that allows vested interests to buy influence in this place. It's also this mob here: One Nation. They are the biggest electoral threat to the LNP and especially to the National Party. In New South Wales and Queensland, the major parties haemorrhage votes to One Nation and, sadly, rather than standing up for principles like fighting for action on climate change, transitioning to 100 per cent renewable energy and spending money on the emergency services we need to tackle climate emergencies, they would rather pander to the antiscience, climate denial politics of One Nation. They have become One Nation in an attempt to hang on to power. That's what the cynical politics of this debate is now.

This bill is designed to be hung out there so that the Nationals and the Liberal Party can go out to these marginal seats and say, 'Hey, look what we've done: we're supporting coal and we're supporting employment in your region,' regardless of the fact that, as leaders who make the decisions that affect real people's lives, they could be putting in place a transition plan away from coal to renewables and the industries of the future while at the same time reducing emissions and taking the strongest possible action on climate change. That's what leadership looks like, that's what the Greens do in this place and that is what this amendment is. This is leadership on climate.

Labor will be opposing the amendments moved by Senator Hanson-Young. As I indicated in my earlier remarks and my second reading contribution, our focus in dealing with this legislation has been on ensuring that any backdoor privatisation of assets—specifically in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia—was ruled out and also that workers affected by divestments had access to protections. The Greens' amendments are largely unrelated to this particular bill, and they have the potential to jeopardise some of the important agreements that Labor has arrived at in pursuing these interests of stopping privatisation and protecting workers.

Our commitment to climate action is unshakeable, and that is why last month in this place, with the support of my colleagues, I called upon the government to declare a climate emergency.

The question is that the amendments on sheet 8799 be agreed to.

by leave—I move the remaining amendments of the Greens, (1) to (3) on sheet 8798, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (after line 3), at the end of subsection 153X(1), add:

Note: An order cannot be made under this section if it would have the effect of inhibiting, delaying or stopping a planned closure of a coal-fired generator: see section 153ZE.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 25 (after line 26), at the end of subsection 153ZB(1), add:

Note: An order cannot be made under this section if it would have the effect of inhibiting, delaying or stopping a planned closure of a coal-fired generator: see section 153ZE.

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 28 (after line 19), at the end of Division 7, add:

153ZE No orders under this Part that would affect planned closure of coal - fired generator etc.

Despite Divisions 5 and 6, an order must not be made in relation to a body corporate under either of those Divisions if the order would have the effect of inhibiting, delaying or stopping a planned closure of a coal-fired generator.

These amendments relate specifically to the major concern that people have in relation to this bill and the motivation of the government: that it is to make it harder for the Liddell Power Station to close. We know that this bill is being used as part of the government's broader bully tactics against AGL to force them to keep Liddell open rather than to close it, despite the fact that all of the evidence, all of the advice and all of the expertise shows that, if we are to start reducing pollution, if we are to meet the Paris Agreement, if we are to get well and truly on the way to net zero emissions by 2050, we are going to have to start closing some of these older coal-fired power stations. If this bill is to pass, which it will because of the support that the Labor Party are giving the government, we don't want to see it being used to override decisions and announcements that are already made.

We heard Senator McAllister speak in relation to the previous sheet of Greens amendments, saying that it wasn't in direct relation to the bill. Well, this one clearly is. You can't run that argument on this one, because this is precisely related to allowing for AGL to ensure that they can do what it is that they have said—that's to retire Liddell because it is old, because we need to be reducing pollution and because it's just simply not efficient any longer to be keeping it open.

We know that what this bill is about. Despite all the dressing up and window-dressing in relation to this being about lowering power bills, we've heard directly from government members in the House of Representatives debate that this bill is all about sticking it to AGL because of their decision to close Liddell and to retire what is a coughing and spluttering clunker of a coal-fired power station.

This amendment is important, because the last thing we want to see is the government dogged by the ideological battle inside their party room between those who don't understand the science of climate change and those who do—and there are some. I'll pay credit to that. There are plenty of people inside the Liberal Party who understand the science of climate change, but there are others who have their heads so deep in the sand that they have no idea what is coming in terms of the huge impact that global warming is bringing to our communities and to the future of this planet. They think that, as long as they keep talking about how much they love coal, everything will be okay. The fight and the ideological war inside the Liberal and National parties should not stop this country moving forward towards a clean renewable energy future. It certainly shouldn't. The ideological war inside the Liberal-National coalition should not be used to bully AGL and in fact other companies who are rightly seeing the writing on the wall. They want to transition out of coal because they can see that it doesn't make smart business sense and it doesn't make environmental sense.

Climate change is already here on our doorstep and there is a moral obligation to act. So let's put this amendment in place, even if it's just to help the Prime Minister deal with some of those dinosaurs in his own party who think that loving coal, at any cost, is the only way forward. This amendment is important if we are to transition to get coal out of the system and to ensure that companies like AGL can make smart business choices without the fear of being bullied by the government of the day.

Labor won't be supporting this amendment. I am horrified by the approach taken by the government to the energy system. I am horrified by the continual discussion about direct investment and public money being applied to new or old coal-fired power stations. I think the approach that they are taking is ad hoc, political and totally failing the public. But the solution proposed by the Greens in this amendment doesn't deal with the material problem in this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. In Labor's view, the role of the ACCC and of the courts set out in the legislation that is actually before us in the chamber appropriately removes ministerial discretion and adequately addresses these concerns. On that basis, we won't be supporting the amendment.

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Progress reported

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Over the past week New South Wales and Queensland have been devastated by bushfires, leading to three people tragically losing their lives and countless more losing their homes. Weather forecasts are predicting that the situation will only worsen, both today and over coming days. As we all indicated yesterday, our thoughts are with all of those facing this immediate crisis and our thanks are with the crews and firefighters battling these fires across the country. In that context, I ask the minister to provide the Senate with an update on the current situation being faced by communities in New South Wales and Queensland.

I thank Senator Wong for that question. As we indicated yesterday, our first concern is for the safety and needs of those directly affected. Australians are at their best in difficult times like this. They show incredible spirit, heart and generosity. Our emergency services are once again showing their professionalism and dedication in the face of very difficult conditions, and we thank all the career and voluntary emergency services personnel fighting these fires. I acknowledge the comradeship on display through the contribution to the New South Wales firefighting efforts of interstate personnel from the ACT, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. The Australian government of course continues to stand ready to immediately assist communities impacted by bushfires. The clear advice that we give to our communities is to plan ahead and be prepared.

In terms of updates, devastating fires continue to burn across large parts of north-east New South Wales. It is important that people remain vigilant, with more than 70 fires still burning across the state. The New South Wales fires have had a devastating impact on the many affected communities. The New South Wales Rural Fire Service estimates that at least 150 structures have been lost, including a large number of homes. Other property damage and loss include telecommunications and power infrastructure, bridges and two schools. More than 1,300 firefighters and support personnel, along with 93 aircraft, have been battling these fires. The forecast for today is deeply worrying, and all Commonwealth agencies stand ready to assist state authorities and the community.

Catastrophic fire danger is forecast for the greater Sydney, greater Hunter, Illawarra and Shoalhaven areas today due to the worsening weather conditions. This is the first time such conditions have been forecast for Sydney since the new fire danger ratings were introduced in 2009. Catastrophic is the highest level of bushfire danger. It means that homes are not designed to withstand the fire under those conditions and, if a fire takes hold during catastrophic fire conditions, lives and homes will be lost. In Queensland, fires of concern are continuing to burn. In South-East Queensland 12 homes have been confirmed as destroyed. Lives and property are—

Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong, a supplementary question?

I thank the minister for his answer. He, in his answer, referenced assistance being provided, or offered, by other states. I ask him to detail, if he's able to, the offers of assistance from other states and also other countries, and how those offers are being facilitated.

I thank Senator Wong for that supplementary question. As I've indicated, there have been offers of support, which have been greatly appreciated, from a number of jurisdictions into New South Wales, in particular, and into Queensland out of the ACT, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. With respect to the next question, both Senator Reynolds and Senator McKenzie will provide further updates in relation to support provided through our defence forces and, indeed, provide a more thorough update, going through all of the detail in relation to support provided in relevant local communities.

I should also say, in terms of providing further update, that in Western Australia we remain concerned. Severe to extreme fire danger is forecast today over southern and central—

Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?

In addition to bushfires in New South Wales and Queensland, warnings have been issued or are present in other parts of the country, such as Western Australia and also parts of South Australia. Can the minister update the Senate on the status of bushfire warnings in other states and territories?

As I was just indicating, we continue to watch Western Australia, and other parts of Australia, with concern. In relation to Western Australia, there is severe to extreme fire danger forecast today over southern and central fire-weather areas. In relation to South Australia, it might well be that Senator McKenzie has further updates. I don't have any specific updates in front of me today.

May I also advise the chamber that in terms of Emergency Management Australia, firebombing aircraft continue to be in action against these fires. Our national aerial firefighting arrangements are ensuring the best possible aerial firefighting equipment is available to protect Australians. And, of course, defence is available to provide support. Senator Reynolds will provide further information in relation to this. Royal Australian Air Force aircraft have transported firefighters from Canberra—

Before I come to you Senator McGrath, I would like to draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber and gallery of a delegation from the Cook Islands, led by the Hon. Henry Puna, Prime Minister of the Cook Islands. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia, and particularly to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

Mr Puna was then seated accordingly.

My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister update the Senate on what assistance the Australian Defence Force is providing to the current firefighting effort?

I thank Senator McGrath for his most important question. Today all of our thoughts and prayers are with those in Queensland and New South Wales who are dealing with the threat, and also now the consequences, of these catastrophic bushfires. Already they've endured days and long nights of anxiety and disruption, not knowing where the fires will strike next.

Firstly, I pay tribute to our amazing emergency services workers who are battling these fires in extraordinary and almost unimaginable circumstances, but I particularly thank our ADF personnel who are supporting the firefighting efforts. Royal Australian Air Force 737 and C-130 aircraft have already transported firefighters and their equipment from Canberra, Adelaide and Hobart to Port Macquarie, an area of high and immediate need. Singleton and Lismore Defence bases in New South Wales are already also providing accommodation and catering to firefighters from the Victorian Country Fire Authority. Today and tomorrow, Army and Navy helicopters will also support firefighter movements, air observers and civilian rescuers as requested.

Yesterday, I asked the Chief of the Defence Force to give an order to all military base commanders, making clear that they have the authority to use local Defence assets and resources to respond to any local contingencies. Defence is also postured to provide further airlift and is prepared to provide assistance in areas such as aerial fire reconnaissance, logistical support and also engineering on request. It is important to remember that our ADF members are not trained firefighters, but they are doing everything that they can to help the community in these current catastrophic circumstances.

Senator McGrath, a supplementary question?

Can the minister update the Senate on what further Australian Defence support can be provided if requested by the states and territories?

As Minister for Defence at this time of unprecedented fire threat, I'm focused on ensuring that the ADF is ready to provide additional support for the nation's frontline first responders. Our first call is always to our regular forces and the capabilities that they bring with them, but work is also now underway to scope the availability and also the readiness of our highly capable Reserve forces across all three services. ADF reservists are already regularly employed for emergency disaster assistance and disaster recovery under voluntary 'call for' arrangements, as they are called. Our Reserve emergency support forces already have 120-person capacity in Brisbane and also 130-person capacity in Sydney to provide transport, logistics and other requested support.

Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister outline what longer term preparations are underway to prepare for this high-risk weather season, including mobilisation of Reserves?

In addition to the 'call for' activities that we now have underway, I'm also working with Defence to work through how we can provide further response to larger, more severe and also more protracted natural disasters beyond, as I've said, the 'call for' arrangements. A broader response can include a compulsory call-out of Reserves if the situation requires. Reserve forces can be called out by the Governor-General in accordance with section 28 of the Defence Act. This mechanism has never been used. Defence is working through every aspect of such a call-out at the moment to ensure that we are prepared if required. Defence will continue tasking discrete elements of the Army Reserves, Navy Reserves and also Air Force Reserves using existing voluntary 'call for' arrangements, again as the circumstances require. Can I just say on behalf of us all: thank you very much. I'm very proud of our men and women in uniform and for the support.

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Senator McKenzie. In a deal with One Nation, the minister has finally released the draft dairy code of conduct for consultation. Key elements of the draft code have changed since January, including watering down the express prohibition of retrospective price drops for dairy farmers. Why has the minister watered down the draft code released by the former minister, David Littleproud?

I thank the senator for his question. The Nationals have stood up for our farming families and communities for 100 years and we unashamedly want to see a prosperous and sustainable dairy industry going forward. That means opening up markets, fighting on competition policies and decreasing regulation for our farmers.

At the election, there were two plans for the dairy industry put forward. One was the Labor Party's position to reregulate the dairy industry. The other was a suite of initiatives that went to the heart of the issues, which, for one, were going to put in a mandatory code of conduct to regulate the relationships between processors and farmers to make sure farmers get a fair deal after they'd been suffering from egregious behaviour from processors for many years and to make sure we put downward pressure on energy prices for our farmers, because it is one of the high input costs. So we have—

Order! Senator Ayres, on a point of order?

On relevance. The question was very specific: why has the minister watered down the draft code released by the former agriculture minister, David Littleproud? I would ask you to draw her to that question.

The minister is allowed to be directly relevant to the preamble as well. At this point, I do consider the minister to be directly relevant. The minister doesn't have to accept the premise of a question. I'm listening carefully. I call Senator McKenzie to continue.

I absolutely categorically reject the suggestion that there is a watering down of the treatment of processors and the relationship between farmers and processors with the code. I'm happy to go through, for the senator, the process our government has undertaken since the ACCC report recommended that we have a mandatory dairy code.

In April 2018, on the back of Murray Goulburn and Fonterra clawbacks and step-downs, the ACCC released a recommendation that we implement a mandatory dairy code, which we agreed to do. In October 2018, we announced the first round of consultation with industry, and this was the very first opportunity for a dairy industry that is quite fractured to come together around what measures they could agree on that could be part of a mandatory code. In January 2019, a set of draft clauses for the code was released, and a second round of consultation was commenced.

Senator Ayres, a supplementary question?

We'll try again: on ABC's AM this morning, the minister refused four times to make clear who had requested this change. Will the minister now make clear which stakeholders requested this change of wording?

I'm going through the process. So we get the consultation in January around the draft clauses. It develops nine principles that go to a raft of issues around how the parties treat each other, requiring an annual set date and the processors to publicly release standard-form agreements and prohibiting prospective step-downs unless in specific circumstances, such as force majeure—

Order! Senator Watt, on a point of order?

The minister refused to answer this four times this morning on radio. Will she now refuse to answer it for the fifth time?

Senator Watt, I'm going to ask you to at least attempt to make a point of direct relevance rather than pursue a follow-up question.

The minister has repeatedly not answered this question in the media. We'd like an answer here.

The question went to the changes.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

If you were listening to her, you'd know it wasn't relevant.

Order! The question from Senator Ayres went specifically to the changes in the code and which stakeholders requested them. Senator Wong?

Just to clarify: it was not all changes in the code. There was a very specific wording change, which was referenced in the primary. That was the issue that the minister was pressed on this morning on AM.

I was coming to that. The question specifically went to that specified change in the code and which stakeholder asked the minister to change it. I'm going to decree that, if the minister is speaking about that specific change in the code, I do consider that to be directly relevant. I'm listening very carefully. The minister has 36 seconds remaining to answer that specific point.

Thank you for the opportunity. As I was saying, the principle that was consulted on—which goes directly to your question, Senator—was to prohibit prospective step-downs unless in specific circumstances such as force majeure, exceptional market circumstances or major changes in global market circumstances. Those principles were sent off to the office of the drafters, and what came back was that we must not vary the agreement unilaterally for any reason other than—

Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?

This again goes to process. She was asked which stakeholders requested the change.

'She'—it's 'the minister'.

I'll take the interjection. Is the minister the stakeholder who requested the change?

Senator Wong, as I said, I think, in my view, as long as the minister is talking about—

Honourable senators interjecting—

I will rule when there's silence. As long as the minister is addressing the specific change in the question, about that part of the code, I think the minister is being directly relevant. I can't direct her how to answer a question, but she must be specific to that specific change and the very specific nature of that question. I believe, at the point that point of order was raised, the minister was talking about that specific change. Senator McKenzie.

There were no stakeholders that requested a change. The principles, as I've said— (Time expired)

Senator Ayres, a supplementary question?

Following the release of the draft code, Nationals member for Lyne Dr Gillespie warned that it dudded farmers and refused to rule out a leadership tilt over the issue. Why is the minister siding with big producers instead of protecting dairy farmers?

Mr President, thank you very, very much. Senator, you don't actually understand what the National Party's advocacy, in this area, has been for years. It is in competition policy. It is actually addressing the issues of the dairy industry, which are high energy prices and high fodder costs. They've increased by 50 per cent, thanks to the drought. If you are a dairy farmer in areas that require irrigation, water has increased over 300 per cent in the pricing. So the input costs for our dairy farmers make it incredibly difficult for them to get the margins that they need, which is why our government took a suite of initiatives to the election. One is the mandatory dairy code of conduct to regulate that unconscionable behaviour by some of the processors. It recognises that we've got very unique regions, across Australia, when it comes to dairy. What works in northern Queensland is not going to work in WA and is not going to work in South Australia, and we need a code for all. (Time expired)

My question's to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Today, a member of the government, Mr Barnaby Joyce, said, 'I acknowledge that the two people who died were most likely people who voted for the Greens party, so I'm not going to start attacking them.' Do you support these vile comments? Is it now the government's position that it's not okay to talk about the climate crisis but it is okay to talk about people who burned alive in bushfires and how they might have voted? Will you offer an unconditional apology to the families of the victims, and will you take disciplinary action against Mr Barnaby Joyce?

The short answer to the initial question is: no, I don't think these were appropriate comments in the circumstances. That is because I believe, and we believe, that it is not an appropriate time to bring politics into this debate, when people have lost their lives and while these same fires continue to burn. Equally, the time to have policy discussions is not in the middle of an operational response. It is not in the middle of people literally fighting for their homes and fighting for their survival.

As the Prime Minister has stated, all of our attention as a government remains focused on supporting our firefighters and volunteers and on ensuring that people in fire affected communities are kept safe and continue to receive the support they need.

Senator Waters, a supplementary question?

In April this year former fire chiefs and fire experts asked to talk with the government about the climate crisis and the lack of preparedness for catastrophic fire, but the Prime Minister didn't want to meet them. They asked again in September, but the Prime Minister didn't want to meet them. They have still not had a meeting. If the government didn't want to talk about the climate crisis and fires in April and didn't want to talk about it in September, and you still don't want to talk about it now, when is the right time to talk about how coal is making these fires worse?

I don't accept the premise of the question. A meeting was offered and that offer wasn't taken up. That is my advice. My advice is that a meeting was offered and the meeting offer was not taken up.

Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?

John Howard responded to the Port Arthur tragedy by quickly putting in place the National Firearms Agreement, which was supported across the parliament and across the country. Given the climate crisis that is fuelling catastrophic bushfires across the country, will your government now convene urgent cross-party talks to put in place a national agreement to phase out coal?

I would very respectfully refer Senator Waters to my primary answer to her first question.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Senator Birmingham. In recent months the Australian Energy Market Operator warned that the outage of two Victorian power units poses a significant risk of insufficient supply this summer. The Australian Energy Regulator released data showing sharp reductions in surplus generation in Victoria and New South Wales, and we know the coming summer will be very much hot and dry. This all points to a greater likelihood of higher power prices and power cuts this summer. Given that Victoria is South Australia's only link to the national grid, I'm particularly concerned about the potential for a blackout in Victoria affecting my home state of South Australia. Minister, has the government received any recent advice about the potential for blackouts this summer in South Australia or Victoria?

I thank Senator Griff for his question, particularly as it relates to energy reliability in our home state of South Australia. Certainly, Senator Griff, I can reassure you that the Morrison government, together with the Marshall Liberal government in South Australia, has been working to ensure enhanced reliability of the grid in South Australia.

Recently the Australian Energy Market Operator released this year's Electricity statement of opportunities. This shows that grid reliability in SA is in fact improving. In 2018, AEMO reported that the reliability standard as set by government would be exceeded in South Australia—that there would be heightened risk of blackouts. Going in now, the forecast for 2019 shows that that is no longer the case, that that reliability standard is, in the context of South Australia, expected to be met. It is met by a range of factors, including increasing energy generation in the state, some through renewable capability and some that can provide the type of peaking support to provide for reliability.

Last week Minister Taylor opened additional gas-powered capability on Torrens Island. The new 210-megawatt Barker Inlet Power Station will complement the very high shares of intermittent wind and solar generated in South Australia, reducing prices and helping to improve reliability. We're also pursuing a range of other measures to help with reliability. The main risk in the National Electricity Market, as you identified, Senator Griff, indeed now comes from Victoria. In that state, we have seen that the threat of blackouts is real, and that's a result of the shutdown, driven by state government policies there, of large generators and a state government that continues to insist on a gas ban, which puts real pressures in terms of their energy market generation.

Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Griff, a supplementary question?

In January this year the temperature reached 48 degrees, as you know, in Adelaide and the electricity system was very much pushed to its limit. Generation was insufficient, leading to power cuts in Victoria and average weekly prices of more than $1,000 per megawatt hour in SA and Victoria, the highest on record. What is the government's plan to avoid price surges in South Australia this coming summer?

Indeed, that additional energy generation in the South Australian market importantly will not only contribute to reliability but contribute to a greater stabilisation of power prices in South Australia. In fact, one of the proof points in terms of the threats that exist now in Victoria relative to South Australia is that Victorian power prices have now overtaken South Australia's as the most expensive energy in the nation. Our policies are yielding dividends in relation to stability in SA. That's partly a result of our work and partly a result of the work of the South Australian government and the close collaboration between the two of us. We continue to work to pursue other opportunities, such as through the Underwriting New Generation Investments program, which is looking at new reliable generation opportunities in South Australia to provide for peaking capacity that can help to smooth the system as required.

Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Griff, a final supplementary question?

Minister, the COAG Energy Council is the forum for the Commonwealth and the states to work together on energy policy, and it met six times in 2018 but has not met yet in 2019, which is quite a big concern. Can you explain why the energy council has not met this year and why the government is not making greater use of this forum to manage the risks facing South Australia?

The COAG Energy Council will, I understand, meet on 22 November, and, although it hasn't physically met recently, it has continued to pursue work, including out-of-session work, during the course of this year. The government's new retailer reliability obligation was agreed by ministers at the COAG Energy Council out of session in May this year so the government could implement this key election policy effective from 1 July—a retailer reliability obligation that is now triggered in relation to aspects of the Victorian energy market and helping to ensure that supply can meet demand in Victoria over the coming summer. The council continues to work on other key issues out of session. The department convened a general business meeting of senior committee officials on 2 August 2019, helping to inform the discussions that will occur on 22 November, focused as they will be on affordability and reliability, as our government is at every step of the way.

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. The devastating interim report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety has confirmed the shameful neglect of older Australians. Today we see analysis that about 50,000 older Australians across the country are at risk as a result of an unacceptably high risk of insolvency of at least 200 residential aged-care providers. Will the minister take responsibility for fixing Australia's broken aged-care system?

The government has taken significant efforts over recent times to repair the aged-care system, and one of the actions that we took in relation to dealing with the circumstances that occur in the aged-care sector was to call the royal commission. That royal commission said a number of things. It laid open the circumstance of aged care in this country. It put Australia on notice, it put the Australian government on notice, it put the Australian aged-care sector on notice and it put the aged-care industry on notice about the circumstance in aged care and made some recommendations in respect of what needed to be done to repair that. The government said, in response to the report when it was released last week, that we would take some action, particularly in the areas that were recommended by the royal commission. It had three key elements that it wanted to see done. It wanted to see some action with respect to home care packages, and the Prime Minister has said that we will make some statements about that prior to Christmas, and the government will do that. It also said that it wanted to see some work done with respect to young people in aged care, and that work has already commenced and we will take further action in that space, as I have said and as the government has said. It also said that it wanted to see some work done with respect to the use of restraints, and the government has said we will take some action to deal with that. The aged-care royal commission report said that the issues in aged care were historical, over a number of governments—not just this government but a number of governments—and we all need to take responsibility for that, and the government will take action to repair the aged-care sector.

Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?

I note the minister mentioned taking action by Christmas, so let me ask: the royal commission's interim report recommended as one of three urgent actions an immediate injection of more government funds into home care services. In addition, Leading Age Services now argues that an urgent pre-Christmas injection into residential aged care is also required. What urgent support will the Morrison government give the aged-care sector prior to Christmas?

The government will do what it said it would do when the royal commission report was released the week before last. It will consider the report carefully and it will take action, particularly with respect to home care places. The Prime Minister has said quite clearly that we will make additional investment into the home care sector, and I've also said that we will look at reforming the home care sector, because that's what the royal commission report said we should do. We will be doing what we said we would do, which is to make additional investment in the sector.

Senator Keneally, on a point of order?

Direct relevance—the minister has been speaking for 30 seconds. He has less than that amount of time left. The question was very specific: what urgent support will be delivered before Christmas? Either he can answer it or he can't. He hasn't done that yet.

I'm listening very carefully to the minister's answer. You have restated the end of the question. I believe the minister is talking about issues that are directly relevant to the question. I can't instruct him on how to answer a question, but he is specifically talking about one of the issues you raised. There is an opportunity after question time to debate the merits of a minister's answer. Senator Colbeck.

Thank you, Mr President. As I was saying, we have said quite clearly that we will make additional investment into the aged-care sector prior to Christmas. We will make some specific announcements in alignment with MYEFO after we've been through our proper processes of government. That's what we will do.

Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question.

I note the minister said there will be announcements before Christmas. We will watch. Chief executive of Leading Age Services Australia, Sean Rooney, says:

If there is no action from government on this, there is the risk of missed care and the threat of service failure and closure.

After six years in government, when will the coalition finally take action to fix a broken aged-care system that's leaving older Australians at risk?

We are clearly taking action, and the calling of the royal commission was a part of that process.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left.

What we wanted was an industry-wide inspection of the aged-care sector so that they could then come back to us and make recommendations to us on how the aged-care sector should look in the future. If Senator Keneally had read the report, she would've seen in the report that it calls for action in three areas—which we've said we will take—but it also says it doesn't want to be working on a moving target. It cautions about what actions we take in what areas as part of our processes moving forward. But we have already taken significant actions.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left.

What we've taken already is new aged-care regulations and a resident-facing code of conduct. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister please provide an update on the bushfires in New South Wales and Queensland?

Thank you, Senator McDonald, for your question. I know we're all very concerned here today about the devastating bushfires burning across New South Wales and Queensland. Our first concern is for the safety and wellbeing of those directly affected. Like Senator Reynolds, I would also like to pay tribute to our emergency services workers in the RFS and SES, who risk their lives to protect others, and of course to those who've lost loved ones and homes.

As of 1.00 pm today, all fires nationwide are burning at the watch-and-act level or below. Catastrophic fire danger conditions are forecast for parts of New South Wales today, including the Greater Hunter, Greater Sydney and Illawarra-Shoalhaven. This is the first time, since the new fire-danger ratings were introduced in 2009, that catastrophic fire danger has been forecast for Sydney. Very high to severe fire dangers continue on Wednesday the 13th over north-east New South Wales and South-East Queensland, with a risk of dry lightning exacerbating the danger. As the south-westerly change moves through South-East Queensland, severe fire dangers are forecast for South-East Queensland and the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales. Very high fire dangers are forecast elsewhere over central and north-east New South Wales. Unfortunately, no rainfall is expected for the north-east of New South Wales and South-East Queensland over the next seven days.

As we know, tragically three people have lost their lives. Our thoughts are with their families and loved ones at this difficult time. More than 30 people have been injured, including around 20 firefighters. The New South Wales fires have had a devastating impact on many affected communities, with 150 structures destroyed, 96 confirmed. Other property damage includes to telecommunications, power infrastructure, bridges and two schools. Evacuation centres have been established to support fire affected communities and, commencing yesterday, the New South Wales Premier declared a state of emergency for the whole state for seven days. More than 1,300 firefighters and support personnel, along with 93 aircraft— (Time expired)

Senator McDonald, a supplementary question?

Can the minister outline to the Senate the type of assistance that's available to those impacted?

Fires continued to threaten lives and properties overnight, particularly on the Sunshine Coast and at Cobraball, west of Yeppoon, quite close to where Senator Canavan lives and to Llew O'Brien's electorate near Noosa. Disaster recovery assistance is now being provided to New South Wales under the disaster recovery funding arrangements that we have with the states. That assistance is available for the Mid North Coast bushfires for local governments in Coffs Harbour, Kempsey, Mid-Coast, Nambucca, Port Macquarie and Hastings and for the northern New South Wales bushfires in Armidale, Clarence Valley, Glen Innes and Walcha. There is a range of assistance, including support for people suffering personal hardship, concessional interest rate loans, freight subsidies for primary producers, grants to eligible not-for-profit organisations, support for affected local councils and funding to cover counterdisaster operation costs, including firefighting activities. This assistance is administered by the New South Wales government, and anyone in need can contact the government— (Time expired)

Senator McDonald, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister advise how Australians can best prepare themselves for the current bushfire situation and into the future?

Queensland also is recipient of the DRFA response and Queenslanders will be able to contact the Queensland government, which will be administering that. In terms of being prepared for situations such as these devastating fires, it requires collaboration between all levels of government. Australians know the importance of preparing for the bushfire season, especially those who live in or near bushland. Our farmers, in particular, are very aware of needing to have bushfire plans in place. But I think these fires have shown that it's not just those who live in and around bushland that need to ensure they've got an active fire plan in place. Practically speaking, anyone who lives in a high-risk area needs to have that bushfire plan in place. That means clearing vegetation around buildings and fences and clearing your driveways, gutterings et cetera. Some advice is to turn off electric fences. Always pay attention to our emergency services providers and act and leave when they give that advice.

My question is for the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Apparently nearly 2,400 people have direct access to Parliament House with a sponsored security pass. Getting one of these so-called orange passes is a huge win for lobbyists. It lets them wander around the halls of Parliament House without an escort. It gives them a chance to 'bump into' ministers at Aussie's cafe or drop in to see MPs or senators in their offices. But Australians, much to their dismay, are in the dark about who the orange passes' holders are, whose interests they represent and what they're actually doing here. Why can't the people of Australia know the details of who they are? Why is there no transparency over who has direct access to federal politicians inside Parliament House?

Senator Lambie, thank you very much for your question. My understanding is that such matters as access to Parliament House and the issuing of passes are for the Department of Parliamentary Services, which is of course administered by the President and the Speaker. If the President wishes to provide a response via me taking this on notice, or wishes to provide a response now, then I would defer entirely to the President, Senator Lambie.

I won't take up time in question time by adding anything now. It has been covered in estimates. There is an estimates spillover hearing where I could be quizzed later this week, Senator Lambie, or you're also at liberty to quiz me in the chamber at any point. I won't take up any more of question time by adding to what I have said on the record. There are opportunities for you to ask me about that on behalf of the parliamentary services department in the future. But I call you to ask a supplementary question if you wish.

I have to be honest, Mr President: it shouldn't be that difficult. We have just on 600 people on the lobbyists register, and I'm sure you've noticed that. That means there are 800 lobbyists slipping under the radar. Does MOPS or yourself intend to do something about this in the future and actually change the regulation so they're up to scratch? Even New Zealand has nothing to fear, and they're doing it. So, if the Kiwis can do it, I would like to know why we can't be honest with the Australian people and show them who's on the list?

If the Senate's happy, I can take this as a supplementary question to myself. Is leave granted? By leave, Senator Lambie, I'm happy to forward to your office lengthy discussions in Hansard on this to provide the context. But, in the end, the lobbyists register is not the same as the register for sponsored passes. There is some crossover. The lobbyists register, which is administered by the government not by the Department of Parliamentary Services, as has been the subject of debate, refers to lobbyists who lobby on behalf of paid clients. The sponsored passes include people who are representing community groups and other NGOs, people who are not paid lobbyists, nor are they necessarily lobbyists in the employ of a single firm as government affairs managers and the like. I am happy to provide you with the Hansard of the previous discussion, before Thursday, so you have an opportunity to quiz me at the estimates spillover, if you wish, or to raise it again in the chamber. Senator Payne?

If I may, by leave, very briefly, in response to Senator Lambie's question—I recognise this is unorthodox. If there is further information that the Attorney-General is able to provide in relation to your question as it relates to the register, then I will take that on notice and seek to obtain a response from the Attorney-General.

Do you have a final supplementary question, Senator Lambie?

I think everyone needs to realise here that Australians know there's pretty shady stuff going on, up here, when it comes to lobbyists and these passes. It is about time, in the name of democracy in this country, we were open and honest about who was getting these passes and exactly what they were doing up here. Honestly, the only people—and what bothers Australians, more than anything, is how many of the lobbyists are coming in and giving out political donations at the same time. That's where the problem is.

I don't have anything to add to what I said earlier, Senator Lambie. I'm happy to provide the information on notice and you can pursue it with me publicly here, in committee or privately. Senator Payne, do you have anything further to add? No? I will move to Senator Farrell.

My question is to the Minister for Sport, Senator Colbeck. Prior to the election, Sport Australia CEO, Kate Palmer, twice stated that Senator McKenzie, as sports minister, had only awarded Community Sports Infrastructure grants to projects recommended by Sport Australia. Then, only three days before the election, Ms Palmer changed her position, stating, 'Some projects from the eligible pool of applicants that were preferred by the minister were approved by her.' How many times did Senator McKenzie approve taxpayer money, for her personally preferred projects, against the recommendation of Sport Australia?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order, on my left! I will call the minister when I can hear him. The Minister for Youth and Sport, Senator Colbeck.

Thank you, Mr President.

If it was a National Party program, it means rort!

Order, Senator Watt.

The government invested $102.5 million in the Community Sports Infrastructure grant program and delivered 648 projects, building better sporting facilities for healthier and stronger communities by promoting physical activity and social connection. These grants are enabling people from right across the country to get more active, more often. Projects include upgrades to female change room facilities, lighting upgrades for local sporting clubs and surface upgrades to ensure a safer sporting environment.

Over 2,050 applications totalling nearly $400 million were made to the program, which has seen 224 projects funded as part of round 1, 232 projects funded as part of round 2—

Order, Senator Colbeck. Senator Farrell, on a point of order?

Yes, Mr President. It's in relation to relevance. We've heard about all of these projects the government is funding, but my question was quite specific: how many times did Senator McKenzie approve taxpayer money for projects against the recommendations of Sport Australia? I don't want to know which projects the government supported; I want to know the ones they rejected against the evidence and advice of Sport Australia.

I accept the—

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'll make a ruling when there's silence. We're using up time in question time with noise on my left. Is there going to be silence to allow me to make a ruling? On the point of order, I accept the substance of the question was about ministerial action and ministerial decision, not the program generally. I'm listening carefully to the minister, who has 57 seconds remaining to answer. Senator Colbeck.

Thank you, Mr President. As I said, there were 232 projects funded as part of round 2 and 228 projects funded as part of round 3. Each application was individually assessed using criteria including community participation, community need and project design and delivery. Recommendations were then provided to the Minister for Sport, who was the grant delegate for final decision and approval.

Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?

Thank you, Mr President, I do have a further supplementary question. Over three rounds of this program, 684 successful applications have been awarded funding, according to the Sport Australia website. How many of the 684 successful applicants were personally selected by Senator McKenzie against the advice of Sport Australia, and on what basis were those decisions made?

As I've just said, Senator McKenzie, as the then minister, was the delegate responsible for approving every project. That was her role. That was her responsibility. Minister McKenzie was responsible for approving every single project, each one of which met the guidelines of the program. It's really quite simple. There were over 2,000 applications totalling nearly $400 million. The program was very, very popular, to the extent that we ran three rounds of the program before the election. Minister McKenzie, as the responsible delegate, made the decisions on which projects were approved.

Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question?

Thank you, Mr President, I do have one. In evidence before Senate estimates it was revealed that 618 recommended applications were rejected by Senator McKenzie. How many of the 618 eligible grassroots projects would have received local funding if Senator McKenzie had not intervened and hand-picked her favourites?

As I've said in answers to previous questions, Minister McKenzie, as the delegate, was responsible for the final approval of every project in the program. The 224 projects that were funded as part of round 1, the 232 projects that were funded as part of round 2 and the 228 projects that were funded as part—

Order! Senator Farrell on a point of order?

Again, it is on relevance. We're not asking about which projects Senator McKenzie approved; we're asking about which projects she rejected the advice of Sport Australia, the department.

I think, with respect, you're going to how the minister is answering the question. There is an opportunity for debating that after question time, but by talking about the approval process, which may or may not meet with your approval or wish, I think he is, however, being directly relevant.

As I've said, every project that was funded under this program was eligible for funding under the guidelines. Minister McKenzie, as the responsible minister, had the final say and responsibility with respect to the approval of the projects under each round of the program.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister please update the Senate on recent international consultations about countering terrorism?

I thank Senator Stoker for her question. Last week, Australia hosted the second No Money for Terror international conference. I acknowledge and thank France for its leadership in convening the first of the No Money for Terror conferences, in 2018, and acknowledge India for offering to host next year's conference. I also want to acknowledge Mr Dutton and Home Affairs for their work in convening the Melbourne meeting.

The goal of these conferences is to work across international boundaries to close loopholes for terrorist financing. We had attending the Melbourne meeting some 81 delegations, representing 67 countries and jurisdictions as well as 14 international organisations, and almost 20 of those delegations were led by ministers or minister equivalents. The Minister for Home Affairs, the Attorney-General and I ran sessions during the conference which were important opportunities for Australia to engage and lead on these issues. We discussed the international and regional threat environments, global responses to kidnap for ransom and the effect of emerging technologies on terrorism financing risks. We also considered how we can enhance public-private partnerships in the context of the No Money for Terror theme, because the engagement of the private sector is obviously pivotal in terms of the movement of money, and how we can take a collective security approach to preventing the exploitation of not-for-profit organisations for terrorism purposes.

Indeed, the private sector was well represented on the second day of the event in recognition of the fact that, in countering terrorism and making sure our civil society organisations are not exploited by terrorists, it has to be a whole-of-community undertaking. We know that governments can't defeat terrorism or their support networks by acting alone. We need a whole-of-society approach if we're to achieve collective security, and that was the approach taken during the No Money for Terror Conference.

Senator Stoker, a supplementary question?

Can the minister please advise what particular concerns Australia has about the way terrorists fund their operations?

As part of our commitment to combating terrorism, the Australian government has a longstanding policy across governments that it does not pay ransoms. Daesh accrued up to US$45 million from kidnappings between September 2013 and September 2014 alone. Kidnapping contributed about US$89 million to the al-Qaeda war chest between 2013 and 2017.

It's important to note that, as ransoms have been paid more frequently, so the ransom price has gone up. In the early 2000s we saw payment for hostages demanded in the tens of thousands of dollars. Now it's as much as $5 million per case. Kidnap for ransom, unfortunately, is an important and reliable literal revenue stream for terrorist groups, which we are determined to disrupt. In the kidnap for ransom section, French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, New Zealand justice minister Andrew Little and UN CTED director Michele Coninsx contributed. (Time expired)

Senator Stoker, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister advise on the future steps to take towards countering terrorism?

Briefly, I can advise that in 2019 the UN, the G20 and the ASEAN Regional Forum have all sought to focus attention on the link between ransoms and terrorism. In fact, UN Security Council Resolution 2133 specifically:

Calls upon all Member States to prevent terrorists from benefiting directly or indirectly from ransom payments or from political concessions and to secure the safe release of hostages;

The UN Security Council resolution gives a foundation upon which actions from the No Money for Terror Conference can be pursued, and we'll continue to work with other countries towards a common approach to kidnap for ransom.

My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In an article in yesterday's Australian Financial Reviewentitled 'First home buyer risk riles banks' it is revealed that big banks want to charge higher interest rates under the Morrison government's First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. Can the government guarantee that borrowers who use the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme will not be charged a higher rate of interest?

I can reassure Senator Gallagher that loan pricing is a key evaluation criteria the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation will consider in selecting the scheme's panel of lenders. A number of lenders, including small lenders, have already indicated through the market-sounding process that they are prepared to offer products under the scheme that do not charge first home buyers more, and that is what we want to see. In approving lenders for participation in the scheme, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation will assess impacts on competition as well as the attractiveness of each lender's loan products in terms of interest rates and fees. Lenders participating in the scheme will continue to be subject to existing responsible lending obligations, including ensuring that loans are only extended to borrowers who can comfortably service the loan.

Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question?

How will the measures that the government will undertake actually ensure that no user is charged a higher rate of interest?

I've just provided that information to Senator Gallacher. The First Home Loan Deposit Scheme is administered through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which of course has gone through a market-sounding process, and it's very clear from that process that there are product offers available under the scheme that do not charge first home buyers more, which is what we want to see. I would also make the point that the government made a commitment to this scheme in the lead-up to the election and which we are now delivering. The scheme is to be administered, as I've indicated, through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which will partner with lenders to deliver the scheme. The NHFIC has commenced the procurement process to establish an initial panel of lenders. The panel will have no more than two of the four major banks and is designed to meet the government's expectations that smaller lenders will play a significant role in the scheme to facilitate competition.

Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question?

The article also reveals that big banks have queried whether the government's scheme will be up and running by the promised start date of 1 January. Can the government guarantee that the scheme will be fully operational by 1 January 2020?

The government remains, indeed, on track to make the scheme available from 1 January 2020.

On a point of order, Mr President. I think the time has expired.

At 2.08 we started, Senator Wong. That was my note. I'm looking at the Clerk, whom I think agrees. Senator Antic.

This is a ripping question, so I thank you for that. My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Can the minister please update the Senate on any recent developments on the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility?

I thank Senator Antic for his question. He would know, coming from South Australia, that the government is considering a number of sites in South Australia for the location of a national radioactive waste facility to store our waste. We've been trying to find a long-term place to store this waste for about 40 years. It's extremely important, because the waste that it will store comes primarily from the production of nuclear medicines that we make at Lucas Heights near Sydney. Nuclear medicine has allowed us to control and, in some cases, cure conditions like cancer, related thyroid conditions, bone pain caused by cancer and many other medical conditions. In fact, on average, around one in two Australians will require the use of nuclear medicines during their lifetime, so it's very important that we manage and store this waste appropriately.

Currently, our radioactive waste is spread across about 100 storage facilities. It is envisaged that a national radioactive waste management facility will consolidate this waste into a single, safe location. As I said, we are looking at three different proposed sites in South Australia—two near the town of Kimba and one near the town of Hawker. Just last week, a ballot was finalised in the community of Kimba on whether they would like their community to host such a facility. It's welcome news to report that over 90 per cent of people in that community voted—it was a voluntary vote—and around 61½ per cent of residents supported a facility located in their community. This is just one piece of information the government will consider before making a decision on any facility. There is another ballot due to occur in the Hawker region. That will open this week and it will be concluded before the end of Christmas. I welcome that level of support. I particularly thank the entire community of Kimba and also those in the Hawker region for their patience and resilience through this process as we try to find a place to store the waste from the production of life-saving medicines for all Australians.

Order, Senator Canavan. Senator Antic, a supplementary question?

How is the federal government supporting communities where the site of this facility is being considered?

Can I say up-front that it's been a privilege for me to visit these communities multiple times through this process. Both Kimba and Hawker are fantastic towns. It's been great to get to know the leaders of those communities and many others in the communities. We have tried to support these towns through the process. As I said, it has gone on a while. Through that period, we have already invested $5.76 million across 57 projects across Kimba and the Flinders Ranges region to help their community grow, develop and meet their broader goals. The government has announced a further $4 million to provide additional community support because the vote took a little bit longer to get to because of the court case. If we are to proceed with the facility, we will invest $31 million in that community to help them upskill to take the best advantage of this facility which will provide 45 local jobs and lots of benefits to small businesses. We very much hope to partner with the community and help them grow and develop as well as help solve a national issue for our country.

Senator Antic, a final supplementary question?

Minister, what are the benefits of the national radioactive waste management facility for the community which decides to host it?

Again, as I said before to the question earlier, there are some direct benefits for the community. It will be a facility that will require 45 jobs. About 20 to 25 of those jobs will not require any skills. There'll be on-the-job training. So that will be open to most people in any town or community. We are also putting on the table $8 million to help upskill people in the community to train ahead of any construction or operation of the facility to fill the more skilled jobs. So it will bring skilled jobs to a local rural town.

One thing I'm very excited about is that, if we are to proceed with a facility in one of these communities, it will link a small country town in South Australia with our world-class nuclear medicine supply chain. We have already hosted students and community members at Lucas Heights from both of these communities. If we maintain that relationship over a long period of time, that will help young people in these towns be exposed to a world-class industry and maybe pique their interest in going on to contribute to what is an amazing industry that we are lucky to have in this country.

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

by leave—I move:

That—

(1) Following the motion of condolence relating to former Senator Mehmet Tillem, and the Placing of Business, the routine of business for the remainder of today be as follows:

(a) government business notice of motion no. 1, relating to the consideration of disallowance motions—question to be put without amendment or debate;

(b) business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1, standing in the name of Senator Roberts; and

(c) consideration of the following bills:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019

Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019;

(2) If consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (1) (c) is not completed by 7.20 pm the questions on all remaining stages of the bills shall then be put.

(3) Paragraph (2) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

(4) If consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (1) (c) is completed before 7.20 pm, the routine of business shall be:

(a) any proposal to debate a matter of public importance or urgency;

(b) at 7.20 pm, adjournment proposed; and

(c) adjournment.

Question agreed to.

) ( ): I took a couple of things on notice yesterday, so I'd like to inform the Senate of the answers. In response to Senator Green, regarding the reallocation of RJIP funds in tropical North Queensland, my advice is the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science's business grants hub provided the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development with the eligibility and merit assessment for each application. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development provided its recommendations to the ministerial panel based on the merit assessment. The ministerial panel considered the recommendations and made its funding decisions.

The Labor Party claimed there was electoral bias and asked the ANAO to look into that issue. The ANAO did specifically look at that issue and concluded there was no electoral bias evident in the assessment and decision-making process concerning funding of projects in RJIP regions. Far North Queensland was not short-changed. The government recommitted funding to other key priority projects in the region, including the habitat dome and the sky rail tourism projects which the former Leader of the Opposition visited during the election campaign.

In response to a question asked by Senator Urquhart regarding the cafe project on Flinders Island, Tasmania, I'm advised that the reason for the co-funding exemption application was the limited capacity of this not-for-profit organisation to contribute cash funding to the project. The ministerial panel approved the original application for the cafe and other amenities. I understand the proponent, Flinders Island Tourism and Business Inc., sought a change of scope to the project as the original concept of a permanent facility was not able to proceed as the site was sold prior to funding approval and they had not been able to secure a replacement site. The request was made for each of the components: cafe, commercial kitchen, accommodation and community centre. Individual semi-permanent moveable units could then be loaded onto a truck to be transported to island events when and where required. The grant recipient was also requested to add an amenities component to the project. The units would allow for maximum flexibility to service the needs of individual events and assist in addressing a major inhibitor to growth at these events on the island. The units would supplement the facilities at the Flinders Island Food and Crayfish Festival, the Furneaux Islands Festival, Music in the Vines et cetera. Letters of support from the communities were provided to support the rescoped project. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science's AusIndustry grants hub assessed the rescoped project in terms of job outcomes, costs and impacts on other business in the regions and approved the change in scope.

Finally, on behalf of Minister Littleproud, I took a question from Senator Walsh yesterday around Moira Shire. My advice is that last week the government announced that a further $1 million would be provided to 122 councils which had previously received funding under the DCP extension, as well as $1 million for six new councils. The six new councils all met the rainfall deficiency and agricultural employment reliance criteria at the end of September as part of the normal quarterly update. The government has announced a review of the DCP and is expecting the outcomes of that review before January. A range of information will be considered and that will inform the $50 million that was announced by the government last week on how that can support projects in drought-affected LGAs across the country. Any additional councils will be announced after the review is completed. The member for Nicholls asked the minister for drought to consider exercising his discretionary powers under the guidelines. The member for Nicholls's office was advised that the minister for drought was considering his request.

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 Wong today relating to bushfires in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia.

Yesterday, the Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, Shane Fitzsimmons, said that we are currently facing 'the most dangerous bushfire week this nation has ever seen'. As of this afternoon, there are over 70 fires raging across the state of New South Wales. Forty of those fires are uncontained, 10 fires are at the emergency level, 10 fires are at the watch-and-act level, over 600 schools are closed and nine have had to be evacuated. We know the conditions this evening have the potential to turn worse than they currently are and can develop rapidly. For the first time in our history, a catastrophic fire warning has been issued for the Greater Sydney area, as well as the Greater Hunter, Illawarra and Shoalhaven regions. This represents an extraordinary threat to life and property. Many more fires are threatening communities in Queensland and South Australia.

Bushfires are cruel. They are a force of nature that indiscriminately takes life and property. With them, they take part of our nation's soul. The tragic 1993 and 1994 bushfires that impacted communities across the eastern seaboard happened before I moved permanently to Australia. My now husband, Ben, was visiting me in the United States as we followed the news, particularly of his family being involved in taking in people who had to evacuate their homes. In January 1994, Sydney was threatened with total isolation due to these fires. Those 1994 bushfires destroyed 800,000 hectares of bushland, along with 225 homes. They took four lives. They changed Sydney and they changed New South Wales. The events of 1994 were one of the catalysts in forming today's modern Rural Fire Service—the same RFS that is bravely battling on the ground today protecting people and property—and yet, since the start of this year's bushfire season, a million hectares have been razed across New South Wales, surpassing that of the horrifying events of 1994.

The devastation inflicted by bushfires is senseless, along with the way that they impact the lives of our fellow Australians. Since Friday, we know that three people have lost their lives in New South Wales. This is an irreconcilable and incomprehensible loss. Given some of the commentary earlier today by the member for New England, I would like to respectfully pay tribute to these three Australian and New South Wales citizens. I pay my respects and send my sorrow to their families. I speak specifically of George Nole, Julie Fletcher and Vivian Chaplain, who have lost their lives in these fires.

More than 150 homes have been destroyed, but we will not be able to comprehend the full scope of this disaster for some time. Labor extends our sincere sympathies to those who have lost loved ones, livestock, pets and property. Our thoughts are with you at this time, and we stand ready to work alongside the government and affected communities to help in any way we can.

I would also like to pay tribute to our incredible emergency personnel and volunteers, who are currently battling these fires across the eastern seaboard. More than 3,000 firefighters have been deployed across New South Wales today to fight these fires and prevent further loss of life. As a former Premier of New South Wales, and as a member of the New South Wales parliament for nearly 10 years, I've been honoured to see our emergency services personnel and volunteers up close. Whether it be during times of flood or bushfire, they are highly skilled, dedicated and courageous. They typify the Australian spirit of helping out one another in a time of need. That Australian spirit is on display right now, in the most harrowing of conditions, through professional firefighters and volunteers working alongside local community members and Defence Force personnel.

We know bushfires don't respect borders, and we thank those people who've travelled from interstate to fight the fires in New South Wales. The footage we've seen is truly terrifying and only serves to underline the extraordinary bravery being demonstrated every moment by those who are risking their lives to protect people, homes and communities. I urge everyone who is in areas affected by fires, including in my hometown of Sydney: please remain vigilant, listen to warnings, download the Rural Fire Service's Fires Near Me app and stay safe. (Time expired)

Fire is a friend and a foe. Of late, fire is being an absolute foe, destroying property, livestock, habitat and, most tragically, human lives. Decent Australians' thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families, those in the thick of it and the selfless frontline workers valiantly fighting the fires, seeking to protect lives, property and habitat.

We do face a bushfire emergency. Regrettably, it's nothing new in Australia. I recognise the commentary from Senator Keneally: yes, it is true that it is the first time ever that it's been labelled as 'catastrophic', the reason being that we've got a new fire level management system that has introduced the term 'catastrophic'. That was introduced in 2009. So let's get a sense of proportion and not seek to play politics with this. Let's understand that, in 2009, a new regime was introduced, which uses the term 'catastrophic'.

I'm not sure whether it was one million acres or one million hectares that the good senator referred to as having been burnt out. Undoubtedly, much, much more has been burnt out. A million acres—I did a rough calculation; I hope I'm right—is about 4,000 square kilometres. The Black Saturday fires in Victoria in 2009 burnt 4,500 square kilometres. Twenty-six years earlier, the Ash Wednesday fire in Victoria and South Australia burnt 5,200 square kilometres. Sixteen years before that, in my home state of Tasmania, 2,600 square kilometres were burnt out. Before that—by 28 years—in 1939, 20,000 square kilometres were burnt out. So you can go back in history, especially back to the 1850s, where huge fires devastated our country.

The royal commission into the Victorian bushfires in 1939 said:

For more than 20 years the state of Victoria had not seen its countryside and forests in such travail. Creeks and springs ceased to run.

This was in 1939, so 20 years prior means starting from 1919. We also know that, from 1895 to about 1903 or thereabout, there was the eight-year Federation Drought, which saw the mighty Murray stop running. We've got to understand that this is a country of droughts and flooding rains, as Dorothea Mackellar told us so poignantly in her poem 'My Country'. And so, as our fellow Australians fight fires, seeking to protect life, limb, property, livestock and native wildlife, let's just be mindful of the task they are facing, remember them in our thoughts and prayers and give them all the support that we possibly can in these most difficult times. Let's not seek in any way, shape or form to play a game that might be seen as taking an opportunistic approach to this very serious issue.

Fires are an absolute foe and menace to us in the Australian landscape, especially when fuel loads are allowed to build up and build up. We know that. That is a lesson that we learned from the Australian habitat. Our Indigenous people ensured that fuel loads were in fact relatively low around the countryside, but nevertheless massive landscape bushfires devastated my home state of Tasmania at about the time of white settlement. In 1967 there was a major fire, in 1934 there was a major fire—and so the list goes on. Let's not play politics with fire. Let's give every support to the men and women who are fighting them and fearing for their lives and their property. (Time expired)

I rise also to take note of the answer given by Senator Cormann to Senator Wong's question in relation to the fires across the country, in particular in New South Wales and Queensland. The New South Wales Rural Fire Service deputy, Rob Rogers, said earlier today that the situation was unprecedented and worse than he could have imagined. More than 3,000 firefighters are currently deployed in New South Wales and are supported by 60 aircraft. The response of the state government in New South Wales is at a scale that has not been seen before. More than 600 schools will be closed across New South Wales today, and I'm advised additional schools are being closed throughout the course of the day as fires threaten them. There are 55 fires burning through New South Wales. Thirty of those are uncontained, seven are at emergency level and eight are at watch and act.

While there are fires from the Queensland border through to the Bega Valley, the most significant fires in New South Wales at this stage are in New England and on the Mid North Coast and Far North Coast. In that country—particularly in northern New South Wales—there are many townships and many farms. In the coastal hinterland there are retirees and families living on small bush blocks who are all at enormous risk today and over the course of last week. I know that the thoughts of everybody in this place are with those people.

I spoke to Paul Sekfy, whose property was destroyed over the course of Friday. I should say all of the adjoining properties in his area were destroyed. His shed was destroyed. He returned home to a house that will be uninhabitable and found a note from the Rural Fire Service that said: 'We're really glad we could save your house. I'm sorry about your shed.'

I spoke to the Mayor of Glen Innes, Carol Sparks, yesterday. I rang her for two reasons. Firstly, I think right now it is the job of people in this place to listen and learn. The mayor of Glen Innes was certainly forthright in her views about what Canberra and politicians should be doing. Secondly, it is the country that I grew up in. I know it very well. The countryside, particularly the state forest and national park, are densely wooded. They are dry; they have never been drier. It is very difficult to defend properties and defend those small townships in that circumstance. We mourn the deaths of the three people who were killed last week: George Nole and Vivian Chaplain at the fire in Wytaliba and Julie Fletcher in Johns River. I think it is also important to put on record what the mayor of Glen Innes said to me about the people in Wytaliba who fought so hard to save not just property but the lives of their fellow residents, who were ultimately killed.

I was astonished to hear what the member for New England had to say earlier today on Sky. It was vulgar, it was crass and it seems that there is no low that the former Deputy Prime Minister has not sunk to or will not sink to. What difference does it make who Australians affected by fire vote for? I do not think anyone should have any regard to that. I do not actually think that anybody in this place should. It is beneath contempt. It is a source of enormous disappointment to his constituents in New England. Australians should be working together in these crises.

For Labor's part, we are thinking of the people here. We want to support the emergency services, volunteer and professional. I know that people in that region, in relation to one fire, had been fighting that fire for 70 days in a row. They are exhausted. We want to see the full resources of government committed to making sure that they are safe and sound and that we keep Australians safe. (Time expired)

I rise to take note of answers to questions relating to drought, and I will speak to the coalition government's support for drought-hit communities and farmers. The coalition government—

Senator Van, we are taking note of answers to questions that Senator Wong asked of Senator Cormann, and they went to the fires.

Yes, in which she referred to drought.

No, they went to fires.

Okay. My apologies, Madam Deputy President.

That is fine. We all make mistakes!

Our first concern is for the safety and the needs of those directly affected. I think we all agree, especially in this chamber, that it is in times like this that we have to work together and look out for each other. As the Prime Minister said on his visit to the fire-affected communities in New South Wales, Australians are at their best in difficult moments like these. They have shown incredible spirit, heart and generosity. Our emergency services are once again showing their professionalism and dedication in the face of very difficult conditions. In a repeat of advice already given today in this chamber, if people in fire-affected areas are asked to leave by the fire services or emergency services, they should do so to look out for their families and look out for themselves: protect their lives and those of their families before looking after their properties.

I would also like to add my thanks to all the career and volunteer emergency services personnel fighting these fires. I would also like to acknowledge the comradeship on display by the contribution to the New South Wales firefighting efforts by interstate personnel from the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. The clear advice given by fire services to our communities—and I would like to repeat this—is to plan ahead and be prepared. Days like today are not the times when you want to start that planning or start your preparations. These are the days when those efforts need to be bearing fruit.

I'd also like to add that the Australian government stands ready to immediately assist those affected by fires in New South Wales and Queensland. I'd also like to note the defence minister's answer in question time that the Australian defence forces are coming to the aid of those fire areas. Talking about the Australian government assistance, as well as the ADF forces that are being added to this, fire-bombing aircraft have been in action across these fires, and our national aerial firefighting arrangements are ensuring the best possible aerial firefighting equipment is available to protect Australians. Every year the Australian government invests around $14.8 million in aerial firefighting. The Director-General of Emergency Management Australia, EMA, activated the COMDISPLAN on 31 October in response to a formal request for Australian government non-financial assistance, following significant fire activity in New South Wales. This remains activated today. Emergency Management Australia liaison officers have deployed to the New South Wales RFS State Operations Centre and the Queensland State Disaster Coordination Centre. The Australian government is in close contact with New South Wales and Queensland authorities and stands ready to assist.

Disaster recovery assistance is being provided under the DRFA, the disaster recovery funding arrangements, in response to the bushfires that have affected the Mid North Coast and northern New South Wales. DRFA assistance is available for the Mid North Coast bushfires in the local government areas of Coffs Harbour, Kempsey, Mid Coast, Nambucca and Port Macquarie-Hastings and for the northern New South Wales bushfires in the local government areas of Armidale, Bellingen, Clarence Valley, Glen Innes-Severn, Inverell, Richmond Valley, Tenterfield, Uralla and Walcha. A range of assistance is available.

I rise to take note of the answer given by Minister Cormann to the question asked by Senator Wong. Today is a tough day for Queensland, and tomorrow will be even tougher. I want to thank Minister Cormann and Senator McKenzie for their comments today and add that Queensland Fire and Emergency Services are responding to 55 active fires across the state. There are currently 170 crews on the ground working to keep Queenslanders safe. Some of these fires located in the south-east corner of Queensland have been burning since September, as they are in locations that are difficult to access. Twelve homes have been destroyed, along with the mundane to the memories—family photographs, clothes, heirlooms, items from pantries.

Queensland Fire and Emergency Services have 'prepare to leave' notices today for the following areas: Rosevale, Mount Alphen, Double Top, Clumber, Tarome, Adelaide Park, Cobraball, Maryvale and Lake Mary. Residents have been told to be vigilant when it comes to air quality in Brisbane, Ipswich and the Gold Coast. Air pollution is 10 times higher than usual and likely to be the same tomorrow. There are strong winds tonight and there will be more tomorrow. Complicated and challenging wind conditions will make it challenging for firefighters on the ground.

Can I take this opportunity to thank the state and federal governments for their response to this most recent weather event. I know in my home state we have the very best experts in emergency and disaster management response, and we thank all emergency service personnel: firefighters, police, ambulance officers and all of their support staff. We thank those members of the emergency service personnel from other states and countries travelling to Queensland to provide support to our own brave and most likely exhausted fireys. Please stay safe. Please know your service is appreciated.

I'd also like to thank the regional Queenslanders and others working in the media today to bring information and updates to Queenslanders who face unthinkable threats. We are incredibly lucky in regional Queensland to have local newsrooms and journalists dedicated to delivering stories. They bring the rest of the pictures that convey the true horror of these fires. They bring us the human face of these catastrophic events. They're often in the line of fires themselves. We don't often thank the media in this place, but, in regional Queensland, they are also part of our community, and we do thank them for their service.

Over the past few days, I've heard a number of comments on what is correct to say in debate during times like these. On the one hand we have climate change deniers blaming vegetation management legislation for these conditions, and on the other hand we have reactions that seek to blame senators in this chamber for the direct lighting of fires themselves. I've warned both sides on this: no-one comes to this debate with clean hands in politicising what is a tragic event. What people living in regional Queensland—the people who are continually impacted by these disasters—want right now is less talk and more action.

Queenslanders are tough and resilient. Flood, wind, fire—we've had it all thrown our way. But when the sky turns black and the wind picks up and smoke starts to fill the air around you, it's hard not to feel lost and hopeless. Queenslanders are stoic, but right now they are suffering. So to those people back in Queensland I say this: the smoke will pass, and the fires will burn out. The remains of your houses will be rebuilt. But no Queenslander will do this alone because, above all else, Queenslanders stand together, today, tomorrow and always.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) and the President to questions without notice asked by Senator Lambie today relating to the Lobbyist Register and access to Parliament House, Canberra.

Every year, the number of lobbyists balloons further and further out, and every year the number of lobbyists who are registered and on the books shrinks further and further away. Don't forget, either, that only the registered ones are required to stick to the code of conduct. The ones who aren't registered—well, apparently, we don't care what they do. If you want to lie, that's fine! If you don't want to tell anybody who you're actually working for, that's fine too; there's not a problem there! If you want to walk in and out of a minister's office, you go for it!

The lobbying register needs more than a lick of paint. It needs a total makeover. It needs to be wider, and it needs to be a hell of a lot tougher. It needs to be wide enough to cover everybody who is lobbying government. It needs to be tough enough to keep them on the straight and narrow. Right now, it's narrow enough to cover basically nothing and it's weak enough to achieve basically nothing—which is exactly what it's doing.

The government says we can't see the list of people with sponsored passes. Think about this: there are 2½ thousand people with complete access to offices in the parliament. They have this access because a parliamentarian sponsored them—they signed a form saying they have known them for at least 12 months and they vouch for them. And we have—what do you guess?—no idea who they are. We don't know who sponsored them. We don't know who they work for. We don't know how often they come into parliament. We don't know how many times they're coming in and out of certain offices. In fact, we had to drag it out of the government to even find out how many there are. What's going on? Why the secrecy? Who is benefiting out of this?

New Zealand publishes details of approved visitors who have swipe access to their parliament house. Like Australian orange pass holders, in New Zealand approved visitors have to show that they require regular business access to parliament to obtain a pass. New Zealand can do it. Why can't we? We're not able to cover that, apparently.

All lobbyists in Canada and the US have to disclose information about their lobbying activities, whether they work for an employer or they work as a client. Those jurisdictions also have strong penalties for breaching the regulations, including fines and jail time for deterrence.

What do we have here? Under our system, apparently the Minerals Council aren't lobbyists. The Business Council aren't lobbyists. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, apparently, are not lobbyists. They aren't in the building, lobbying the Senate today, as we speak. Whatever they're doing, apparently it's not lobbying. It must be plenty of cups of tea they're having. And get this: lobbyists who break the code can be kicked off the lobbyist register. But guess what: they never are. And even if they were they could keep their sponsored pass and keep getting access to parliament unescorted, unaccounted for and basically invisible.

I've been saying for years that the solution to this problem is right under your noses. Rewrite the rules so that everyone with a sponsored orange pass is considered a lobbyist, everyone who is a lobbyist is required to sign up to the register and everybody on it is required to abide by the Lobbying Code of Conduct. If they don't abide by it, they go off the register and lose their pass—it's pretty simple—and they lose their privileged access to this parliament.

Governments can only govern with the consent of the governed. If you lose the trust of the people you're trying to govern, you lose everything. This building is more than just a place for politicians to hang around complaining about each other. This building is where governments are formed. Governments change the country, and they only do that because we trust them, supposedly, to do so. We're losing the grip on that trust.

My proposal says: if you're a lobbyist and you break the rules, you lose your special access to parliament. If you still need to get in to see someone, sign the visitors' book, like everybody else has to. You had the chance to do the right thing. You were trusted with that privilege and you abused it to benefit your own special interest, which is exactly what's going on. When you undermine the trust that fuels this place, you don't get to keep coming back to it. We've got to send a very clear message that the rules are rules. It doesn't matter if you're working for unions, for big companies, for charities or for your own business down the road: if you go into a meeting with a minister, you're required to play by the rules. Don't lie. Don't bribe. Don't threaten. Don't harass. Don't corrupt the political process so you can make a dollar or two out of it. Don't do these things, because if you do we'll come down on you like a tonne of bricks. You'll lose more than an orange pass around your neck, I can tell you. You'll lose access and you'll lose influence. And you know what? You'll deserve it.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next sitting day, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for 13 November 2019, proposing the disallowance of the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Regulations 2018.

Yesterday I informed the Senate of the untimely death, on 9 November, of Mehmet Tillem, a senator for the state of Victoria from 2013 to 2014, who served with many of us in this chamber.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its deep regret at the passing, on 9 November 2019, of Mehmet Tillem, former Senator for Victoria, places on record its appreciation for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

We were all shocked and deeply saddened when we heard the news over the weekend that our former colleague Mehmet Tillem had passed away at the very young age of 45. Many of us have served with Mehmet in this chamber. I did not know him well, but I was always struck by the warmth of his smile. And it appears that others noticed his big smile too, because, as I refreshed my memory of Mehmet's first speech in this chamber, there it was: Senators Sterle and Gallacher had reportedly asked him why he always smiled, and his response was telling. He told them that he smiles because it gives him great joy to be in this place, representing the great state of Victoria. 'It's an honour and privilege,' he said. We should all remember those words and we should all smile more, because we are all very privileged to represent our respective states and territories in this chamber.

Like many of us, Mehmet was born overseas. He was a proud Australian who was proud of his Turkish heritage and who was Labor through and through. He moved here from Turkey with his family at the age of two and grew to embody all that is wonderful about our culturally diverse society. Settling in one of Australia's truly great multicultural cities, he embraced Melbourne as his home. In his first speech, he would refer fondly to the smell of coffee in Melbourne's CBD laneways, footy at the 'G and meals on Lygon Street. When he replaced Senator the Hon. David Feeney in this place, Mehmet cited the relaxation of immigration laws under the Fraser government as allowing his father to make a better life for his family in Australia in 1976.

The son of working-class parents and a product of the Victorian state education system, Mehmet had Labor roots grounded in his upbringing, and he understood the value of hard work and community from a young age. Mehmet was passionate about a range of issues. He told the story of how he and his family were welcomed to Australia as refugees during the period of the Fraser Liberal-National government. He was an advocate for the humane treatment of asylum seekers. He was passionate about housing affordability and policies to encourage more organ donations. He loved the multicultural diversity of Australia, which he noted was appropriately reflected in this chamber. We all mourn a life taken suddenly and far too soon, but we should also celebrate a life lived with great gusto and conviction.

Entering the Senate in 2013, 20 years after joining the party, Mehmet became the first person of Turkish origin and the second Muslim to serve in parliament. He joined an increasingly multicultural Senate, being sworn in on the same day as Senator Seselja, the son of Croatian emigrants; Senator Peris, the first Indigenous woman to enter parliament; and Senator Dastyari, who was born in Iran. The make-up of the Senate then, as it does today, reflected a vibrant Australia. The key theme, however, was not lost on Mehmet. In his first speech in this place he said of his fellow senators:

… we are all Australians, sharing common Australian values …

Mehmet counted fairness, equality, solidarity, equanimity and a parliament that serves the people among his values. He fought for Victorian jobs, citing his state as Australia's manufacturing heartland. Strip it all back and Mehmet cared deeply for his fellow Australians. He was committed to speaking out for those who couldn't find their own voice and providing opportunities to those who didn't have them. Mehmet will be remembered as loyal and engaging, and who could forget his sense of humour? When he left this place in 2014, I recall his temptation to declare, 'I'll be back,' in his best Terminator impersonation. Instead, he chose, 'Till we meet again.'

On behalf of the Australian government and coalition senators, our deep and sincere condolences to Mehmet's family: his wife, Ferda; his son, Mikail; and his parents, Ramazan and Fatma. Mehmet's passing is a reminder of how precious life is and how we must cherish and best use the time we have to pursue what is important to us and those around us. His life was one of passion, commitment and achievement, a life with all the hallmarks of a great Australian story. Rest in peace, Mehmet Tillem.

I rise on behalf of the Labor opposition to honour our friend and former colleague here in the Senate Mehmet Tillem. I rise to express the opposition's condolences and our deep sadness at his passing. Mehmet died too young this past Saturday, at the age of only 45, after suffering debilitating health conditions. In accordance with Islamic tradition, his funeral was held on Sunday at Broadmeadows Mosque in Melbourne. At the outset, I again express our condolences to his family and friends. I express our condolences and solidarity with those in the chamber today who were his friend. But most of all I extend our sympathies to his wife, Ferda; son, Mikail; and parents, Ramazan and Fatma.

Mehmet Tillem was the quick-witted, smart, hardworking migrant, whose tenure in this place is measured not by time but by what it meant to an entire community. He served as a senator only briefly but he always recognised the great fortune that is associated with being one of a small number of Australians who have occupied a seat in our national parliament. Beyond the walls of this place, he was a mentor to many, recognising potential and helping to guide the way.

Mehmet Tillem was the first Turkish-born member of the Australian parliament and only the second Muslim. He moved to Australia from Turkey when he was two, in the mid-1970s. His parents risked everything to come here, but the rewards were great. On arrival, they sought work, despite having very limited English-language skills, his father finding employment in the car industry and his mother in everything from biscuit and electronics factories to clothing and footwear manufacturing. That their son was able to become an Australian senator is a tribute to their hard work and the opportunities this provided. It speaks also to the importance of a good public education, affordable housing and accessible health care, and it says something about the best of our community.

Mehmet's migrant heritage would form the basis for his service in the Senate, and he felt the weight of this responsibility, conscious that the Australian political system can be out of reach for many people from migrant communities. But, through his leadership, his community saw that it was possible to have someone who looked like and identified with them in our national parliament. It also showed many that they too could aspire to public office. His cultural identity was an indelible part of who he was, although he was not solely defined by it. In many ways, he represents the broader story that so many migrants identify with—the power of education as a foundation of opportunity.

Mehmet was inspired to join the Australian Labor Party, at the age of 19, by the leadership of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. Just as he would be, in time, a mentor to others, he was fortunate to benefit from the guidance and influence of significant individuals within the party. I note our former colleague Stephen Conroy was one of those, and Mehmet worked with him for some time. Mehmet identified that they would be friends for a long time, perhaps because he knew too much about Stephen Conroy!

It was through the ALP that Mehmet found his identification with the tenets that were moulded through his upbringing. In his first speech he proclaimed:

My values are Labor values: fairness, equality, solidarity, and an economy and a parliament that serve the people.

He was proud of the role he played within the party and even prouder to represent it in the Senate. Mehmet Tillem was chosen by the parliament of Victoria, in August 2013, to fill the vacancy created when David Feeney resigned to contest the division of Batman at the forthcoming election. Unfortunately, in a difficult election, he was not subsequently returned from third place on the Senate ticket. As a consequence, his service in this place was short. But the value of his contribution shouldn't be equated with the length of his tenure. He was a diligent and dedicated senator and he humbly recognised the opportunity he had and set about applying himself to the job ahead. He summarised the honour he felt in taking his place in the Senate in the opening paragraph of his first speech—which my colleague Senator Cormann has also quoted—in which he recalled an encounter with Senators Sterle and Gallacher in which they asked him why he smiled, and, in response, he said:

I smile because it gives me great joy to be in this place representing the great state of Victoria. It is an honour and a privilege.

It is an honour and privilege. He knew what it meant to be here. It's worth remembering that he entered this place at a very difficult time for Labor. Perhaps one might say we've replicated it since! We lost government in 2013. It was hard to regroup. It was hard to put our energy into being an effective opposition, but Mehmet said, 'It is an honour and a privilege.' We should all remember those words always. Amidst the conflict, at times the argument, at times the enmity, it is an honour and a privilege to be here. He knew what it meant to be here and he knew who he served.

Mehmet was at his most compelling when speaking about his values and his experience. As someone from an ethnic background, from a minority and from a group that knows persecution, he knew what racism was. Not long after the then Attorney-General infamously defended the right to be a bigot, Mehmet spoke compellingly in defence of the Racial Discrimination Act. He spoke of the strength that comes from a truly multicultural Australia, woven throughout the community and enduring through the adversity of language barriers, social exclusion and economic disadvantage. He said:

Racial vilification is intellectually flawed, morally bankrupt and socially divisive.

Noting the success of Australia's multiculturalism and steps taken to reconcile our past with our First Australians, he also called on the parliament to show leadership on race. Of course, by his presence but also by his actions he was a leader himself.

He was also a member of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and F&PA committees. We all recall the Abbott government's 2014 budget—such an unfair budget. Mehmet, along with all Labor senators and members of the crossbench at the time, applied himself conscientiously and effectively to scrutiny through the budget estimates hearings. Some in his position, with a term soon to expire, might have given themselves a leave pass—it's not unknown—but he engaged enthusiastically in estimates work. He was eager to learn and he put himself to work. He asked the questions, he listened to the answers—an often neglected part of the process—and followed up with those giving evidence. His thoughtful approach is the mark of the character that many have spoken about when reflecting on his life in recent days. He demonstrated a professionalism, a willingness to learn and a willingness to apply himself in the time he was here. Parliament House is not known for having a lot of people who are known for their humility in it, but he was a senator who was often unassuming and quiet. I was sorry that his circumstances didn't enable him to return to this chamber.

Following the conclusion of his Senate term and the election of the Andrews government in Victoria, Mehmet Tillem worked for two ministers in his home state, Phil Dalidakis and John Eren. In a touching tribute, Mr Dalidakis farewelled his friend and former chief of staff as follows:

In politics where friends are harder to come by than winning Tatts tickets, he was the best; loyal, caring, fierce, tenacious & whip smart. Irreplaceable.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Marles, was friends with Mehmet for over 20 years. In his tribute he particularly noted Mehmet's 'engagement and leadership with young Labor activists'. Mr Marles said:

Many of Labor's best and brightest next generation in Victoria have looked to Mehmet as their mentor.

Others have described how he had such great capacity to see people's potential and wanted to help them in their journey. Recognising that Labor politics could be a challenging landscape to navigate, especially for women, he took time to invest in their development. When too many overlooked the skills and insights needed to overcome structural barriers to participation, he recognised that women would be treated differently within our party and always took the extra time to provide extra help. Those who benefited from his knowledge and friendship in this way are and will continue to be his ongoing legacy.

Mehmet Tillem was a dignified exemplar of our great multicultural nation. He loved Victoria, the Tigers and politics. He was devoted to his community and the Australian Labor Party. When people get elected to this place, they don't just get represented as individuals but are also representatives of their community. Through his actions he showed others that they too could aspire to roles in public life and gave many more a helping hand along the way. To those who knew him closely he was an intensely loyal friend. On a personal note, I deeply appreciated his courtesy and kindness to me. He was a respectful and considerate colleague who demonstrated the greatest respect for the privilege of serving in the Australian Senate. We mourn the death of Mehmet Tillem, and I again express my personal sympathies—and, on behalf of the opposition, our sincere condolences—to his family and friends.

There have only been 624 senators of the Commonwealth of Australia. There have been 103 senators for Victoria, and my friend former senator Mehmet Tillem was one of them. He was here for a short time, both in the Senate and, so sadly, in his life. 'Inshallah'—if God wills—said his family at the hospital on Saturday, when they were hoping he would be able to breathe independently. His best friend said to him, 'Let your heart which has touched so many work again.' Sadly, this was not to be. My friends and I were so determined that he would return to fly Labor's flag when his health was restored. We needed him. We need him still. We needed his Zen-like calm; his wisdom well beyond his years; his careful planning; his willingness to call out rubbish—he would have employed another word—and to laugh at the extremes of political correctness; his nurturing of young, ambitious talents; and his deep pragmatism and firm values rooted in his upbringing. We need him now, just like we always did.

Mehmet's lovely wife, Ferda, his son Mikail and his parents, Ramaza and Fatima, were his first love. He lived for them, and they are rightly so very proud of him. He loved this country with a fervour that few would know. He loved the Australian enthusiasms of footy and cricket, and he was a competitive—as in really competitive—backyard cricketer. I record my gratitude here to the AFL's Jude Donnelly for helping ensure that Mehmet and his son could attend their first football game in a while, on grand final day this year, where he saw Richmond demolish its opposition. It meant a lot to him not just because of the result but because he was able to share it with his boy Mikky. He was very keen to go because in 2017 he missed Richmond's first premiership in 37 years by reason of being in a coma during that month as part of his ongoing battle with his health, which left him in a wheelchair. But none of this was going to stop him seeing Richmond win that flag, and see it with his beloved son—a grand final triumph that was to be the very last AFL match he saw.

Mehmet had learnt a lot, he told me, as a patient in hospitals and in rehab and as one of many Australians trying to get sense and support out of the NDIS. My friend the President of the Senate and I were both trying to help him get the support he needed from that rather complex and not always responsive government agency. His involvement in Labor politics was long and ran deep, driven by the strongest of beliefs and the steepest of thinking. He has had and will continue to have, due to the good people he helped preselect, a long impact on politics in this country.

We had many shared adventures due to our participation in backroom Labor politics. We plotted and planned, both before and after Victorian party offices meetings. He played a vital role in helping remove some nefarious characters from a high-profile union in desperate need of saving, despite being emphatically told by various bosses not to be involved. Indeed, they might be surprised, if they hear this speech, to know that he was! He put his job on the line for principle and did so frequently. How many people in this building are, or were, willing to do that?

I do want to mention one incident from a union campaign. I only really feel vaguely comfortable talking about this at all because the statute of limitations for defamation has passed! A letter had been drafted outlining, in helpful and clear bullet points in the same typeface as The Sopranos, some of the more newsworthy and titillating actions of various officials at a particular union. It was sent to Mehmet for redraft, and then to print. So imagine the campaign surprise that some of the dot points that had only really been drafted for Mehmet to have a chuckle at, and then to delete promptly, made it out to about 15,000 members, mainly older women who might have been a little taken aback. Certainly that's what their phone calls to the campaign office seemed to indicate. Mehmet's view was that the original copy made the necessary point.

He had good judgement about political communication and how to reach people and, obviously, how to impress a point upon them. He was tough, principled, fanatically loyal, sensible and pragmatic. He had a perpetual twinkle in his eye, reflecting the fact that he was always up to some great scheme, a grand plan, one big dream or another. He was a centrist, not because he was cautious but because he knew that lasting Labor changes like super, Medicare and the NDIS came from earning trust and gradual wins, not 'issuing woke revolutionary decrees'. Those are his words. He did not believe in shutting down industries and denying workers work in the name of—again his words—'highfalutin inner city causes'. These were not academic issues to him. They were his life; they were real life. He grew up surrounded by factory workers in Broadmeadows. And that big smile! Mehmet loved being here in this building. He loved life, whether it was here, under the trees in his backyard, at various cafes plotting or outside the ALP's head office in King Street, where it was then located.

Mehmet and I competed for a Senate vacancy in 2013. He was backed by his friends and I was backed by mine. It was a family feud of sorts in a group unpleasantly called the ShortCons. The Labor Left sensibly kept out of it. They probably weren't sure whom they liked least! Mehmet won. His grace and generosity of spirit after a tough contest is the perfect expression of what Mehmet was like. We all know people in politics who are not gracious winners, but Mehmet kept it all in perspective and that was Mehmet. When some panicked in a crisis, he was calm. When some flinched at the first sign of conflict, he stood up. When lies were told, he spoke the truth, even if it was going to cost him.

I assumed from that disappointing contest that I should focus on being the best lawyer I could be. I did give some consideration to become managing partner of the law firm where I was, and Mehmet was actually helping me through the office politics there too. I would be involved in politics from a respectable distance, cheering on my friends and offering advice, which, hopefully, was worth more than they paid for it. But Mehmet encouraged me to stay involved. Mehmet was often involved in events that would reach the media, but often his name wouldn't. His achievements vastly exceeded his profile. He moved quietly, stealthily and very, very effectively. He worked for some of the most powerful politicians in all the land, but no power on earth could constrain Mehmet's strategic mind, his passion for politics and his loyalty to his friends. One of his ministers, Phil Dalidakis—now a very senior executive at Australia Post—called him 'the chief'. It was an apt title. And, at the risk of it seeming that former Senator Conroy has never left the chamber, Steve said to me yesterday to mention his deep gratitude to, and love of, Mehmet.

Mehmet emphatically didn't want me to acknowledge in my inaugural speech his vital role in helping me to be preselected when another Senate vacancy came along. In fact, my candidacy was very much his idea, and I took some persuading about whether it was a good idea to run to replace Stephen. When I realised he was serious about it, I realised I had a serious chance. When it came to a democratic contest, Mehmet was a seriously good ally. After the result—he did not like boasting; he didn't like people boasting for him—he didn't seek the limelight, despite a natural, theatrical flair, a schmoozer's charm and a comedic wit that lightened even the most tense situation. Now that he has gone, I very much hope he doesn't mind my acknowledging in this chamber at this time that he very much did play a vital role in that preselection. The simple truth of the matter is that, having been in the Senate before me, with the strong relationships he enjoyed with my predecessor, Stephen Conroy, and his supporters, Mehmet could very well have taken the position I now hold for himself. But he, and others working with him, chose to help me.

When people look at the cause of Labor, the labour movement, and marvel at our strength even in our darkest days, a very big part of explaining our mystery is selfless men like Mehmet Tillem. I was a little surprised initially about the events he'd helped set in train. Selflessness is all too rare in competitive environments; it's all too rare in this building. To paraphrase former President Truman who somewhat cynically said, 'If you want a friend in politics, get a dog,' I can tell you that President Truman obviously never met Mehmet. I have been truly blessed that a group of us, including Mehmet, touched base most days, and some nights, to discuss everything from policy to polling, to a good political campaigning book and to the latest Caesar-like demise. Mehmet was a key member of that group, even in pain in the ICU or at rehab. He would sometimes phone in high dudgeon late at night about something that was happening in the wonderful world of politics. I'll miss those calls.

In the Labor Party, as rough and tough as it can be, that selflessness emerges at many moments. It's why Labor is strong. Even after election defeats, even after being dismissed from office, even after being split in two by a mad leader, even after being outspent 10 to one, we endure. We are still standing and we will always be. The light on the hill will never be extinguished, despite the best efforts of our conservative opponents and our Greens political party enemies.

As his family and friends reel from Mehmet's death at 45 years old, with a son aged 14 years, and as we ache with longing for just one more phone call, one more preselection contest with him leading the charge and counting the numbers, one more wry smile, one more frank character assessment, one more victory, one more deep philosophical argument over latte, this is the perfect time and place to honour him. He was my good friend. I will miss him every day for the rest of my life. I will put up a photo of Mehmet in my office here and in Melbourne to remind me every day why I'm here and how I got here—to speak truth to power, to fight for those being stonewalled by amply paid bureaucrats who won't answer questions at estimates, to fight for the working Australians for whom Labor exists and without whom Labor is worth nothing, and to do my very best in every way I can to be worthy of the trust and support that Mehmet invested in me. Vale Mehmet.

Some people are taken from us too early but their achievements stand out all the more for that. Mehmet Tillem was one of those people. He died at just 45 after a long series of illnesses. His time as a member of the Senate was brief, yet he made history just by being here. As others have already indicated, he was the first senator of Turkish descent and he was the second Muslim to serve in this parliament. As he said in his first speech of this place, his faith was always important to him. But so were many other things that made up the Mehmet Tillem that we knew; certainly the one that I knew. He was a close associate, friend and ally of Stephen Conroy but he worked much more broadly in the Labor Party than that. He was also a very close friend of Kosmos Samaras, the assistant secretary of the Victorian branch of the Labor Party.

He spent a considerable amount of time in my office in various capacities. As a competitor and a person who discussed the future of the Labor Party in Victoria for great periods of time, I found him to be a man of integrity and honesty, and to be trustworthy. These are things that are important, because in this business we have very little other than our reputation. While he might have been a practitioner of the dark arts, as Senator Kitching has indicated—I'm sure he would be very pleased to hear how much of that has now been revealed!—it is the capacity to engage on the basis of integrity about the things that really do matter that one can hold up as one's legacy.

His story is a great Australian story and a great Labor story. It is a great story about the extraordinary contribution that immigration and multiculturalism has made to our country. It is a story about the importance of family and community. It is a story of the struggle of working-class people to build a better life. It is a story about how manufacturing provides jobs, hope and opportunity for communities. It is a story about using the power of government to create a fairer and more prosperous country for all of us. Mehmet Tillem stood for all of those things, and he never wavered in that.

His father, Ramazan, came to this country as what might be called in some circles an illegal immigrant. Those were much more tolerant times. In 1976, the Fraser government allowed Ramazan Tillem to stay in Australia and bring his wife and child here. Although Mehmet was always a good Labor man, he always gave credit to the coalition for that decision. He regarded it as an example of how governments could use their powers to make life better for ordinary people.

Mehmet said that one of the first English words his father learnt was 'job'. The Tillem family worked hard and achieved the better life that they were seeking. Their story is the story of so many migrants who have shaped the northern suburbs of Melbourne. It is very much the story of Broadmeadows. It is the story of Glenroy, where Mehmet's family home was and where he lived. His father worked in the car industry—Toyota, Dunlop, Ford and Holden. Mehmet understood what the car industry meant to Melbourne and to Australia more generally. It not only provided jobs for people like his father but also was a great repository of skills, and it also provided the vehicle for those hopes and aspirations. It was an industry that was a great driver of innovation in the country. It was one of the great manufacturing centres that were so important to the labour movement.

Mehmet entered the Senate at a time when the Abbott government was, of course, taking the decision to force the industry in this country to shut down. In his first speech, he said, 'I was going to say that we could be negligent if we let Holden fall; well, I guess we are negligent.' He understood how many thousands of people would be affected if the manufacturing sector disappeared. He knew that Victoria, the state that he so proudly represented, would be affected most of all. His mother, Fatma, worked in biscuit factories, shoe factories and an electronics components factory. Many, of course, were within spitting distance of where they lived. Many of those are now closed.

He said that what always kept him going was the story about the first English word his father learnt; he said it was what drew him to the Labor Party and what drew him to this chamber. He said that we have a shared responsibility to look after all the citizens of this country, and we cannot do that selectively. He said:

A job gives every Australian immense self-worth and dignity. I will fight for the rights of all Australians: to be able to work, to give our kids the opportunity for an education just like I got, to get health care and to look after those that need our help. These are Labor values and, I believe, the values of most Australians.

They are indeed. Of course, Mehmet Tillem always fought for those values. All those hours we spent arguing the toss about future directions were aimed at that: securing the future of Labor. He continued to do that well after he left this chamber. As has already been mentioned, he was the chief of staff for Philip Dalidakis, the Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade in the Victorian government. I think he always remained, as he described himself in his first speech, a product of the grassroots of the Labor Party. He knew that the Labor Party would lose touch with those grassroots at its peril, and he did listen to ensure that grassroots supporters joined the Labor Party—in great numbers, I might say—and to ensure that they did, in fact, support him as well.

In his first speech—I know a number of senators have referred to this first speech—he told how his young son, Mikail, asked him if he'd made any laws in the Senate yet. Mehmet said, 'Not yet.' Mikail said, 'You should make a law where you make more schools because not all kids can fit on the mat.' For that policy suggestion, Mehmet thanked him and said he was very proud of him. You can be sure that Mikail is proud of him too. My deepest condolences to his family, to his friends and to his community.

I just want to make a few remarks this afternoon paying respect to former senator Mehmet Tillem. It's fair to say Mehmet touched on a lot of us in the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party. I got to know Mehmet through my dealings with him on the Australian Labor Party administrative committee. I got to enjoy many long nights with Mehmet before and after, and the one thing that certainly resonated for me was his ability to deal with issues which, as they usually do, came up at the very last minute and without much notice, and his ability to work through the problems that were before the committee and try and find a solution. He was certainly someone who was able to navigate his way around and also try and provide guidance to many of us in the room trying to find a solution to many complex problems.

As we touched on earlier, it's fair to say he has left us far, far too early. I know his time in this place was very brief, but nonetheless he still made a very strong contribution to many laws in this place and to the many Senate inquiries that he sat on. He also has a story that resonates with many in this place—certainly in my case. I think that a family having come to Australia from overseas and having a son or daughter able to be in the federal Senate speaks volumes of the multicultural society that we live in—such a great country—and certainly Mehmet is a prime example of a success story. We should all be very proud of what he has achieved in this place.

The other aspect of Mehmet's contribution is about education. As Senators Wong, Kitching and Carr have touched on, it is about the importance of education for a number of migrant families who have come to Australia and investing in education so that their children end up having a much more successful working life than they had. My own family went through manufacturing and wanted to see me succeed at university and have a professional job. But I know his mum and dad and his own son looked up to him as a mentor, and he was also a representative of the Turkish community back in Melbourne and Victoria.

Even though he was born in Turkey, I think it's fair to say he was as Aussie as they come. He loved his cricket and he loved his football, and he did enjoy having many beers as well. Mehmet would also love having a chat about whatever sport events were on in Melbourne at the time. His story is certainly one that sounds very familiar to many Australians.

As we mentioned earlier, he came to Australia after his father had come out some years beforehand to make sure that Australia, this great place, was the right place for him, his mum and his other siblings to settle. They started out in public housing and worked very hard to make sure that they were able to own their own home, in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Both of Mehmet's parents worked in manufacturing, as many migrants did, especially in the automotive industry. Together, they worked hard to give him and his siblings the best possible start in life, ensuring, as I said earlier, that they all had quality education.

At a very young age Mehmet joined the ALP, and he dedicated his whole working life to advancing its cause. As Senator Carr has mentioned, it was also about ensuring that Labor values were instilled not just within his own family but within those of the Turkish community, and broadly within the community at large. Mehmet was driven to instill into Australian policymaking and discourse the Labor values of fairness, respect, equality and solidarity—values that he spoke of in his first speech, which I won't delve into this afternoon. In his time in the party, Mehmet served Victorian and federal Labor ministers and MPs very well. He was always there as a sounding board—someone to go to for advice. The culmination of his work came in 2013 when he was sworn into this great place, stepping in to fill a casual vacancy after Senator Feeney ran for the seat of Batman.

Mehmet was a recognisable figure. We always used to joke how he sort of looked like Alex Perry—although I think it's fair to say he probably thought he was more like Alex, rather than the other way around! He could be found at all manner of ALP functions, standing somewhere in the room, deep in conversation, or outside, with a cigarette in one hand and a mobile phone in the other and his glasses constantly on the top of his head—always trying to look at a way forward, and dealing with that problem in the hope of finding a solution.

Whilst his term here was short, his impact will go down in history. He made a lot of change. With colleagues who are here and in the other place, we today remember his contributions. He advocated for a strong manufacturing sector, for the dignity of work and for dignified work, for housing affordability and for organ donation, which he was very, very passionate about.

Apart from being the first Turkish-born Australian senator, Mehmet remained a stalwart of his community in Melbourne. That was seen on Sunday at his funeral, where overflowing crowds gathered in Broadmeadows. Mehmet's death has come as a great shock to the entire Victorian Labor family as well as to colleagues in this place. Colleagues and friends have shared their sadness at his passing—over Facebook, at many social events and in the media. Deputy Labor leader Richard Marles has said he remembers Mehmet for his work in mentoring a whole generation of Labor Party activists. It's these activists and their triumphs that will always remain as Mehmet's legacy.

He was also a passionate Richmond Tigers fan. As Senator Kitching has mentioned, we are very thankful that the AFL ensured that both Mehmet and his son were able to spend time together a few months ago, to attend the recent AFL grand final. It's fair to say he was very delighted to see his beloved Tigers win their 12th premiership.

I extend my deepest sympathies to his family, to his loving wife and son. Mehmet will be missed by many in this great place. I really do look forward to the many other discussions that we'll no doubt have outside of this chamber as we remember Mehmet for the years to come.

I ask senators to join in a moment of silence to signify our assent to the motion.

Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.

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

I ask that government business notice of motion No. 1, standing in Senator Ruston's name for today, be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? Senator Roberts?

Just a point of clarification, please. I seek leave to split the government's motion after question time because, while the Greens were consulted, One Nation was not consulted on that reduction of time, and we feel it's important to have adequate time.

I'm afraid, Senator Roberts, the Senate has adopted that resolution. I can't re-put the question. So the order of business as adopted by the Senate immediately after question time is to move to government business notice of motion No. 1 without debate, which is the business around the Senate's debate of disallowance motions. So I have got to ask: is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal? There being none, Senator Duniam.

I move:

(1) That on Tuesday, 12 November 2019—

  (a) the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the ASIC Corporations (Banking Code of Practice – Revocation of 2018 Approval) Instrument 2019/662 and the ASIC Corporations (Approval of Banking Code of Practice) Instrument 2019/663, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be called on for debate by no later than 6 pm; and

  (b) if consideration of the motion listed in paragraph (a) is not concluded at 6.30 pm, or at the expiration of 30 minutes after the moving of the motion, whichever is the earlier, the questions on the unresolved motion shall then be put.

(2) That on Wednesday, 13 November 2019—

  (a) the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Gene Technology Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019, standing in the name of Senator Rice, be called on for debate at 3.30 pm;

  (b) if consideration of the motion listed in paragraph (a) is not concluded at 4 pm, the questions on the unresolved motion shall then be put;

  (c) immediately after consideration of the motion listed in paragraph (a) has concluded, the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Regulations 2018, standing in the name of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Senator Fierravanti-Wells), be called on for debate; and

  (d) if consideration of the motion listed in paragraph (c) is not concluded at 4.30 pm, the questions on the unresolved motion shall then be put.

(3) That—

  (a) if the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019, standing in the name of Senators Siewert and McKim for 12 November 2019, has not been resolved by 14 November 2019, that notice of motion be called on by no later than 3.30 pm on 14 November 2019; and

  (b) if consideration of the motion listed in paragraph (a) is not concluded by 4 pm, the questions on the unresolved motion shall then be put.

I'm now required to, of course, put that without amendment or debate, pursuant to the order adopted. So I put that motion moved by Senator Duniam, government business notice of motion No. 1.

Question agreed to.

We will now move to business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, pursuant to order. Senator Roberts, you are free to move your motion, and I understand that it is subject to a debate of up to 30 minutes.

I move:

That the following legislative instruments, made under the Corporations Act 2001, be disallowed:

(a) the ASIC Corporations (Banking Code of Practice - Revocation of 2018 Approval) Instrument 2019/662 [F2019L00877]; and

(b) the ASIC Corporations (Approval of Banking Code of Practice) Instrument 2019/663 [F2019L00878].

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak to my motion to disallow a regulatory instrument approving the 2019 Banking Code of Practice. This motion disallows the 2019 code and restores the 2018 code. That should have been a simple process. But we did run into a problem. The 2018 code of banking practice was submitted in a legislative instrument by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC. Then it was defended in this place by the government from a Greens motion to disallow. The problem is a simple one. The 2018 code of banking practice did not exist. The banks knew that, of course, and kept using the 2013 code. If this motion succeeds, the 2013 code will be restored. The public will not be left without protection; the public will have protection.

You don't have to take our word for it. We asked for an opinion from the Law Council, which I circulated today. This opinion is very interesting reading: 'ASIC approval of the code may simply be seen as an endorsement of the code. A disallowance would not have the effect of withdrawing the code; it would simply withdraw ASIC's approval of the code.' I continue quoting from the Law Council: 'Should the royal commission's recommendations regarding enforceable code provisions be implemented, then legislation would be required to introduce the legally enforceable provisions.' The Morrison government has not implemented the recommendations of the royal commission. As a result, the code is not enforceable. If the banks are not following it and ASIC is not enforcing it, what good is the code?

The authority for the Banking Code of Practice is provided by the Corporations Act, chapter 1101A(1), which says:

ASIC must not approve a code … unless it is satisfied that … persons who hold out that they comply with the code will comply with the code …

How many breaches of the code would be needed to show that banks are not complying with the code? I ask you: 10, 20, a hundred, a thousand? It turns out that Australian banks failed to comply with the Banking Code of Practice not 10 times or 20 times, not a hundred times, not a thousand times—it's way worse than that. In 2017-18 Australian banks breached the Banking Code of Practice 10,123 times, creating 3.4 million individual breaches. Certainly, some of those were administrative breaches. But how many instances of failing to comply does it take for this government to actually refuse to reauthorise this voluntary code and, instead, implement the recommendations of the royal commission? Does this government ever keep its promises?

We need real action to correct these terrible failures in this new code. No. 1: this code fails in the most basic of functions of a voluntary code: to provide customers with procedural fairness. No. 2: this code removes any tangible guarantee on privacy and data integrity, allowing banks to harvest and sell customers' data at will. No. 3: this code removes customers' right of access to their whole file. Documents so obtained have been a major source of embarrassment and a legal liability to the banks over the years, so that clearly had to go. No. 4: this code removes the requirement on the banks to have an ISO quality dispute resolution system. That provision had been in since 1993—gone. Banks refused to implement an ISO system, because it introduces a layer of accountability and was likely to cause a higher number of complaints being resolved in the customer's favour. ASIC failed to enforce this provision, despite it being a clear legal requirement of their own regulatory guideline 165. The banks asked to take it out, because it might cost them money, and ASIC said, 'No worries, mate; we'll take it out.' No. 5: this code allows the banks to vary or terminate a loan at any time for any reason, with no warning, under what they call a universal variation clause. This they do frequently, even if the loan is paid up. This allows banks to conduct risk management in an industry or geographic region exposed to external forces, like a live cattle ban or a drought. This code fails to provide any protection for the customer against universal variation clauses.

No. 6: this code removes the obligation on the banks to be a responsible lender and replaces it with the phrase:

… we will exercise the care and skill of a diligent and prudent banker.

There are basic fiduciary duty implications in this approach that need further investigation.

No. 7: the code fails to provide customers with protection from the conflict of interest that a bank often has when appointing closely related valuers, receivers and agents. These entities are professionally required to act on behalf of the customer, not the bank. The code gets around that by permitting a conflict of interest to ensure that these people act for the bank, not the customer. No. 8: the code does not implement the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission.

Let me talk for a moment about honesty. Until 2003, the code included a clause that banks should act honestly. Then it was gone; it disappeared. Why? Because that clause is legally binding on the banks. They put the word 'honest' on the front page of the code, but what they did not mention was that front page motherhood statements are not part of the binding code; they're just words. It's just a facade. There is not a single mention of the banks being honest in the entire code anywhere that binds banking behaviour. Let's look at some banking scandals and ask ourselves if the banks have acted honestly, fairly and according to the law.

In 2017 I chaired the Senate Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers. We travelled around Australia and heard many horror stories about what the banks were doing to everyday Australians from the north to the south, to the west and to the east. They were everyday Australians like the Bradshaws, a hardworking family near Charters Towers, who had two farms worth $9 million and a debt to Rabobank—yes, the international criminal outfit known as Rabobank—of $5 million through a rural overdraft facility secured by a mortgage. Affected by the drought and Prime Minister Gillard's ABC-directed knee-jerk decision to ban live cattle exports, the Bradshaws had trouble meeting their repayments. Rabobank cancelled the facility. On 16 June 2017, despite having complaints and disputes unresolved, Rabobank appointed receivers, Ferrier Hodgson, who just sold the Bradshaws' farms, 2,500 head of cattle, large quantities of hay, plant and all their machinery for around $7 million. That was $2 million under valuation—because, well, what the hell do they care? The agent worked for the banks. Remember that conflict-of-interest thing that I talked about earlier? After paying the bank back, they still had $2 million to start over, except Rabobank never gave it back. They called it a fee and kept it—$2 million.

But, wait, there's more: there were on the farm 200 head of cattle which belonged to a third party, with eartags to prove that. Rabobank's agent sold the cattle and that money was never returned to the actual owners of the cattle. That was another conflict-of-interest issue. The agent should have been working for the young couple who had their cattle and their start in life stolen, but they worked for the bank instead. There was a time in this country when cattle duffing was a capital crime—not apparently nowadays if a bank does it. The code allowed Rabobank to act like this. Clause 77 states: 'We may give you … no notice', of termination of a facility, if, 'based on our reasonable opinion, it is necessary for us to act to manage an immediate risk—that is, a risk to the bank's money, which may be an external risk. Then there is clause 78, which states: 'If you have an … on-demand facility, we may not be required to give you any notice when we require repayment' of the whole facility. Another risk to the bank's profit was contained. The customer lost everything but the code allowed it. It's nothing personal; it's just modern banking.

Let's talk about Michael Sanderson. The Bank of Queensland relied on a non-monetary default clause in Michael Sanderson's loan agreement. It allows the banks to declare a loan to be in default even if the borrower is up to date with their repayments, as Michael Sanderson was. In Mr Sanderson's case, it was due to his change of circumstances, which was a fall in value of Perth property—risk management rears its ugly head again. The Bank of Queensland had too many loans in Perth, prices were falling and their risk needed to be managed. Michael Sanderson lost his house.

ASIC considers the use of these clauses by the Bank of Queensland, owned by Westpac, and the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank so egregious that ASIC is suing those banks for using them. ASIC says that it's an 'unfair' abuse of the significant power imbalance, and that it gives 'banks a one-sided discretion to alter the terms—without the consent of the borrower'. Why then has ASIC just authorised a banking code of practice that includes these very same provisions?

In what amounts to Orwellian double-speak, the Australian Banking Association promotes the 2019 code as a 'rule book for the banks with strong protections for you'. Where were those strong protections for Sam Sciacca from North Queensland, who had a profitable prawn farm until it was hit by Cyclone Larry? Sam had a $20,000 overdraft and a $1.8 million mortgage financed against $6.5 million in assets, yet the ANZ refused to provide half-a-million dollars to repair the farm and tried to force immediate foreclosure, because they were risk-managing businesses in the cyclone area and his farm had to go. Executive bonuses were probably on the line. In two years, the $20,000 overdraft had grown to $450,000 because ANZ charged Sam default fees, penalty fees and interest on his fees. They just kept charging him fees. They're good at it.

Sam, being an enterprising fellow, got the funds to rebuild elsewhere without borrowing. He rebuilt and grew a new crop of prawns, sold those and paid out his overdraft. Seven hundred thousand dollars was deposited with the ANZ, but the ANZ just kept that money. The ANZ refused to put it against his overdraft and foreclosed anyway. In came the receivers—PPB Advisory, now PricewaterhouseCoopers—and Sam was booted out. Over the next year, the receivers acting on behalf of the ANZ had a party, literally. When the farm was eventually sold, the new owners found beer bottles, prawn shells and marijuana plants on the property. What a hell of a party! Let me look at the code again. Here it is. Clause 49 says that banks will 'exercise the care and skill of a diligent and prudent banker'. Skill at what? Rolling joints? Let's call that code breach number 10,124, shall we? By the way, Sam never got back a cent from the ANZ.

Last week, we heard from ASIC Commissioner, Sean Hughes, that one in 10 mortgage borrowers experienced difficulty paying their mortgage within the first year. Isn't there a responsible lending provision in the code to stop that happening? Chapter 17 is entitled 'A responsible approach to lending'. It does not actually say the bank is required to lend responsibly. If ASIC is calling on the banks to lend responsibly and then they sign off on a code that takes out the requirement to lend responsibly, who is at fault? The banks or ASIC?

Why would ASIC produce such a crook code? Well, ASIC did not write the banking code of practice. I'll say it again: ASIC did not write the banking code of practice. The banks have been allowed to write their own code since 2004. ASIC just rubberstamps it. For too long, ASIC has acted more like a lapdog than a watchdog. ASIC is rolling over and playing dead—rolling over and allowing a banking code of practice that has no legally enforceable codes of practice.

Prime Minister Morrison heard about the revolting criminal behaviour that was brought to light in the financial services royal commission. Then he responded by doing virtually nothing. This government has failed miserably to provide leadership on banking regulation. On the Prime Minister's watch, NAB, Westpac, the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, Rabobank and others have been allowed to run free—free to tear apart hardworking honest Australians; free to tear apart rural and small businesses; free to tear apart families and communities. What is their motivation? Greed and control—an insatiable desire to extract every last morsel for themselves. They are credit creators and asset strippers.

What about the idea of having long-term relationships with customers as real people, real humans? Sadly, that has passed into banking folklore, remembered wistfully by old-timers in moments of self-awareness. The idea of treating customers as human beings was unacceptable to Commonwealth Bank chairman, Ian Narev, who famously instructed an executive expressing such an opinion: 'Temper your sense of justice.' I would submit that ASIC have allowed the banks to do more than just temper their sense of justice; they have allowed banks to dig a hole and bury it. This document is supposed to protect customers, and yet all it does is protect and enable bad banking behaviour.

As I look out at my colleagues in the ALP, I wonder when their 'light on the hill' went out. I wonder when they stopped defending the rights of everyday Australians in favour of serving the interests of wealth and power. One Nation presented our case to the ALP, and they initially expressed interest and then refused to support this motion. They refused to stand up for everyday Australians. They refused to stand up for small businesses and farmers. If the ALP vote in this place today to protect the banks, they will be declaring their transformation is complete—no longer the party of everyday Australians but, rather, the party of global wealth and power. This vote will say more loudly than any before that the ALP is no longer the party of everyday Australians. One Nation is. I ask of this place these simple questions: who runs Australia; and for whom do they run Australia?

I'll be only very brief in responding to Senator Roberts, putting on record the government's opposition to this disallowance motion and just outlining some of the steps that have been taken.

The new Banking Code of Practice contains protections for small businesses and consumers over and above what's already in place and required by law. It's mandatory for all Australian Banking Association members to be signatories to the code. The code has been developed and assessed in a transparent way by ASIC, and, as part of the assessment, ASIC engaged with all relevant stakeholders, including consumer and small business groups, over a period of several months. ASIC has imposed specific conditions on its approval of the code and has the power to revoke its approval of the code at any time, including if it is not satisfied with compliance. Breaches of the code by signatories are reported to the Banking Code Compliance Committee, an independent code-monitoring body established to monitor and oversee compliance with the revised code.

Further, the government is taking action to strengthen the approval framework for industry codes, as a result of the findings of the financial services royal commission. In particular, the government will amend the law in order to provide ASIC with additional powers to approve and enforce industry code provisions. The government is committed to consult and introduce legislation by 30 June next year. The regime will provide that a breach of an enforceable code provision will constitute a breach of the law. The law will also be amended to provide for remedies that may follow such a breach. Once this regime is in place, the government will support ASIC and the ABA taking all necessary steps to have the provisions that govern the terms of the contract designated as an enforceable code provision.

Labor won't be supporting this motion by Senator Roberts. We acknowledge many of the issues that are raised by the community in relation to bank practices, and later in my remarks I will speak a little about some of those issues and the ways that they were revealed in the royal commission. But we know also that the current Banking Code of Practice as approved by ASIC is far from a perfect document, and it doesn't go far enough in protecting the interests of customers or small businesses. However, this code is a strict improvement on the 2018 Banking Code of Practice that it replaces. It provides, amongst other things, additional protections against fees for no service being charged to deceased customers, and we note that a rejection of the approval instrument risks taking these protections away from consumers. So, while we don't support the motion, we do urge ASIC and the ABA to work together to support the Banking Code of Practice, and the government to more rapidly implement the findings of the Hayne royal commission.

Community groups, rightfully, are angry—angry about the banks and their conduct. At the royal commission, we found out that the customers of the major banks were being charged fees for no service at all. We found out that the Commonwealth Bank, through their insurance arm, had misled the Financial Ombudsman Service and withheld medical opinions to avoid paying insurance fees to an individual who had suffered a heart attack. We found out that the National Australia Bank had seen widespread noncompliance amongst its financial advisers in relation to proper witnessing processes. We found out that the ANZ had fallen short of community standards in applying responsible lending obligations to home loan customers. We found out that Westpac had not complied with its responsible lending obligations when increasing credit card limits. Those are only a handful of the stories that were heard at the RC. It is not surprising that the community is fed up and the community wants things to be better.

This version of the banking code is an improvement, but our view is that it does not meet the standards set out by Commissioner Hayne. Commissioner Hayne recommended that the ABA amend the code to provide that banks work better with customers who are not adept with English. This new code does not address that recommendation. Commissioner Hayne recommended that the banking code incorporate provisions relating to default interest on loans secured by agricultural land in a drought area. Even though much of the country remains gripped by drought, this new code does not address that recommendation. I understand that the ABA is working to improve the code, and I urge them to rapidly implement those recommendations made by Commissioner Hayne.

The ABA is not alone in being slow to implement all of the commissioner's recommendations. Labor introduced legislation back in February to end the practice of grandfathering conflicted remuneration, but the government only passed legislation to do so in late October, and the government's legislation takes effect a full year after the Labor bill would have. The government has put off action on hawking until sometime in 2020, even though the issues with the hawking of insurance products were clear well before Hayne reported. The government has yet to issue exposure draft legislation on the removal of the claims handling exemption, even though its own road map claimed they would introduce legislation to the parliament by the end of 2019. There are only eight days left.

So it is not surprising that the community is concerned that the government and the banks are not taking the royal commission seriously. There is a lot to be done, and improving the banking code of practice is part of that task. As I noted earlier, although this code of practice is not perfect, rejecting it—which is what we are being asked to do today—risks taking protections away from consumers. That is why Labor will not be supporting this motion.

Just yesterday, the ABC reported that AMP had been caught out charging a dead person. The reason they got caught out was the executor of the deceased estate happened to be Ms Naomi Halpern, who some people in the Senate may well remember from the Timbercorp inquiry. She was a very prominent victim of financial crime in this country. By complete coincidence, after her best friend passed away and she was managing his deceased estate, she noticed that, after six months and after having contacted AMP to let them know the details of his passing, they were still charging fees to the deceased estate. AMP have claimed that they have quickly remedied this and apologised and said that it was an oversight. It does make you wonder whether, if someone had not had the gumption to follow up and prosecute this, that kind of practice would have continued—or how widespread it still is.

This voluntary banking code of conduct is designed purely to increase community trust and confidence in the banking sector following a disastrous decade in Australia—a decade of parliamentary inquiries and a decade of royal commissions. In November last year, I moved to disallow the previous version of this regulation. While I acknowledge that this is an improvement on the previous regulations that came before the Senate, I want to highlight to anybody who might be listening to this debate that, normally, regulatory instruments make changes to the laws of the land. That is what they do. We can do it through legislation or we can do it through regulation. But this regulation is different. This is a regulation that does not regulate. This is a law that has no effect in law. This is a code of practice that has no practical effect. This is the twilight zone of regulatory instruments. It is perhaps why Senator Malcolm Roberts has been attracted to this debate today! Do not ask me why but, when I watch re-runs of The Twilight Zone on 9Gem, channel 92, you do come to mind, Senator Roberts. I have to work on my thinking around that!

This is an unenforceable code. Let me remind the Senate what Royal Commissioner Kenneth Hayne had to say about the banking code of practice in his interim report. He said:

Contravention of … a provision of the … Code may be a breach of contract but otherwise it is not, and will not be, a contravention of law. The Code stands as a set of promises made by the banks enforceable only at the behest of an aggrieved customer. …

The Code is not subject to … the Competition and Consumer Act …

I listened with interest to Senator Duniam's contribution and I will look, with interest, at any changes to that next year. But, as it stands now, the code stands in sharp contrast to generally similar industry codes of practice. In other words, because the financial sector is not regulated under the Competition and Consumer Act, this code is therefore unenforceable by the regulator. Yet ASIC have given this their stamp of approval. I find that very odd, considering ASIC are essentially giving the banks a leg up in terms of their image and their PR campaign.

We agree with Labor on the point that this is an improvement on no code of conduct, but we want to make a very clear statement today: codes of conduct should be mandatory, they should be properly regulated and they should be enforceable in law. We've fought really hard in this chamber, and I'm very proud of the work we've all done in here to hold the big banks and financial services to account. We are hopefully seeing a golden era of legislation and new financial services regulations coming before the Senate in this parliament. I very much look forward to that in the coming years. I urge the Senate to support One Nation's disallowance today and to bring this back as an enforceable mandatory code of conduct.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8775 revised:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 13), omit "Energy".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 28 (after line 19), after Part XICA, insert:

Part XICB—Egregious market misconduct

153ZE Simplified outline of this Part

  This Part sets out when a divestiture order may be made in relation to egregious market misconduct.

153ZF Interpretation

  In this Part:

associate has the same meaning as in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975.

egregious market misconduct has the meaning given by section 153ZG.

interest, in an asset or a security, has the same meaning as in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975.

153ZG Egregious market misconduct

  (1) A corporation engages in egregious market misconduct if:

  (a) the corporation engages in conduct that contravenes section 46 (misuse of market power); and

  (b) any of the following apply to the conduct:

     (i) the conduct has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect of, eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation, or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation, in a market;

     (ii) the conduct has or is likely to have the effect of significantly diminishing the access consumers have to a good or service in a market;

     (iii) the conduct engaged in by the corporation is part of a systematic pattern of conduct.

  (2) In determining for the purposes of subparagraph (1) (b) (iii) whether the conduct engaged in by the corporation was part of a systematic pattern of conduct, regard must be had to the following:

  (a) the number of times (the relevant engagements) the corporation, or a body corporate that is related to the corporation, has engaged in the conduct;

  (b) the period over which the relevant engagements occurred.

  (3) Subsection (2) does not limit the matters to which regard may be had.

153ZH Divestiture orders for egregious market misconduct

  (1) The Court may, on the application of the Treasurer, the Commission or any other person, make an order under subsection (2) or (3) in relation to a body corporate if the Court is satisfied:

  (a) a corporation engaged in egregious market misconduct; and

  (b) the body corporate is the corporation or a body corporate that is related to the corporation; and

  (c) the order is a proportionate means of preventing the corporation, or any related body corporate, from engaging in that kind of misconduct in the future.

  (2) If the body corporate is not an authority of the Commonwealth or an authority of a State or Territory, the Court may order the body corporate to:

  (a) dispose of interests in securities or assets, other than to any of the following:

     (i) another body corporate that is related to the body corporate;

     (ii) an associate of the body corporate; and

  (b) comply with conditions (if any) specified in the order in accordance with subsection (7).

  (3) If the body corporate is an authority of the Commonwealth or an authority of a State or Territory, the Court may order the body corporate to:

  (a) dispose of interests in securities or assets to:

     (i) if the body corporate is an authority of the Commonwealth—an authority of the Commonwealth that is genuinely in competition with the body corporate in relation to which the order is made and that the Commonwealth has a controlling interest in that is equal to or greater than the controlling interest that the Commonwealth has in that body corporate; and

     (ii) if the body corporate is an authority of a State or Territory—an authority of that State or Territory that is genuinely in competition with the body corporate in relation to which the order is made and that the State or Territory has a controlling interest in that is equal to or greater than the controlling interest that the State or Territory has in that body corporate; and

     (b) comply with conditions (if any) specified in the order in accordance with subsection (7).

  (4) To avoid doubt, the Court cannot make an order under subsection (3) for the body corporate to dispose of interests in securities or assets otherwise than in accordance with paragraph (3) (a).

  (5) An order under subsection (2) or (3) must specify:

  (a) the interests in the securities and assets, or the kinds of interests in the securities and assets, that the body corporate must dispose of; and

  (b) the day by which the disposal must be made; and

  (c) any other matter that the Court considers necessary for the order to be effective.

  (6) The day by which the disposal must be made must be no earlier than 12 months after the day on which the order is made.

  (7) The order may specify conditions with which the body corporate must comply during the period between the making of the order and the disposal of an interest, if the Court is satisfied that those conditions are necessary to preserve any of the following:

  (a) the value of the interest;

  (b) in the case of an interest in an asset—the commercial operation of the asset.

  (8) Without limiting the scope of subsection (7), those conditions may relate to any of the following:

  (a) the interest to be disposed;

  (b) if the interest is a share or other security in a body corporate—the exercise of rights attached to the share or other security.

  (9) If a body corporate disposes of interests in assets to another body corporate as required by an order made under this section, then for the purposes of paragraph 311(1) (d) or 768AD(1) (d) of the Fair Work Act 2009, there is taken to be a connection between the body corporate and the other body corporate as described in subsection 311(3) or 768AD(2), as the case may be, of that Act.

  Note: This means any employees of the body corporate who become employees of the other body corporate and satisfy paragraphs 311(1) (a) to (c) or 768AD(1) (a) to (c) will be transferring employees in relation to a transfer of business for the purposes of Part 2-8 or Part 6-3A of that Act.

153ZI Acquisition of property

  This Part has no effect to the extent (if any) to which its operation would result in the acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph).

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 opens up court-ordered divestitures for electricity retailers, to deal with misconduct. Once you accept the principle that it's relevant to one sector of the economy, you must then accept that it should apply to all sectors of the economy—anywhere where monopoly power or substantial market power exists and is being misused. That's what the Centre Alliance amendments do. They seek to enhance the bill to ensure that divestiture provisions apply universally across all Australian markets participating within the economy. This means that any business that engages in egregious market misconduct may be subject to having their business interests forcibly disposed of by a court.

Egregious market misconduct includes behaviour that has eliminated or is likely to eliminate or substantially damage a competitor, significantly diminish consumer access to a good or service or be part of a systematic pattern of misconduct. To determine a systematic pattern of misconduct, the court must consider the number of times a corporation has engaged in the conduct and the period of time over which the conduct was committed.

In the case where the controlling entity is owned by a state or territory government or the Commonwealth—and this is consistent with the amendments moved by the Labor Party—the entity can only be sold on to another government authority that is in genuine competition with the body corporate. This protects government owned entities from being forcibly privatised.

Where a court-ordered divestiture is made, the disposal of the security or asset must be made in 12 months from the date of the order. This ensures there is sufficient time to source a suitable purchaser and that the security or asset is not subject to a fire sale, where the asset is sold well below market rate due to an insufficient time frame. In addition, to ensure the security or asset does not diminish in value, the court may impose any condition necessary, when making an order, to preserve the value and the commercial operation of the asset. Further, any employee of the body corporate will become an employee of the acquiring company or body corporate. This protects existing employees of a divested company or body corporate as they become transferring employees to the company or body corporate.

These are very reasonable and sensible amendments. As I said, if you accept that divestiture is a reasonable proposition for the retail energy sector, it should apply across all sectors. Divestiture is not an unusual concept. I refer to the United States, the birthplace of capitalism, where the Sherman Act, from 1890, permits a court to deal with misconduct by using a court's restructuring powers. We haven't seen the US economy fall over, or a lack of investment, simply because they have divestiture laws. It is the same in the UK, where they have quite broad divestiture laws.

I say to the Nationals, whose constituents have to deal with the likes of Coles and Woolies, Glencore, Fonterra and perhaps even those water traders that are becoming dominant in the water market, with large volumes of water, and are exercising market power that is disruptive to other consumers or other entities playing in the space: if you're interested in better farmgate prices, you should be voting for these amendments.

The opposition are not normally focused on big business. Divestiture powers are associated with monopoly power being exercised or market power abuse, so we are talking about very large companies when we talk about these laws. The Labor Party should be voting for these amendments because these amendments will help to protect those smaller businesses and make them much more resilient, which of course makes employment much more secure. I understand this divestiture power is not something that would normally be exercised. We know that this parliament altered section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act—I think it was in 2017. I am aware that the chairman of the ACCC is in fact looking at some cases in respect of section 46. It's a power that I suspect would not be used often, but its deterrent value is significant.

To the government, I know you're the proponent of big business, but we need to recognise the changing nature of the economy. We need to recognise that it's quite normal in business today to try and scale up to get scale of economy. Inherent in doing so, you end up gaining market power. We see this right across the economy. We've got the big banks. We've got the Bunningses of this world that have now replaced all of those corner hardware stores. We've got Coles and Woolies, who don't just have a monopoly in the groceries area; we now see them with petrol stations, credit cards, insurance for your house, car and pet, and mobile phones. In the health sector now we have organisations in South Australia like Bupa, which is effectively the dominant or the only healthcare provider. They have a monopoly grip on the market. We know the government has been trying to deal with gas prices, but on the east coast we have companies like APA Group, which owns a significant portion of the pipelines on the east coast. As I mentioned before, we've got water traders and big irrigators. We've got poles and wires companies, often foreign owned, now owning large chunks of critical infrastructure and utilities. So that's the trend, I say to government. That is the trend—we are seeing companies scaling up and inherently gaining market power. I'm not suggesting any of the companies I've mentioned have been involved in abuse; I'll leave that for others to decide. But it is becoming the norm, and we need to have tools in place to deal with monopoly power or significant market power being exercised.

That's what these amendments seek to do. The government recognises that divestiture powers should apply to the electricity retail sector. There's no explanation as to why it wouldn't apply right across the economy. It would be a good measure, particularly in the changing business climate that I have mentioned.

The government will be opposing these amendments. The forced divestiture components of the legislation are designed to apply only to electricity markets and to misconduct specifically in electricity markets, which can, of course, lead to blackouts, destruction of businesses and potentially loss of life. The amendments proposed by Senator Patrick would expand divestiture powers to misuse of market power under section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act by any type of business. The government will not broaden this legislation. The courts can already impose significant penalties for contravention of section 46, including fines of up to $10 million and injunctions to prevent people from engaging in certain conduct. The measures in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill, including the forced divestiture powers as a last resort, are specifically designed to deal with the impact and the consequences of misconduct in the electricity market.

Labor will be opposing the amendments moved by Senator Patrick. These amendments would see the proposed divestment laws expanded to all sectors of the economy. To be honest, as somebody who sat through the Senate inquiries for both pieces of legislation—the forerunner in the last parliament and then this legislation—it was hard to find a supporter for these powers being applied within the energy sector, let alone across the entire economy. Labor is not convinced that the approach recommended by Senator Patrick would actually work or that it would benefit consumers. Certainly no analysis or modelling on that proposal has been undertaken, nor was the case made in the Senate inquiry process, nor has the case been made by any review undertaken by any of the economic institutions, nor has it been made by any of the relevant agencies. On that basis, we will not be supporting the amendments.

I rise to very quickly explain to the chamber why the Nationals will not be supporting the amendments put by Senator Patrick. While Senator Patrick quite rightly points out the issues facing farmers with farmgate prices and dealing with the monopoly powers of the retailers, we do not believe that a blanket approach such as that being put forward by Senator Patrick, without proper investigation and without proper review, will succeed in achieving the outcomes that we want.

We look forward to working with Senator Patrick to have a look at how we can address the market monopoly powers of the retailers. We have already undertaken and established the ACCC review into water to make sure that there is no market manipulation in the water market. You cannot apply a blanket approach. The issues happening in the water market are not necessarily the same issues that are happening in retailing or power. This bill today is specifically about power and dealing with the power market and divestiture in power companies. We support the bill as it is put. We do not support these amendments, despite their good intentions.

I will just put on the record that the Australian Greens are supporting these amendments from Senator Patrick. We sympathise with a number of the points and arguments that he has made, but suffice to say, if it is good enough for the electricity market and the energy market, why would we not be considering other areas where we need intervention and proper protection for consumers? The interesting aspect of this is that one of the reasons why we now have both the government and the opposition voting down this amendment and saying, 'Oh, no, we can't have this in any other sector,' is that this bill is not even going to deliver what the government is promising. It has nothing to do with low electricity prices and everything to do with coal burning for longer.

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be read a third time.

Rather than calling a division, I'd just like it recorded that the Australian Greens oppose the third reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019. Here we go again: debating changes to make it easier for our farmers to access financial support during times of hardship and, in the current circumstances, the drought. It is important for the Senate to note that some farmers and rural communities are going into the ninth year of drought on the eastern seaboard. The current drought is being spoken of as the worst drought in our history, at least since the time of European settlement.

It's not just our farmers who are hurting, but also people in rural communities everywhere. The drought is having an adverse effect on the economies in rural towns. When farmers have no income, then businesses in the towns suffer. This means that there's less employment and that everyone is impacted. There are towns in Australia that are facing the confronting prospect of running out of water. These are places like Stanthorpe, a significant horticultural region in Australia and one of our top five national producers of apples and summer-grown strawberries. Stanthorpe usually produces almost 75 per cent of the eastern states' tomatoes and capsicums, and it grows significant amounts of stone fruit, summer vegetables and wine grapes. Sadly, because of water shortages, planting and production of these crops have been drastically reduced.

The reduced economic activity in the horticulture sector alone is estimated at $100 million for the 2019-20 financial year. Stanthorpe is only one example of many towns dealing with the same challenges. They are losing skilled workers, and the Morrison government is offering very little hope. Even big communities, like Tamworth, Armidale and Murrurundi, all in the member for New England's electorate, are all too close to running out of water. In fact, Murrurundi did run out of water some time ago.

Of course, many of these communities are also suffering at the hands of terrible bushfires, and our thoughts are with those communities. This is the reality Australia is facing due to the function of a changing climate—a hotter climate, a drier climate, a climate which is causing high temperatures earlier in the year than we would normally expect and a climate which over time has produced a lot of unspent fuel sources in and around these communities. These communities are also facing extreme hailstorms, late frosts and massive dust storms. How farmers will manage these challenges in the future needs to be better understood. Challenging conversations need to be had. As stated earlier, Stanthorpe alone is expected to lose $100 million in economic activity. This is why the Morrison government's Future Drought Fund is confusing to most farmers. One hundred million dollars won't go far. Whilst extra funding into research is a good thing, everything this government is doing is moving too slowly—it is reactionary—and many farmers feel abandoned.

The bill currently before the Senate increases the maximum time a person is able to access the farm household allowance program from four years over their lifetime to four years in each specified 10-year period. It also introduces an expanded off-farm income offset, broadening the circumstances in which the offset can be applied and increasing the upper limit from $80,000 to $100,000. It introduces a one-off lump sum payment for recipients who have exhausted 1,460 days of the allowance by 1 July 2020, and the capacity for the minister's rules to prescribe further lump sum payments if required.

The amendments seem reasonable until they are looked at in detail. The maximum time on payment is currently set at a cumulative 1,460 days or four years over a person's lifetime. The bill expands access to the allowance program for eligible farmers and their partners to four years in every specified 10-year period, recognising that farmers can face more than one period of hardship in their lifetime. The next specified 10-year period will commence on 1 July 2024, meaning that, if you are a farmer who has been cut off the farm household allowance program, you can reapply in almost five years. Good luck to farmers currently still facing extreme drought conditions.

The expanded income offset provisions in the bill will increase the maximum offset amount from $80,000 to $100,000 per couple per financial year. This will allow the household allowance recipients, or couples where applicable, who have incurred a farm business loss to have their income reduced by $100,000 under the household allowance income test. This is an acknowledgement that many farmers need to obtain off-farm income. However, due to the challenges of living in rural and regional Australia, particularly in drought-affected areas, this amendment is modest in nature.

Sadly, many farmers were dismayed when the former agriculture minister, on 12 October, told farmers that they should need to seriously think: what are you doing with your life? His exact words were:

People who have not made a profit in the last 10 years really need to seriously think, what are you doing with your life? What are you doing on the land?

It's almost hard to find the right words to describe what type of politician would be so cruel to say this to farmers who are doing their best in extremely challenging circumstances but maybe it's best not to use the possible language that comes to mind in the chamber.

Now we get to the amendment that lacks coherent policy rationale and has left many farmers confused as to what they can expect over the coming 12 months and beyond. I want to touch on the relief payment, which is schedule 3. For those farm household allowance recipients who have been payable for 1,460 days of payment by 30 June 2020 inclusive, the bill provides for a one-off lump sum payment of $7,500 for a single recipient or $6,500 for a recipient who is a member of a couple, meaning couples receive $13,000. Additionally, schedule 3 provides the minister with a power to determine who may qualify for and the amount of future relief payments, meaning the government has left room to provide further lump sum payments to drought-affected farmers.

So what does this amendment actually mean for farmers in a practical sense? We know there are currently over 600 farmers who have been cut off the FHA and, for the past five months, have been expected to survive with no financial assistance from the Morrison government. Farmers and their partners will only receive the lump sum payment once this bill passes and then Centrelink process the payments. This could take another couple of weeks. Keep in mind that these farmers, who have not received any payments for almost six months, will receive a lump sum and then nothing again, except if the agriculture minister or ministers decide that maybe these farmers need assistance in the future.

How long will these farmers and their partners have to wait? Nobody knows. Under what circumstances will another lump sum be put on the table? Once again, nobody knows. This is a cruel policy decision by the Morrison government, supported, unfortunately, by the Nationals—that once strong, representative country party who no longer are. Farmers and their families need certainty. The Prime Minister; the Minister for Agriculture, Senator McKenzie; the Deputy Prime Minister; and the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management need to be honest with those who are on farm household allowance. Will they continue to be supported, or should they take the advice of Senator McKenzie in her media release of 17 October? Senator McKenzie said:

A one-off drought relief payment of up to $13,000 for a farming family, and up to $7,500 for an individual is designed to help people determine whether they will be sustainable, should look at succession options or, in some instances choose to sell.

I stress the intentional language that it was a one-off drought relief payment, but there has been a bit of backpedalling since that media release.

Of course, the minister's fellow senior minister Mr Littleproud, the minister for drought, appears to think that no farmers would be kicked off the government's drought assistance payment after they had exhausted the four-year time limit. It appears that both senior ministers are confused by their legislation, and Minister McKenzie must clarify what farmers who have already been cut off FHA can expect. The minister should also acknowledge that many farmers and their families currently are receiving no financial assistance to put food on the table and pay basic bills.

Labor will be supporting the legislation before the Senate so as not to delay relief payments, but it urges the Morrison government to do a better job of understanding how its policies are impacting drought-affected farmers across Australia. On that, as I said, we will be supporting the bill. We want to get it through asap.

I rise to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No.1) 2019. The Greens will be supporting this bill, but there are some important things that need to be said about it. In particular, we need to stress at the outset that this bill is only a small part of what is needed to support vibrant, sustainable, healthy rural communities into the future.

Let's unpack what we're talking about. The farm household allowance payment is for farming families experiencing financial hardship for a range of reasons, including drought. It's received over a period of up to four cumulative years, giving time for farmers to adjust and get themselves on a sound financial footing, and it's paid at the same rate as the Newstart allowance. We know from years of inquiry and campaigning that the rate of Newstart allowance is not nearly enough, and here I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert, who has campaigned tirelessly to make sure that the voices of people receiving income support are heard. The attacks of the government, in using robo-debt and refusing to take action on the clear evidence in front of them regarding the absolutely atrocious level of Newstart, are appalling.

In 2019, the report of the farm household allowance review panel recommended that the farm household allowance be decoupled from the income support system and that, instead, an approach centred on the needs of farmers be adopted. The Greens wholeheartedly agree that we need to continue supporting farmers experiencing financial hardship, but it would be remiss not to point out the government's odd and unexplained selectivity when it comes to income support. It's clear from this bill and from the government's new drought relief package that the government can understand that some Australians are doing it tough and need some extra support. The Greens agree. But why, I ask, is the government being selectively blind to so many other Australians needing help, including thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Australians living in rural and regional Australia who are suffering on Newstart?

It's clear that almost 715,000 Australians are struggling to survive on Newstart, on under $40 a day, and yet the government is silent about these Australians who are doing it tough. Everyone in this chamber understands that farmers are doing it tough and that they need support to weather times of drought or financial stress, but so are many, many more Australians. Why does the government give some people help and not others? Why is this government punishing some Australians while lifting others up? Why, according to the government, do some Australians deserve support and others do not? We have to stop treating income support payments like a political football.

This bill makes three changes to the farm household allowance. It introduces the expanded off-farm income offset with an upper limit that's now gone from $80,000 to $100,000; it allows people to access the farm household allowance four years in every 10, rather than four years in their lifetime; and it introduces a one-off lump sum payment for recipients who finish their full allotment of allowance by 1 July 2020 and allows the minister to make further one-off payments by regulation. They're all good things that the Greens support. But, returning to my theme that there is more to be done, I would like to take a moment to read from one particular submission to the committee inquiry on this bill. It is authored by Ms Michele Lawrence, Professor Robert Slonim and Ms Georgie Somerset, who were the reviewers appointed by government to review the farm household allowance. They support the specific measures in this bill but they highlight that there is more that has to be done. They say:

We do not believe that the proposed amendment addresses the systemic concerns underpinning the broader recommendations in our report.

Specifically, we urge the government through legislation to explicitly and forcefully recognise that farming households are small business owners, which is the fundamental and critically necessary step towards addressing farmers' and rural communities' longer term financial as well as personal and general wellbeing. Without this recognition, it is hard to imagine the current changes will be more than a temporary 'bandaid' solution and that long term viability prospects for smaller farm household businesses and rural communities will remain in severe jeopardy for the next drought, crop failure, price shock, flood, shift in international market conditions, technological change or any other recognised challenge for small farm household businesses' farm financial viability.

There you have it: the government's own reviewers have described the legislative response as a 'bandaid'. There is so much more to be done to support farmers, to address the drought and to act on climate change.

I'd like to note here that certain members of this chamber and the other place have been accusing the Greens of hating farmers and hating regional Australia. This is obviously a flat out lie. I want to make crystal clear that, when good legislation that supports the needs of our farming communities comes through this parliament, we absolutely support it. As I said, we will be supporting this bill, despite the fact that it doesn't go far enough. What we won't support is a government committed to ignoring what will worsen the drought and continue to make life harder for farmers across Australia—and that, of course, is our climate crisis, which is so real and so pertinent to us today. We won't support a government that turns a blind eye to the climate crisis that is supercharging the bushfires that we are seeing today in New South Wales—a government that ignores the repeated warnings of scientists, experts and firefighters that say that, if we don't quit coal and if we don't cut pollution, we are going to witness more unprecedented and catastrophic fires. We will not support a government that's had every opportunity to minimise the risk of these catastrophic fires but instead has done everything in its power to make bushfires more likely to happen, by governing over record levels of pollution, by being in the bottom three of the G20 for cutting and reducing pollution and for just passing legislation that's going to prolong the life of polluting coal-fired power stations. We will not support the legislation of governments that are doing these things. We will not support a government that is denying the climate crisis that we're in and, in doing so, is not protecting the people of Australia. And we will not support a government that uses moments of national devastation to take cheap shots, calling everyone who is concerned about our climate crisis and earlier fire seasons 'inner-city raving lunatics'.

People both in the cities and in rural and regional Australia are worried about their future. The amount of concern that has been expressed by the people who are suffering the impacts of these devastating fires we've been experiencing this week and who are saying to the government, 'Take action on our climate crisis,' makes that very clear. It is people both in the cities and in rural and regional Australia who are worried about their future. They are worried about the future of their children and their grandchildren.

The Greens make no apology for standing up to the government when they want to divide the community against one another. This should not be about politics. All of us in this chamber should be implementing policies that will best serve and protect everyone in Australia. While the Greens continue to be deeply concerned by a selective approach to income support—the fact that it's not providing support to everybody who needs it and that it is only a bandaid on what needs to be done—we will be supporting this bill today. Despite the consistent attacks by this government on the Greens for calling out that so much of the government's agenda—from the Future Drought Fund to the new drought relief package to this bill—is just treating the symptoms and not tackling the causes of so many of the struggles that farmers face, we'll be supporting this bill. It's absolutely critical that we provide timely relief to our farming communities, particularly those that are dealing with the devastating fires and our record-breaking drought. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019. Firstly, I want to address a couple of the issues that have been raised in the debate to date. Senator Sterle quite rightly pointed out that drought is not just about farmers and that we've got businesses and communities suffering right now. That is why, in our most recent drought announcement package, we also extended the no-interest—and then low-interest—loans to small agricultural businesses. It is the first time that recognition has been given to the fact that agricultural businesses fall foul of drought just as much as farmers do. Senator Sterle quite rightly pointed out that there are towns running out of water right now. He is right. There is nothing we can do immediately. Aside from offering funding to the states to help them put in pipes and bores, there's nothing we can do to change that. But there are communities that took proactive steps in advance of this drought. Orange in my home state is a case in point. They have actively put in measures to capture their stormwater, which is seeing them have water to get through the tough times. We need to encourage more communities to think outside the box, and this federal government is ready to stand with them and look at those solutions and get them underway. And that is what the Future Drought Fund is about.

We are the first ever government to look at long-term investment in drought resilience strategies, and we're willing to talk to any community and any state government to do so. For years we have been calling for a collaborative approach to building dams. And, yes, it is quite right for those on the other side of the chamber to point out that, while we've been talking about drought, we haven't built any dams, but we haven't built any because, to date, we haven't had a state willing to join with us on the path and get those dams built. We do now; we have New South Wales stepping up. They're prepared to come with us and build Dungowan Dam and upgrade Wyangala Dam, and get results. We have projects and proposals in place and ready to go in Queensland and we've got other drought funding projects ready to go in South Australia. We are very proud to be a government that is looking at the future, but this bill is not about the future; this bill is about the here and now.

We have a world-class agricultural industry and our government is working hard with the NFF and others to achieve the golden aim of a $100 billion agricultural industry by the year 2030, and we need our farmers to achieve that ambition, but right now our farmers are experiencing challenging times. In my home state of New South Wales, farmers in the north are facing the worst drought in living memory, and in my home region we are knocking on the door of the millennium drought. Supporting our farmers as well as rural and regional communities that depend on the agricultural industry remains our government's most urgent priority. The cyclical and unpredictable nature of farming in Australia means our farmers and primary producers face a range of unique challenges, and that's why we're moving this amendment today to help those in the industry who are facing financial hardship.

Since its introduction, in 2014 the farm household allowance provided over $365 million in fortnightly payments to more than 12,800 farmers and their partners. Senator Sterle noted that some have reached their time cap—that is, they've been on farm household allowance for four years and reached the end of their time cap—but what he didn't mention is that 5,445 of the farmers who were receiving farm household allowance were able to leave the program before their four-year time cap. That is because we have funded rural financial counsellors. We put people around the kitchen table with farmers to look at their business models and their forward planning and help them become self-sufficient again, and that's what our farmers tell us they want. However, the program gives income support to eligible farmers and their families to pay for basic household necessities while they make important decisions about their future. It also provides thousands of dollars to help with financial assessment and financial counselling.

As Senator Rice rightly said, these latest changes follow a review undertaken by an independent panel, led by Michele Lawrence, which also had extensive consultation. While I agree with Michele Lawrence that farms are small businesses, now is not the time to turn around and tell those small businesses that we're not going to support them in the midst of drought. After this drought finally breaks, we will be prepared to carefully look at longer term strategies. However, at the moment we need to make sure those farmers are still there at the other end. We have looked at the panel's report to government and we've implemented the changes to ensure this program remains fit for purpose and continues to meet its objectives of providing income support and assisting structural change. That's why we have extended the time cap in this amendment. Instead of four years in a lifetime, it becomes four years in 10 years, because we acknowledge that farmers often encounter more than one period of hardship in their lifetime. An eligible farmer or their partner will now be able to access the payment for up to four cumulative years in each 10-year period.

The other important aspect to this bill is the change to the income test. Many farmers run diverse business operations out of necessity. This is a very smart move for farmers who are taking action to be more resilient, more self-sufficient and prepared for drought and other impacts on their farm business. However, we know that when conditions are tough even our good farmers can find they struggle to make ends meet. This bill allows for a fairer assessment for those facing hardship to have their eligibility for the household allowance tested with their income and losses. For the first time, we will link farm enterprises with their directly related businesses. Income and losses will be considered together. This is a more generous setting than previous and current practice. If there is a net loss it can be used to offset any other income, like wages, interest and dividends from shares or investments. The offset has been increased from a cap of $80,000 to $100,000 per couple, recognising the businesses of many of our farmers, and single people can use the whole cap for themselves.

For the first time, farmers generating income from agistment can have that income considered against either the farm enterprise loss or the loss of a related business. It will broaden the scope of those who can claim the farm household allowance, and the offset will no longer be restricted to claiming the interest payable on a farm loan. An intergenerational loan, the broadened offset is available to all farm household allowance recipients involved within the farm business. That means that if mum and dad, as well as their son and daughter-in-law, are on a farm household allowance, and the farm business has a loss of $200,000, then each couple can use their offset to share in that loss. So that $100,000 limit applies to the person or couple, not just to the farm business. It also applies to people who are not life partners but business partners.

Many farmers who are exiting the farm household allowance income support have done everything they can to respond to their circumstances and are still enduring financial hardship. In recognition of the enduring nature of this drought that seemingly will not cease, we know that at moments like these those farmers need a little extra help and support to keep food on the table and to keep their businesses running. That is why we have implemented a relief payment to help make ends meet. Recipients on a single rate of payment will receive $7,500 and recipients on a partnered rate of payment will receive $6,500, or $13,000 per couple. We will deliver this payment within six weeks to those who are eligible, and that is why it is so important that this bill be passed today—so that we can get that money to where it is needed.

Farmers are exposed to a lot of risks that they can't control. The farm household allowance is designed to help farmers assess their position and to look at succession, or decide to sell up or decide to continue in business and work with their rural financial counsellor. The farm household allowance enables those farmers to take stock and to make sure that their business is fit for what their lifestyle and life requirements are. The suite of measures contained in this bill will strengthen the farm household allowance program, to ensure it remains fit for purpose. The first step to making it easier for farmers is to access the support they need. The government will continue to stand alongside farmers—indeed, alongside all those living and working in rural and regional Australia—as they experience the worst drought in living memory as well as the extraordinary hardship it brings. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I am pleased to rise in support of the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019. Farming means a lot to our country, and farming means a lot to my home state of Queensland. And farming means a lot to me personally. I grew up on a family farm just outside Chinchilla on the Western Darling Downs, and I know firsthand both the importance of agriculture and the challenges and hardship that farming families face. The bush is always close to my heart, and I will take every opportunity in this chamber to stand up for our regions and for Aussie farmers who are doing it tough.

The Morrison government takes the plight of Australian farmers caught in the grip of drought, and now fires, very seriously. The government is on the front foot when it comes to assisting families and farming communities dealing with this awful drought. While this bill fits neatly into the government's three-point plan to fight the scourge of drought in this country by providing immediate support for farmers through the mechanism of the farm household allowance, these reforms are not just about drought. This bill will provide the first instalment of recommended changes to the Farm Household Support Act 2014 and the Farm Household Support Minister's Rule 2014 to extend the short-term safety net for farming families who sometimes must face more than one period of hardship in their lifetime.

It is disappointing to note that, despite significant hardship and natural disasters currently manifest in my home state of Queensland, the state Labor government and the ABC continue to vilify our farmers through punitive legislation and through unfair and vindictive coverage, respectively, and through a general disdain for their contribution and challenges. Whether they are playing politics with dams, shutting agricultural colleges or criminalising sensible land clearing for no other reason than to appease voters in the inner city, the Queensland Labor government has been at war with our farmers and rural communities from day one. It is pleasing to see that Deb Frecklington has committed to a new Bradfield scheme in recent days. Water, dams and irrigation are essential in Australia. This scheme will strengthen our regions and help farmers immensely.

The Queensland agricultural minister is based on the north side of Brisbane, and this tells you everything you need to know about how Labor feels about farmers. Agriculture is not an afterthought on this side of the chamber. Many Liberal-National members and senators live and raise their children in regional communities. Many of us grew up in small towns and on family farms. We care about these communities and we care about Aussie farmers.

Agriculture is one of Australia's biggest exports and one of our most important industries. Agriculture accounts for over 16 per cent of our exports. It is also important to note that, despite volatile markets and despite drought, fire and floods, agricultural production and agriculture exports have grown significantly over the last 20 years and will continue to grow under a Liberal-National government. Yet, despite the many positives, most people know—unless you have been living under a rock—that this cruel drought continues, and it's placing a huge strain on farming communities. Having recently travelled around remote and regional Queensland, it broke my heart to see how bad the situation is. It is especially tough when resilient farming communities must not only face a severe drought but also deal with a city-centric Labor state government which is largely deaf to their pleas for help. Families that have been on the land for generations are on their knees today, and it is impossible not to be moved by their plight or uplifted by their spirit. We have an obligation to help these honest, hardworking Australians, not ignore them or, worse still, disrespect them as nothing more than a lost cause.

Drought is a cruel but all too regular part of Australian rural life. There have been many severe droughts in our country since records began in the 1800s. All along the eastern seaboard, including parts of South and Western Australia, they are currently experiencing some of the lowest rainfall on record. The driest parts are the northern Murray-Darling Basin, especially in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. While this crisis may not be unique, it is significant and we don't know when it will end.

When responding to a challenging situation such as drought, one possible option would be to let nature take its course and let those who have not managed the short- and medium-term challenges to simply fail and leave the land. Let me be clear: this is not an option for the Morrison Liberal-National government. This government is determined to do all it can, and then some, to help keep farmers and graziers on their properties so, when the drought does break and favourable conditions return, those farms and businesses have a viable platform for rapid recovery and future profitability.

This bill seeks to further strengthen the farm household allowance, which has been available to Australian farmers experiencing hardship since 2014. Over 5½ years of operation, this scheme has paid more than $365 million to over 12,000 needy recipients. We must ensure this support is ongoing, to meet the daily needs of farming families while they struggle with hard times, including but by no means restricted to times of drought. While the original scheme only provided cumulative income support for up to a maximum of four years over a lifetime, this bill will expand the farm household allowance by making it payable to farmers for a cumulative four years out of every 10.

Recognising the current predicament of our farmers and ensuring that we're responsible in how we manage the scheme, the 10-year period for this bill will be backdated to July 2014. This will help ensure that multiple periods of hardship do not lead to the loss of primary producers and threaten the viability of communities in our regions. This bill was drafted in consultation with an independent expert panel, which included farmers and an economist, which ensured that we listened to industry and also got the balance right in terms of ensuring that taxpayer funds were targeted appropriately. While drought may be a primary cause of rural hardship, this government understands rural and regional Australia well enough to know that it is by no means the only cause. This is why the allowance will not be assessed based on the reason why farmers need short-term help but will provide the assurance that help is available.

Another important reform covered by this bill is a loosening of the eligibility criteria, meaning more of those who are in need can access the allowance. Presently, the scheme only allows for a maximum off-farm income offset of $80,000 for people to be eligible. Given how capital intensive agriculture can be at times, this is too low to be a realistic threshold when assessing hardship. The offset cap will now be increased to $100,000 per couple, and a single person may claim the entire cap themselves. New eligibility criteria will also mean that any farm business running at a loss can now offset that loss against all other income, including wages and off-farm investment proceeds. The measures in this bill will also allow losses from primary production to be offset against any agistment income.

This bill will also broaden the minister's discretion around payments to ensure that those in need who may fall short on some criteria are taken care of. The Morrison government understands that regional Australia is about more than just cold numbers. Farming communities are organic. They comprise people and families, and they sustain a way of life essential to the economic strength and social fabric of this nation. In times like these when so many farming families face abnormal hardship, this bill will provide for a further relief payment equivalent to six months of a farm household allowance payment for any farmer who has used up their four years of cumulative income support in the current 10-year period and still suffers financial hardship despite doing all they reasonably could to alleviate the situation. The Morrison government will ensure that our struggling farmers are looked after and not left behind.

Those opposite may question the payments in light of recent and welcome rain in some regions. However, agriculture is not like other businesses. Should a drought actually end in some places—which is a big call in light of past disappointment—after so many years of hardship, pastures will take time to regenerate, herds will take time to recover and profits will take time to be realised. Rain does not flow straight into farmers' bank accounts. These amendments are projected to cost the budget some $47 million over the forwards estimates. This is a small price to pay to provide effective emergency relief to farming families. Strong regional communities and a strong agricultural sector have been the backbone of Australia's success since before Australia was Australia, and we must continue to do all we can to ensure they remain so.

Everything that city based Australians have heard about agriculture over the years is true. Every Australian family needs Australian farmers and graziers. When our farmers do it tough, we all suffer. Along with shelter and water, food and fibre remain our most basic human needs. We must listen to and support our farmers, particularly when times are tough. In the harsh Australian environment, farmers have always faced great risk and financial hardship, often due to factors beyond their control. However, those risks shouldn't be allowed to completely overwhelm future prospects if we want farming communities and the industries they represent to survive. This bill provides a safety net to assist Australian farmers and their partners to better manage the hardship that may come from prolonged, unfavourable climatic, economic or environmental conditions.

I'm proud of the record of the Morrison government in supporting Australian farmers and I back the Prime Minister's drought plan, which includes the measures outlined in this bill to improve the financial situation for farmers and their families facing financial hardship. I commend the bill to the Senate.

I stand as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. This Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019 is intended to introduce improvements to the farm household allowance payments scheme. It may provide some mild improvement in terms of relief, but it shows no understanding of the plight of the Australian farmers facing one of the nation's worst droughts in remembered history.

Dairy farmers have been forced to walk off their farms or to sell them for next to nothing. Our sheep and cattle graziers have been selling their breeding stock and, in some instances, been forced to shoot their starving animals. Grain growers have been seeing crops fail season after season and the land is parched and dry, with little change in sight. And what does the government do? Well, next to nothing. Rivers flow past farmers desperate for water when money-hungry investors have bought up the water rights and yet have no interest in farming. Water mismanagement has occurred on what some would say is a criminal scale, denying needy farmers access to life-saving water. The government has no national water plan. The government has no national drought-proofing plan.

Where is the new infrastructure? The government has failed Australian farmers by providing no leadership in preserving and protecting the men and women of the land. Where is the real support? Where are the guarantees that farmers can continue to farm the land, where many have lived for generations, and provide the necessary food to feed the nation? Will we have to import our basic food products—milk, dairy products, flower, vegetables, fruit and meat? Seriously, we are proud producers and exporters of all these things in the good times.

I have recently travelled all over Queensland and down into the Murray-Darling Basin to listen to farmers across these regions. What I hear are stories of tragedy where the government is failing these people who are the backbone of our nation. I have seen people who are in debt, savaged by the banks—who have acted like vultures—and with no help in sight. Where is the infrastructure which should have been built 20 years ago? Where are the dams, the new power stations, the pipelines and the road linkages and upgrades that will make access easier for farmers to get their produce to market and allow our farmers to weather the drought? Why does the government dither in providing the emergency assistance to lift farmers out of their dire positions? The tragic side of this is the unacceptable number of farmers who have taken their own lives because of the desperation they feel in losing everything. Many farming families' lives remain shattered in the dust.

I must digress for a minute to discuss how government, under the Liberal-Labor duopoly—Liberal-Labor-Nationals following a Greens plan—has really hurt farmers. There was the stealing of property rights initiated under the John Howard government in 1996 with Rob Borbidge, the National Party Premier at the time in Queensland, and then two years later with the Labor Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie, and the Labor Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr. They were stealing property rights with no compensation. All we ask for—and, again, we will keep asking for it until it happens—is restoration of those farmers' property rights or compensation. Restoration or compensation!

We want energy. That comes back to the original competitive federalism structure, in which states are responsible for electricity prices. Now we see a mishmash that is acknowledged—indirectly, but certainly clearly—by the government's so-called 'big stick' bill. The government created the mess and now the farmers are paying for it. We have farmers in northern, Central and southern Queensland who are refusing to plant fodder because they can't afford to irrigate it. They won't plant fodder in a drought!

One of the forms of assistance offered by this bill, though, is a change in the time frames for when a person is able to access farm household allowance. The change—from four years access over a lifetime to four years in each specified 10-year period—offers no significant immediate benefit, as the time to receive these benefits remains limited to four years of payments only. This scheme is unrealistic, and, during a major catastrophic drought, is unworkable. It shows the lack of understanding of the plight of farmers depending on this small allowance to survive, by those who wrote this part of the bill.

Why set up a time frame at all? People living in the city who receive Newstart allowance do not have a similar time limit attached to receiving their allowance. If a time frame is warranted, would it not be better to consider a period ending some years after the drought has broken? When farmers have destocked during a drought, it takes several years to rebuild numbers in their herd to reach a viable herd size.

The bill establishes the possibility of a lump sum payment for recipients who have exhausted the maximum farm household allowance payments by 1 July 2020, and allows for the minister's rules to prescribe further lump sum payments as required. The minister is going to be very busy considering individual applications, unless the rain arrives! This still is not a long-term solution to assist farmers in the future.

The bill also expands the off-farm income offset, with an upper limit moving to $100,000, up from $80,000. This will benefit those who are able to access the second income stream, but not everyone can. The real issue here is the lack of government leadership—to provide real relief to our farmers who have been crippled by the drought, and to provide real prevention, starting now, to prevent the ravages of drought when we have our next drought. And we will—just as this drought will end and the next cycle will commence, we will have another drought. Let's hope that the infrastructure is in place. There needs to be an overall strategy to ensure that plans are in place to support farmers long before a disaster like this unfolds again, and especially to prevent it. It's a pity this was not done 20 years ago. But the strategy is still missing. What is needed is a coordinated governmental response that will ensure continuity of support for farmers when the weather turns against them. Farmers of course are resilient and know that the weather will be either favourable or not. They plan for that. But dealing with a lengthy drought strains the best of plans.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was in northern Victoria, listening to farmers on the banks of the Murray River. I listened to a construction worker who came up and said that farmers are just not spending this time, because, although they have confidence that the drought will end, they have no confidence that government interference and suppression will end. They don't know where the government is going. They have no clue about the future. So they are not willing to spend any money, and so businesses in town and construction workers are not being supported. We need confidence amongst farmers, and that comes from knowing that government won't interfere as it has been.

The government is obliged to support the farmers the best way it can. This bill does go at least some way to achieve this, but much more needs to be done. I call on the government to formulate an Australian drought-proofing plan, including national water management and realistic social and monetary support for those affected by natural disasters—a solid plan, based on solid data and facts, aimed at meeting people's needs and our nation's needs.

This bill, the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019, demonstrates this government's dedication to the needs of farming communities in rural and regional Australia. It is amongst a raft of support that this government has been and is committing to Australian farmers, families and communities. This bill amends the Farm Household Support Act and the Farm Household Support Minister's Rule to extend the FHA from four years of cumulative income support over a lifetime to four years of support in every 10 years. It's an important change. It will also increase the off-farm income offset. The settings for the offset are being relaxed, and the cap is being increased from $80,000 to $100,000. It will provide a relief payment up until 30 June 2020 for recipients who have exhausted or will exhaust their first four years of FHA.

As a veterinary surgeon, one of my former roles was to provide veterinary services to primary producers. These services included disease investigations, addressing production issues, reproductive improvement, animal welfare, farm biosecurity et cetera. All of these are designed to improve production and profit to the primary producer. The majority of this work does involve animal production enterprises, but often there are mixed enterprises also involving cropping and horticulture. In this role, I have seen many farmers affected by factors often totally beyond their control. We are well aware of the effect of natural disasters and cyclical weather events such as drought, floods and storms. There are also many other things that cause hardship and can lead to temporary loss of income. These can also include loss of market access and fluctuating prices.

I support Senator Roberts in his comment that farmers are being driven to suicide, and I have seen this firsthand for myself. But I disagree with the view that this government is not doing enough. The government is committed to supporting our farming communities to generate their own wealth and build strong, resilient livelihoods. We recognise that sometimes farmers encounter more than one period of hardship in their lifetime. This bill acknowledges this reality and provides an extended safety net. We have preserved the important principle that payments are time limited. We don't want to have farmers sitting on land that's unproductive forever. This provides tools for farmers and their partners to move the business to a more sustainable footing, or to sell or diversify, or to take other measures to make their farm profitable. An eligible farmer will now be able to access payment for up to four cumulative years in each 10-year period—so out of each 10 years there will be four years where they can access this payment.

An example of the importance of this is from my home in the Northern Territory. Mango production is the biggest horticultural enterprise there. Whilst it is a high-value crop, it is very sensitive to a range of environmental and market forces. It is an annual crop with a very short harvest season. Therefore, any extreme weather event occurring anywhere from flowering to picking can be devastating to the individual farm or to the region. Things such as early storms can knock off almost an entire crop. Fluctuations of hot and cold weather can prevent fruit from setting. The timing of the crop is also imperative. The NT has the first mangoes to market, thereby getting premium prices. If there is a weather event which leads to a late flowering, we then compete with Queensland producers, leading to poor prices for everyone. Extremely poor years are not that common, but, with the possibility of so many things that can go wrong that are totally outside of your control, it is almost certain that you're going to have more than four in your lifetime. This bill gives that little bit of certainty and security that, when you do, at least there'll be a safety net there.

Many farmers out of necessity, as we know, run diverse business operations, and it's a good thing to be more resilient and prepare for things such as drought, floods and other impacts on the farm businesses. We know that, when conditions are tough, even our very best farmers can find that they're struggling to make ends meet. This bill allows for a fairer assessment of those facing hardship to have their eligibility for FHA tested with their income and losses. For the first time, we're linking farm enterprises with their directly related businesses, and income and losses can be considered together. As I've stated, this offset has been increased from a cap of $80,000 to $100,000 per couple. Single people can use the whole cap themselves. For the first time, farmers generating income from activities like agistment, which is common in the Northern Territory, can have that income from the agistment considered against either the farm enterprise loss or the loss of another related business. This will greatly broaden the scope of people who'll be able to claim the FHA.

The offset will no longer be restricted to just claiming the interest payable on a farm loan. In the Northern Territory we often have intergenerational farms with two or even three generations involved in the farming business. If those generations suffer a loss, each couple can claim a share of that loss. It also applies to people who are not life partners but are business partners—important to us in the Northern Territory.

One of the things that we struggle with, certainly at the moment, is that many people, particularly down south, don't think of the Northern Territory as having droughts—after all, we get a wet season every year. Even many Territorians don't think of us as having droughts, but we do. Earlier this year half a million head of cattle were destocked off the Barkly region. Many of our most productive Barkly Tableland properties are just dust. Sure, some of those are owned by large companies and are not subject to these allowances and concessions, but many still are family-run businesses. I was on a station out of Alice Springs just last week where I spoke to a fourth-generation owner who's doing it pretty tough at the moment. They, like many, have off-farm income and related farm businesses operational to survive. Being able to offset this by an increased amount will mean a lot to them.

The issue has been raised in the press recently that farmers are coming off FHA and are essentially being thrown to the wolves by the government. This is certainly not the case. Many of them who are exiting their four years of FHA have done everything that they can to respond to the circumstances and are still going to be in financial hardship. At the same time, as we know, we're facing a very dry summer, horrendous bushfires and just devastating conditions in many jurisdictions. At moments like these our farmers need a little bit of extra help and support just to survive on a day-to-day basis, so farmers and their partners that have come to the end of their four years of FHA this year will receive a relief payment to help make ends meet—single people $7½ thousand and partners $6½ thousand, so a total of $13,000 between them. This will give them about six months of extra income support. The payment will be delivered in the next six weeks to those already eligible, and those who are still on FHA but will exhaust their entitlement on or before 30 June will be paid as they exit the program.

It is vitally important that we, as a government and a nation, provide support to our producers in times of need and hardship, and I commend this bill to the Senate.

I thank senators for their contributions to this debate on the very important Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019. We know farming is a long game. Support in times of hardship is part of what is needed to help farmers and their communities through these difficult times. There are times like now when widespread drought conditions impact on primary production and the livelihoods of our farmers and their families. That's why the farm household allowance was originally created with strong bipartisan support to make sure farmers doing it tough have the support they need. Since the introduction of FHA in 2014 over $365 million in fortnightly payments have been made to almost 12,700 farmers and their partners.

The changes contained within this bill not only allow eligible farmers to receive the payment every four years out of 10 and allow farm business losses of up to $200,000 to be deducted from other income, including agistment; it also allows the minister to create a rule to make drought relief payments, with the first in eligible pockets before Christmas. Let me be clear: the farm household allowance is not a drought measure; however, we fully acknowledge that many of the proud farmers who access farm household allowance do so because of drought. This bill will improve the financial situation of farmers and their families who are facing real financial hardship. It is the first step by the Australian government to implement the recommendations made in the independent review, Rebuilding the FHA: a better way forward for supporting farmers in financial hardship. Support for farmers and their families in drought-affected communities remains the government's most urgent priority. I commend this bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

(Quorum formed)

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, nine 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 Hanson-Young:

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

The bushfire emergency and the climate emergency.

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.

New South Wales is burning. In my home state, almost one million hectares have been razed by bushfires since the start of this year's unprecedented bushfire season. Lives have been lost. Over 150 homes, as at the last count, have been burnt to the ground. First and foremost, my thoughts and heart are with those families and communities and with our courageous firefighters, volunteers and emergency services. They must have the resources they need to do their jobs—not budget cuts, as the New South Wales Liberal-National government has done over years. New South Wales is in a state of emergency, and summer hasn't even started. The Greater Sydney and Greater Hunter areas are experiencing catastrophic conditions for the first time on record. I hope everyone is safe from the fires today.

My state is burning, Queensland is burning, and yet all we have from this government are platitudes. The experts have told us for decades that our inaction on the climate crisis will mean more frequent and more intense disasters. There is no mistaking the fact that the climate crisis is making bushfires more dangerous every year. But there is shameful silence from the government on the link between tragic bushfires and the climate emergency. Instead of a solid plan to confront this crisis, they are offering thoughts and prayers. You all have to grapple with this reality, but you refuse to. The truth might be a bitter pill for you to swallow, since you've been denying it for so long, but now is the time to change. Now is the time to stop running a protection racket for the coal lobby.

We have to act like the house is on fire, because it literally is. This is the time to talk about the climate crisis that we face. If not now, then when? Yes, the community is looking for all the support and protection, and we must be very generous in providing that here and now. But they're also looking for leadership to take real action on the climate crisis. That's what politicians are elected to do. So, yes, this is political. Your refusal to act is political too. New South Wales Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons has said it is unprecedented for New South Wales to have so many fires burning at the 'emergency alert' level, pointing out that it is a sobering reminder of what's around the corner.

Hundreds gathered outside New South Wales parliament this morning with survivors of these bushfires who came to Sydney to tell politicians what it's been like. Jacqui Mumford from Rainbow Flat, whose family home was severely damaged by fires, said she hadn't seen such conditions in her 30 years. Jacqui said: 'It's not too soon to talk about climate change. It's too late.' Carol Sparks is the Mayor of Glen Innes Severn Council and lost two members of her community in the fires last weekend. She wrote powerfully yesterday about the need to speak the truth of climate change's role in the fires. Her words are haunting. She says, 'Ignorance and arrogance have delivered us only ashes.' Mr Greg Mullins is a firefighting veteran and a former head of Fire and Rescue New South Wales. On ABC's 7.30 last week, Mr Mullins said: 'People are at risk. We need a game changer in how we deal with these catastrophes, because they're going to get worse and worse.' Mr Mullins leads a delegation of former fire chiefs and experts. The Prime Minister keeps dodging meeting with them.

Mr Mullins wondered what it would take to wake up the people in Canberra, and some days I wonder the same thing. What will it take? How many more disasters must we go through before you stop serving the interests of coal barons and start listening to the people you are meant to represent? Communities have been devastated by bushfires across New South Wales. Hundreds of koalas are feared dead, their habitat ravaged by these bushfires. Almost 600 schools and TAFEs have been closed across New South Wales. This isn't normal. The climate crisis is in our homes, and all the Liberals can offer is platitudes. What a profound failure of your duty to the community. In the words of Greta Thunberg, how dare you?

True leadership does not seek to conflate the issue of climate change and the fire emergency that our country is currently experiencing. Well may the former speaker, the Greens senator, indicate to us that somebody said that in their 30 years, they had never seen such fires. I remind the honourable senator and the person who spoke those words that, in fact, Australia has been around for a lot longer than 30 years. Indeed, let's have a look at the history of fire and the history of drought within our country.

The Federation drought that lasted some eight years saw the great Murray River reduced to a chain of puddles. There were no irrigation schemes then, no big factories taking out the water and no suburbs taking out the water, yet it was reduced to a chain of puddles. Those of us who actually have bothered to study the history of our great country and its history with fire would be aware that, in 1851, there was a huge fire that crossed the landscape, causing huge devastation. There was the Black Saturday fire in Victoria in 2009, when 173 people were killed and 4,500 square kilometres were devastated. There were the Ash Wednesday fires in Victoria and South Australia in 1983, which burnt 5,200 square kilometres, destroying some 2½ thousand homes and killing 75 people. In my home state of Tasmania, there were the Black Tuesday fires of 1967, with over 60 people killed and 1,400 homes destroyed. And the 1939 Black Friday fire in Victoria burnt 20,000 square kilometres, destroyed more than 700 homes and resulted in 71 fatalities. Australian history is, sadly, a history of fire and the devastation that it causes. Indeed, the royal commission into the Victorian bushfires of 1939 indicated basically a 20-year period of dryness prior to those devastating fires.

The minimisation of fire and the fire risk is a matter of concern to anybody who loves our country but, in response to the suggestion that somehow our coalmines are causing the fires, as the previous speaker indicated, I invite the Greens to explain to us the fires that I've just listed. Were they caused by Australian coalmines? I don't think so. When the white man settled Tasmania, they discovered that southern Tasmania had been badly burnt. The landscape had been devastated by fire. Was that courtesy of Senator Faruqi's coalmines? I hardly think so. At this time when men and women are perishing, when houses and livestock are being destroyed, I invite people to have a sense of civility and decency in relation to these issues. Let's let our hearts go out to those who are experiencing this devastation and this loss. Let's let our thoughts and prayers go out to them and to those who are fighting the fires, who are on the front line, who are doing battle, and who are risking their own lives in the service of our fellow Australians.

The Greens do themselves an injustice by bringing up a topic such as this today and seeking to conflate two issues, knowing full well that they are trying to get a very cheap, opportunistic headline in circumstances that do them and their party no credit whatsoever. On this side of the chamber today, our hearts, thoughts and prayers all go out to those devastated by the fires. (Time expired)

) ( ): As I speak, large areas of New South Wales are burning and many more regions are under threat. People across our state face an anxious night as they wait to see whether the fires will touch their lives. Too many already know the answer. They've lost businesses, they've lost homes and, in a few tragic cases, they've lost their loved ones. My thoughts are with those communities and with the firefighters and the volunteers who stand with them. Some of the worst fires are burning in northern New South Wales and up and down the North Coast, and they're threatening places like Baryulgil, Macksville and Terania Creek. I know these areas well. I grew up on the Tweed, and I know that the towns and the communities in that region are strong, resilient and full of people who look out for and care for their neighbours. I know that they will get through this. Labor stands with them and is ready to support them in any way it can in this crisis.

Over the past few days we've had experts come out and confirm what common sense tells us is true: that the scale and intensity of these fires is unprecedented, that it's rare for Australia to be facing a risk of this magnitude at this time of year and that the fire season seems to be getting longer and longer. For some time now, climate scientists have been warning of longer and more intense fire seasons, and the science behind those warnings has only become more certain over the years. It is difficult to link any specific and particular event to climate change. However, it is increasingly clear that climate change lies behind many of the factors that make fires more common and more dangerous to more Australians. The trend is clear, and we need a plan to address the risks posed by a changing climate, because we all have a stake in a safe climate. But right now people across the country are in harm's way, and now is the time to focus on the current crisis. Now is the time to stand with those who are battling fires or who are protecting their properties and still at risk. Now is the time to support those who are grieving.

As I mentioned earlier, I know many of the communities affected by the fires. They are places with real community spirit, and the threat and tragedy of these fires will have brought people together. That is why it is disappointing that parliamentarians at the extremes of our debate on both sides saw today as an opportunity to make political points and drive people apart. Their contributions were not reflective of the mood in this place. I know that the thoughts of my colleagues are with those in harm's way—and that's colleagues right across the chamber. We are united by a commitment to do whatever we can to help. Stay safe and take care of one another.

My deepest thoughts and prayers are with the people and families affected by the bushfire emergency. I am ashamed that some people in this place and activist groups out there are seeking to politicise this tragedy, making it a climate change debate while the fires still burn. More than 30 people are injured, including 20 firefighters, and three people have tragically lost their lives. People have lost their homes and people are still being threatened, including our brave firefighters and emergency services. Let me be clear: at a time when all of our focus and efforts should be on delivering immediate assistance, this isn't appropriate. People at risk don't need to hear politicians seeking to play some sort of blame game. There will be a time and a place for this discussion, but it just isn't now. It is incredibly irresponsible to be detracting from the help and assistance that we are providing now, and it's important our people remain aware of the situation and are informed about what support is available to them right now.

In my home state of Queensland, lives and properties are under threat and the fire situation remains fluid. At this time, 12 homes in Queensland have been confirmed destroyed. A state of fire emergency has been declared across 42 local government areas due to the tinderbox conditions. DRFA assistance is now available in the local government areas of Livingstone and Noosa. A range of assistance is available, including support for people suffering personal hardship to help with their immediate emergency needs, help for eligible people whose homes or belongings have been damaged, and funding to cover counter-disaster operation costs, including firefighting activities. I urge anyone in need of assistance to contact the Queensland government community recovery hotline on 1800173349. This non-means-tested Australian government disaster recovery payment will become available tomorrow. The payment is up to $1,000 per adult and $400 per child. Also available from tomorrow is the disaster recovery allowance, which helps affected people by providing up to 13 weeks of Newstart or youth allowance payments. I encourage people who have lost their homes or loved ones or suffered damage or injury and those who have lost income to contact their local Department of Human Services offices. If you need help with this, please contact my office.

To echo the Deputy Prime Minister, at the worst of times you see the best of Australians. More than 1,300 emergency services personnel are currently fighting these fires. Our emergency services are doing a phenomenal job, backed by service groups and community members working to ensure that our emergency services personnel have the food and other resources they need. From the bottom of my heart, I thank them all for their bravery and their compassion. We are set to face more challenging times ahead, including tomorrow, and I urge those living near affected areas to listen to emergency personnel and to follow their directions. They do know best. If you're asked to leave your house or property, please do this as soon as possible. Follow their instructions and please protect your and your loved ones' lives.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I remind everyone that, on 1 June 2017, during Senate estimates, Australia's Chief Scientist stated that, if Australia stopped all production of human carbon dioxide, it would make virtually no change to the global temperature. Could the Greens please explain how reducing Australia's human carbon dioxide production could contribute to increasing the number, frequency or intensity of bushfires in Australia?

Trying to politicise a natural disaster is a despicable manoeuvre, even for the Greens, especially a disaster that is commonplace and has many precedents during human history. This political opportunism comes at the expense of the many who are grieving and others who are still in the line of fire. Fires are still burning out of control, lives have been lost, properties have been destroyed and brave firefighters are still putting their lives on the line. Senator Hanson-Young's motion uses this place and time to virtue signal for cheap political pointscoring—shameful.

I want to make a short contribution in this matter of public importance debate. I speak as a both a senator for Queensland, which is experiencing bushfires again right now, and also as Labor's shadow minister for natural disaster and emergency management. As other speakers have made clear, we do continue to face a terrifying situation in much of Australia at the moment. My own home state of Queensland is again facing bushfires from Central Queensland through to the southern border. And, of course, there are parts of New South Wales which face, arguably, an even greater threat, with more minor—for the moment—but still serious bushfires happening in other parts of the country.

I have been in regular contact with the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, Minister Littleproud, and his office, and I appreciate the briefings that they have provided to the opposition through me. I have also been in contact with state government representatives and councils to make sure that the federal opposition is fully informed about what the situation is and what communities need. Yesterday I participated in a briefing with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, conducted by officials from Emergency Management Australia—and, again, we appreciate the government's willingness to provide those kinds of briefings to the opposition.

We've been very clear at all times that the opposition are going to be taking a bipartisan approach to the management of these bushfires. This is a serious national threat that we face and, in those circumstances, we think that the responsible position is to take a bipartisan approach. We've made it clear on a number of occasions, and I know the Labor leader, Mr Albanese, has made this clear to the Prime Minister as well, that Labor stand ready to support the government in its efforts to fight these bushfires and ensure that Australians are kept safe. Unfortunately, we have already seen the tragic loss of life of three Australians at this stage. We desperately hope that that number will not increase in coming days. Of course, there has been a lot of property damage across large parts of Australia as well. As I've repeatedly made it clear, and many others in this chamber have as well, our thoughts are absolutely with the communities that are threatened and affected by these bushfires. We hope that there is no further loss of life or loss of property, and we wish all residents in those areas the absolute best over the coming days.

I also want to put on record the opposition's gratitude, again, to emergency services personnel and volunteer firefighters. The bravery that is shown by these people is absolutely extraordinary. I think, as do any of us who have seen the footage of firefighters driving through flames—literally through flames—that it is just astonishing to see the lengths that Australians are prepared to go to look after each other. Sometimes these situations do bring out the best in us. Again, I want to give a massive pat on the back to those people who are putting their own lives in danger to protect their fellow Australians.

In closing, I do want to reinforce a point that the opposition has made in the last couple of days, particularly through Senator Wong. Obviously, when we face events of this kind on this scale and frequency, and the earliness of these bushfires, they raise serious questions for this parliament about the impact that climate change is having on our environment and our communities. We are up for a debate about that. But, right now, we think that the primary task facing everyone in this chamber and everyone across Australia is fighting these bushfires and keeping people safe. It has been very disappointing in recent days to see members of parliament from a number of different parties take the opportunity to point-score and advance their political agendas—in some cases, in pretty despicable ways—rather than keep everyone focused on staying alive and looking after each other. We are absolutely up for that debate; our position on climate change is very clear. But the primary mission at hand is making sure that Australians don't die and don't lose their property. Let's hope that things settle down with these bushfires and that we don't see any further loss of life in the coming days.

Large swathes of New South Wales and Queensland are burning as we are having this debate. People have died, communities have been devastated and ecosystems have been destroyed. The thoughts of the Greens and, I know, the thoughts of everyone in this place go out to those affected and to those who are so bravely responding to these fires. Yet our Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge the link between these fires and climate change—the direct link that climate scientists have been warning about for many decades. And, because of the science, we know that these very fires are more devastating than they otherwise would have been, and we also know that we are going to face fires like this more often than we otherwise would have faced them.

Those of us who stand up in this place to make those points, to speak about the climate science—to point out the direct link between the way we have polluted our atmosphere with carbon and carbon-equivalent gases, and the frequency and increased ferocity of fires like these—get shouted down. We get shouted down, firstly, as we've just heard in this debate, with this: 'Oh, it's too soon. Thoughts and prayers and moral support are enough for now. This is not the time to be talking about climate.' Well, you know what? It's not too soon; it's too late. And now is absolutely an appropriate time to be talking about the link between climate change and fires. To extend the argument out that Senator Watt has made and others have made in this place, it is like saying you can't talk about how to fix the health system while there are sick people in hospitals. It is a logical absurdity to say we shouldn't talk about climate change while these fires are burning. Now is the time and there is never a better time to talk about climate.

We're also shouted down and told not to politicise the fires. Let me assure you: climate politics is alive and well as we stand here today. The coal and oil corporations that bought policy outcomes from people like Senator Canavan, his mates over on the LNP side and those who sit on the ALP benches have not stopped their political efforts. We've got Premier Berejiklian's government as we speak trying to move legislation to make it easier for coal companies to pollute our environment. In this place today, the LNP and the ALP have colluded to ram through pro-coal legislation in this Senate while Australia is burning. Labor MP Mr Fitzgibbon and Liberal MP Craig Kelly earlier today sent out an invitation for Christmas drinks at Parliament House that are sponsored by who? Yes, right, the fossil fuel sector in this place. Let me abundantly clear: you cannot adequately respond to a climate emergency while you are aiding and abetting the fossil fuel sector and the native forest logging sector in this country. It is a logical absurdity to suggest that you can.

Just last week, our Prime Minister stood up at a lunch of the coalmining industry and gleefully threatened more punishments against those of us who are trying to improve our environment by boycotting the coal sector. I've got a question for our Prime Minister: When he goes to front the people in New South Wales and Queensland, is he going to take his much loved lump of coal with him? Is he going to wave that lump of coal around and try and convince them that they have got nothing to fear? Is he going to do that? I think not. I think he won't front up and admit that his fossil fuel donors will not allow him to adequately respond to the climate emergency, as 23 former fire chiefs and emergency services leaders have asked him to do. (Time expired)

Let me make it clear: a state of emergency has been declared within New South Wales and parts of Queensland. Across New South Wales, we have our communities and people facing conditions like never before. And my colleagues Pat Conaghan from Cowper, around Coffs Harbour; David Gillespie at Lyne around Taree and Wauchope; Kevin Hogan from Page, who covers Lismore and Grafton; and Barnaby Joyce in New England are all up there with their communities standing shoulder to shoulder facing this fire front.

I am dismayed that, as these communities are facing this catastrophe and landholders and residents across in my home state of New South Wales are facing what is undoubtedly one of the toughest weeks in living memory, South Australia's Senator Hanson-Young and her party, the Greens, are seeking to politicise this crisis, as we have just heard from Senator McKim. I put to the Greens: how many bushfires would have been avoided if we had closed all our coal-fired power stations? Because I submit: none. And what would the difference between closing those coal-fired power stations have made to the fuel load that is building up on the floors of our national parks because we're not addressing issues such as reduction burning appropriately, we're not building the fire breaks that we used to have and we're not addressing the practical preventative measures that are required? Furthermore, today, to hear, via Sky News, that GetUp! have used this opportunity to fundraise not to help the victims but for their next election campaign against the coalition is despicable.

Right here, right now it is about the communities. I commend the fire and emergency services personnel for their efforts, as well as the many volunteers who have assisted in fighting these fires and the employers who have released their employees to volunteer in these dangerous conditions. And I thank the residents and landholders of the bushfire affected communities for their ongoing cooperation with authorities.

I also want to acknowledge the outstanding leadership of Premier Gladys Berejiklian and Deputy Premier John Barilaro in responding to the bushfires. The New South Wales government is ensuring that every resource possible is dedicated to saving life and property. Premier Berejiklian has made it clear that those communities that have already experienced the horrors of the fires over the past few days will receive the support of the New South Wales government today, tomorrow and in the weeks, months and years ahead. The coalition government is ready to stand with them to help.

In closing, I remind all residents of New South Wales that it is absolutely critical that they stay up to date on the latest bushfire information. I implore you: stay alert, stay informed, stay safe. Check on your neighbours. Look after one another. This isn't about politics; this is about people. And people matter.

I rise to raise my concerns and express my sincere thanks to all the brave Australians from across the country who have put their lives on the line, and will continue to put their lives on the line, to save other people's lives and property during the devastating bushfires across the land. Tragically, three people have lost their lives and dozens more have been injured, including firefighters. The Rural Fire Service estimates that 150 structures have been lost, including a large number of homes. Evacuation centres have been established, and people are doing everything in their power with the resources they have to care for those most in need, offering food and drink, offering support and offering an encouraging voice.

As I speak this evening there are 3,000 firefighters and volunteers in New South Wales battling some of the most intense winds and heat our country has ever seen. So much of our country is on catastrophic fire alert, with winds reaching up to 90 kilometres per hour in high-altitude areas. There are over 70 fires across the country at the moment, with no end in sight. Australia is a country of extreme weather, and we are seeing the bushfire season start early this year. If you talk to people on the ground you'll hear that these fires are particularly intense for this time of the year. These are difficult days for many communities and individuals.

No matter our political affiliation, we in this place are all proud of the professionalism, bravery and dedication of our emergency service workers and volunteers. They are inspiring all of us, and their dedication and passion for saving other people's lives has not gone unnoticed. I would like to acknowledge the Tasmanian Fire Service crews in Tasmania and those who have flown across the country to stand side by side with their counterparts to fight these fires. Twenty-seven people from Tasmania, mostly volunteers, have flown to New South Wales to render assistance where they are most needed. Last Friday the team from Tasmania was assigned to try to save properties and protect the township of Wytaliba from the blaze near Glen Innes on Friday night. Three Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service firefighters worked to save Ms Vivian Chaplain after she was trapped while defending her home. They performed CPR and treated her burns before evacuating her across a river, but she later died. I note that this is the second rotation of Tasmanian firefighters to be sent to New South Wales, with 25 travelling interstate last week. In the coming months, as the weather heats up in my home state of Tasmania, I hope that the fire risk in Tasmania remains low and any fires can be mitigated.

One thing is for sure: Australians always have each other's back when there is a natural disaster. We come together and face these challenges together, and we are stronger for it. We will always be there for one another, but we cannot underestimate the danger. All those in high-risk areas must take the advice of emergency services. I again put on record our thanks for their commitment and dedication. Very many of these individuals lose their own property, and that should never be forgotten, but, as always, Australians stand shoulder to shoulder. We stand together.

I rise tonight to speak and offer my condolences to the family of Bob Geoghegan, who died on 21 October. Bob was a very well-known member of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party and had been an extraordinary contributor to Maitland and the Hunter region. People like Bob Geoghegan—like so many inside the membership wing of the Liberal Party—are what make the party great, because Bob could have done so many different things with his life. He was a mechanical engineer, and he worked on the Snowy Mountains Scheme. He spent so many months and years supporting the Liberal Party in different causes when he could have, frankly, spent that time doing other things. He was a very heavily engaged citizen in the area of Maitland, so much so that at last week's state council meeting the state president, Philip Ruddock, made special mention of Bob's passing. I could sense from the room, where the whole of the state was represented, that Bob had really made his mark and was well known across the state. Bob Geoghegan got involved in the party over 20 years ago, when he first worked with Bob Baldwin—another Bob from that part of the world. During the 20 years that he was involved in Maitland council, he also became deputy mayor.

My own interaction with Bob started in 2016, when I was first running for Senate preselection. Bob and his wife, Robyn, welcomed me and my family to his home at Maitland. I had an about-six-month-old baby at that stage. Bob was a very generous man with his time. I never knew whether or not Bob voted for me; I did not really care, because I did not win that preselection. In the interceding period, he kept in touch with me and I kept in touch with them. When I went through and reviewed my correspondence with Bob after he passed, I found all the different messages over the years where he would send me policy ideas about how we could frame one of our policies or what Labor was doing in the Hunter area. He was such an engaged citizen.

During the 2019 election, I think he had already been diagnosed with cancer but he was still very engaged and very supportive of our candidate in Paterson, Sachin Joshi, who got a very large swing to the Liberal Party. Bob would get in touch with me; he would call me and ask me about facts and stats, and then he would write articles to the local papers. That was Bob right until the end: highly engaged, highly interested and also highly supportive of people like Sachin—first-time candidates. Being a candidate for the first time can sometimes be tough, but he was very supportive and a very pastoral man.

I also want to say that Bob, of course, was a great family man. I did not know his family well, but I have met Robyn a number of times. I know that he leaves behind a very proud family of three daughters and six grandchildren. I am sure that they would be extremely proud of his enormous civic achievements: to have supported so many other people in public life; to have had his own successful career in public life; and to have been a great contributor to the community. At his funeral last week, I know that the Maitland Town Hall was absolutely bursting. My condolences to the Geoghegan family. Vale Bob Geoghegan.

I rise tonight to speak on the number of people receiving Newstart who have a partial capacity to work. When people have been assessed as having a partial capacity to work, it means that they have a disability or impairment that stops them from working more than 30 hours a week. If you have a partial capacity to work, that also means that you are not considered to be sick or disabled enough to get the disability support pension.

Senate estimates the week before last revealed that the government has been underestimating—and, therefore, underreporting—the number of people with a partial capacity to work. We have seen the number of sick or disabled people on Newstart skyrocket over the past few years. This number has jumped from 180,000 people in 2014 to nearly 300,000 people in 2019. It had been underreported by nearly 100,000, until we got those figures just a couple of weeks ago. So nearly half of the people on Newstart have been classified as having a partial capacity to work. The government cannot ignore the fact that this is what's happening right now.

We also recently asked the minister for social services about the types of impairments and disabilities that people with a partial capacity to work have. In response, we discovered that people with a partial capacity to work have a range of medical conditions, including acquired brain impairment, cancer, chronic pain, intellectual or learning disabilities, nervous system issues, psychological or psychiatric issues and respiratory system issues. Many people are not able to work or to meet the mutual obligations because they have such chronic illness or disability that they should really be receiving the disability support pension, or, as we call it, the DSP.

This is the product of years of tightening the eligibility criteria for the DSP, and the impairment tables, which are focused on keeping people off the DSP and focused more on a person's ability to work rather than whether they have been diagnosed with a disabling condition. We understand that there are some people who might now have been assessed as having close to zero or zero hours capacity a week to work. Surely, if you can't work or you have very low capacity to work, you should be on the DSP. There is something seriously wrong with our system.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, disabled people have the right to an adequate standard of living and social protection. But we are failing disabled people by letting them basically languish and sit on Newstart when they should be on the disability support pension. Newstart, as we know, is paid at a much lower rate than the DSP.

Apart from being woefully low and paid at a rate under the poverty line, Newstart is simply not designed to help people who are sick or disabled, and it's not designed to help them manage their conditions. People can't afford to go to the doctor, buy medication or see specialists on Newstart. We've had ample evidence of that. Being sick or disabled on Newstart further entrenches poverty, exacerbates poor health and contributes to social isolation. What will it take for this government to finally listen to people across the board, from disabled people to advocates to academics, who say that the Welfare to Work approach is not working and that the DSP needs to urgently change? No-one in Australia should have to choose between feeding themselves and buying essential medications. When you have a partial capacity to work, Newstart exacerbates your poor health conditions, and it's much more difficult to manage your health.

Raising Newstart by $75 a week would immediately relieve some of the stresses being faced by sick and disabled people surviving on Newstart, so we need to do that. But we also need to make sure that we are reassessing the process we use for the DSP. By raising the rate, we will help people, but it's not enough; we need to change the DSP. We need to ensure that the eligibility process is fair, reasonable, accessible and equitable and that the process does not generate further financial hardship or economic insecurity. The 10-year review of the impairment tables is coming up soon and represents a really valuable and essential opportunity to listen to disabled people and their advocates about the significant changes that are needed to the DSP.

Tasmanians know better than anyone what happens when the Labor Party decides inner-city green votes are more important than timber workers. In 2010, the Tasmanian Labor Party formed government with the Tasmanian Greens and set about implementing the Greens' No. 1 policy priority: to destroy the Tasmanian timber industry. The result was an industry decimated, with two in every three forestry jobs gone. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars were spent, not to create jobs but to pay people to stop working and leave the industry.

Nine years later, Tasmanians haven't forgotten what Labor governments infected by green ideology do to our communities. The Labor Party's own election review, issued late last week, points the finger squarely at the previous Labor-Green minority state government for making Labor unelectable in Northern Tasmania. The review says:

The Labor-Greens agreement that underpinned the minority state Labor government in Tasmania from 2010 to 2014 remains a sore point for many voters in northern Tasmania, who view the Greens as implacably hostile to their interests, values and livelihoods.

But the truth is that Labor doesn't need to have the Greens in their cabinet room to be implacably hostile to the interests, values and livelihoods of working people in regional areas; just ask Daniel Andrews. The announcement last week that Victorian Labor is prepared to deliberately extinguish almost 5,000 jobs from the timber industry by banning native forestry is just the latest example of a Labor government blinded by inner-city green votes and willing to sell out hardworking Australians to cosy up to the green movement. Families who have worked in the timber industry for generations will be out of work. Businesses will close, not just in the timber industry but across the entire supply chain. What is the purpose of all this pain that Victorian Labor are about to cause?

Australia's forestry practices are the best in the world. When we harvest timber, we restore the environment and regrow the trees for the next generation. That's why wood is the ultimate renewable. The determination of the Greens to shut down native forestry only increases demand for wood from countries that don't regrow what they cut down, like those that are clearing and converting the Amazon rainforest and forests across South-East Asia. Anyone with a genuine commitment to the global environment would support Australia's timber industry, which regrows what it harvests. But no: if you're in the Labor Party, our native forestry industry is an environmental abomination and must be shut down because green activists say so. What's even more unbelievable is that Daniel Andrews chose to announce this Greens-led policy on the same day Labor released their election review, which clearly states that their party is on the nose in regional communities across Australia. Just as Mr Andrews is giving the middle finger to timber workers and timber communities, he's also doing that to any suggestion that Labor should listen to regional Australia and stop following the latest fashions in inner-city green activism.

Labor's Victorian forestry policy will cost thousands of jobs. It will certainly embolden cashed-up green activist groups to go after timber industries in other states, and I'm sure that Tasmania will be, as it always has been, on their hit list. The message it sends to the community is that, if you want the support of the Labor Party, all you need to do is join a green protest movement, glue yourself to the road, blockade the streets, invade businesses and harass police. If that's who you are, then Daniel Andrews and Labor are here for you. But if you're out in the bush earning a living for your family, bad luck: you're expendable to the Labor Party. Your job means nothing to them, except for it being the price that they're willing to pay in order to get a pat on the back from the green movement.

I'm pleased to rise this evening to commend the work of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the Transport Workers Union and the Australian Workers Union who together are leading the charge against the exploitation of workers in the grocery supply chain. This newly formed alliance of unions, which represents retail, transport and farm workers, seeks to address exploitation and pursue health and safety issues for workers across the fresh produce and meat sectors. Sadly, in the 21st century, Australia is not immune to modern forms of slavery-like conditions.

The 2018 Global Slavery Index, produced and funded by the Minderoo Foundation, highlights the prevalence of this occurring in our country, estimating that, at any given time, there are as many as 15,000 people living in Australia in these exploitative working conditions. The index makes a particular point of highlighting the increasing levels of reporting of worker exploitation in the agriculture and meat processing industries—industries at the heart of the grocery supply chains. It describes a silent underclass of workers who are subject to forced labour and slave-like conditions of exploitation, many of whom are migrants. We know that these workers are frequently subject to underpayment of wages, nonpayment of entitlements such as leave or superannuation, and substandard accommodation. There even exist criminal syndicates and rogue labour hire firms that seek to traffic these people into Australia through the exploitation of our visa system. These workers are in highly vulnerable situations, fearful of authorities and trying to navigate a complex visa system. This leaves them at enormous risk of abuse.

Coles and Woolworths are in the unique position of being able to use their influence to demand better, since together they hold a majority of the market share in the food retail sector in Australia. Earlier this month it was announced that Coles had come to the table and would develop the Ethical Retail Supply Chain Accord in a new partnership with the SDA, TWU and the AWU to protect the rights of all workers, regardless of their visa or employment status. This is an excellent development. Together, industry and unions can pressure labour hire firms, agriculture industry bodies and farmers into making sure ever worker who is helping get produce into stores is being paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. It follows Coles and the TWU reaching a separate agreement to promote transparency and end-to-end compliance in its transport supply chain and delivery work in the on-demand economy.

I think the Australian people would expect that, when they buy their mincemeat and tomatoes for their bolognaise that night, or the apples and oranges for the kids' lunch boxes that week, what they spend their money on is being grown, produced, packed and delivered in an ethical manner and that the people who are handling their groceries are being paid properly and treated fairly in the workplace. I know, from the meetings I've had with farmers and their representatives in my home state of Victoria, that they too want to ensure that the people they welcome to their farms to pick produce through labour hire firms are being employed lawfully and being paid correctly in accordance with the standards set out in the Fair Work Act.

Only by working together can this be achieved. That's why tonight I thank the SDA, the TWU and the AWU, as well as others in the industry, for their leadership. Their commitment to forge an innovative partnership to tackle supply-chain-wide work exploitation is one that ought to serve as an example to others. I thank the Senate.

For decades, the city of Hong Kong has been considered one of the freest and most prosperous cities in the world. Due to its strong commitment to the rule of law, judicial independence, free trade and private property rights, Hong Kong stood as a beacon in the region, attracting countless companies and trillions of dollars worth of investments. These principles, however, are under significant threat.

Most of the interest and commentary about the protests in Hong Kong has focused on concern about human rights issues. While the extradition bill presented real concerns in that regard, most discussions neglect to mention the key role that property rights have played in the motivation for the protests. The people of Hong Kong who are protesting are fighting for their freedom not just to speak or to assemble but to maintain their businesses and to freely interact with other companies around the world. While Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam has followed through now on her promise to formally withdraw the bill, protesters aren't reassured, and, in the absence of action on other key matters of demand from protest groups, unrest in the streets has not yet subsided.

Australia supports the right of people to protest peacefully and to exercise their freedom of speech no matter where they are. As the foreign minister has said, all sides should be urged to show restraint and to avoid violence. The Australian government has consistently called for a political solution to the current tensions that fully respects Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy and upholds the rights and freedoms enshrined in Hong Kong's basic law under the 'one country, two systems' framework. The Hong Kong protesters are fighting for values that we too hold dear—those of individual freedom, free markets and the rule of law. These values made Hong Kong free and prosperous and they are key to its continued growth and prosperity.

Many people have assumed the extradition bill was targeted at political dissidents alone. Perhaps that was part of it, but the greater risk comes from the ability to target companies and extradite their executives, for this power can be used to subjugate them to the communist regime. When foreign company executives have been jailed just to prove a political point, when CCP officials give edicts directly to CEOs of major companies, a private company can really be regarded as private only on paper. I'll give you an example. Beijing has pressured two successive chairmen of Cathay Pacific into resigning since August for failing to be sufficiently subservient to its demands. It has threatened boycotts of multiple multinational fashion brands for similar reasons. It has demanded major companies require their staff not to participate in protests as a condition of their continued employment.

China receives 70 per cent of its total foreign direct investment through Hong Kong. The extradition bill was a reach into that capital to demand the subservience of those who control it. A US-China Economic and Security Review Commission report last November noted the importance of the link between Hong Kong's strong rule of law and its economic openness. During the commission's trip to Hong Kong last May, observers noted the risk for Hong Kong's continued importance as Asia's financial centre if companies and individuals lose confidence in Hong Kong's rule of law and other freedoms as they are eroded by Beijing. Yet there are increasing reports of judges in Hong Kong facing threats to their judicial independence. For the sake of millions of Hongkongers' basic freedoms, the success of the businesses undergirding that island's prosperity and the countless international businesses that benefit from a free Hong Kong, we should provide as much encouragement as we possibly can for a genuine continuation of the 'one country, two systems' approach.

As I speak in the Australian Senate tonight, communities around this nation, especially in New South Wales and Queensland, are bracing for catastrophic fire conditions, some of the worst fire conditions ever seen in this country. I acknowledge the fear, the anxiety, the suffering and the stress of these communities, the people directly and indirectly affected by these fires, the emergency services personnel, the firefighters and everything they're feeling tonight. It's hard to imagine, but I do remember in 2012, my community in Bicheno, where I built my home, along with communities in the south-east of Tasmania, also suffered catastrophic fires. I got the smallest sense then of the kind of fear that these communities would be feeling. One good thing that came from the fires in Tasmania—and I know we've seen it in recent days in New South Wales and Queensland—and something we can take heart from is how this has brought out the best in communities. Communities are out there doing everything they can to check on their neighbours, to help pack things up, to offer assistance and to volunteer their time.

But it shouldn't be up to communities. The primary, key role of any government is to protect its citizens. On any account, this federal government and the state governments of New South Wales and Queensland have failed to protect these communities. You could say it in old-fashioned terms: forewarned is forearmed. Don't let anybody in here or in the other place say that governments weren't forewarned 20 years ago on the risks that were being posed about long-term changes in our climate. There were even recent pleas from fire chiefs directly to our Prime Minister to put more resources, more energy and more focus into providing that security for Australian citizens.

I initiated an inquiry in the Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade and we looked at the impact of climate change on our national security. We spoke to hundreds of witnesses and we heard evidence about the daunting challenges facing emergency services and governments around this nation. We've had plenty of time to plan for this climate catastrophe that we now find ourselves in. To those who say that it's too soon to talk about policy and politics, I would argue that it's actually too late to talk about it now because it's already happening. We've had decades to prepare. We've had warnings from some of the best scientists on the planet, emergency service personnel, and planners at the state and the federal level that we are facing a future of increased risk of these kinds of catastrophes and we haven't adequately planned for it.

I note that in New South Wales the context of these fires has the backdrop of some of the worst and longest droughts that we've ever had in this country. It was reported in this nation yesterday that on the mainland of Australia—so it excludes Tasmania—not a single drop of rain was recorded for the first time in Australia's history. These fires are burning in unprecedented areas and at times we've never seen before, and it's not even summer yet. This is not even peak fire season. Things are changing. The weather has changed. We must not continue to go down the same path, with the same old insanity and the same old madness of business as usual, and continue to burn fossil fuels, with leaders in this place not making the brave decisions they need to make.

There will be some costs and there will be some hardships to transition the economy to renewable energy. We need to show the global leadership that we need to get all nations around the world to take effective action on climate change, reign in emissions and try to give our children a future—the same children who were striking all around the nation in their hundreds of thousands; the same children who have had their schools shut this week in New South Wales and Queensland. Nearly 500 schools had to close. Climate change is already impacting these students. They were worried about their future in decades to come, but it's already here. We have a moral obligation in this place to put aside our differences and focus on doing everything we possibly can to show global leadership the action that's needed on climate change. (Time expired)

It seems that not a day goes by without a new story of serious wage theft in our country. It can take a lot of courage for workers to speak out and fight for what they're owed. As each new story breaks, these workers want to know what the government are going to do about this wage theft epidemic, because so far the government have been all talk and no action. We know that, in hospitality, wage theft is a business model. Last year, the Fair Work Ombudsman found that almost three-quarters of hospitality venues were noncompliant with the award. But, despite the widespread evidence of wage theft, last month the ombudsman finally admitted that the contrition payment of just $200,000 that was issued to George Calombaris for stealing $7.8 million of his workers' wages was too low.

The community now expect to see tougher action against corporate wage thieves. They want to see tougher action in cases like Rockpool, the latest celebrity chef empire to be accused of wage theft, with a $10 million underpayment claim. I was proud to join Hospo Voice members as they rallied outside Rockpool to speak out against this wage theft and exploitation. I particularly want to congratulate Rohit, a former Rockpool chef, for standing up. Rohit worked 80 hours a week at Rockpool with no breaks. He worked back-to-back 20-hour shifts. For the few hours in between he couldn't go home and sleep, so he would sleep at the restaurant on a pastry bench—all for just $12 an hour. Staff should not have to work like this and they shouldn't have to work for their wages twice—once on their shifts and again when they have to fight to be paid what they are owed.

While workers have to take to the streets to be paid their proper wages, it seems major companies in Australia are pretty good at looking after themselves. Today the average CEO salary has skyrocketed to $4.5 million a year and one in four Australian companies pay absolutely no tax in our country, at a cost of around $1.8 billion to the Australian taxpayer each year. Where are the priorities of the Morrison government in all of this? Their priorities are in going after unions—that's where. These are the very organisations which stand between workers and the rampant exploitation that we're seeing today.

Soon in the Senate we'll be considering the government's anti-union bill. This is a bill that gives companies the power to apply to deregister unions for taking action or even to apply to deregister unions on the basis of paperwork breaches. Under this new bill, George Calombaris, after finding out that the union was investigating him for wage theft, could have applied to have that union shut down. Imagine instead, if you will, if unions were given the power to deregister companies for what they consistently refer to as 'paperwork breaches' and 'paperwork errors' when they underpay their staff. They are errors that companies seem very well able to avoid when setting their CEO salaries, incentives schemes and bonuses, and when constructing their complicated tax arrangements.

Under the Morrison government today, there's one set of rules for workers and their unions and another set of rules for companies that do the wrong thing. Protecting employer bad behaviour doesn't just cost workers; it also costs those businesses that are trying hard to do the right thing. I've met with many hospitality business owners who just want a level playing field. They treat their own staff with respect and they want an industry where all workers are also treated with respect and dignity. They want a tough cop on the beat that can stop them being undercut by competitors who are willing to drive their workers into the ground. But this government, the Morrison government, seems entirely unwilling and unable to be that tough cop. Wage theft is exactly that—theft—and this government has done nothing to stamp it out.

Tonight I rise to talk about a topic I've spoken about a number of times in the Senate—that is, the high cost of northern Australia insurance and what the government is failing to do to fix this crisis. I have spoken about this issue before, but I think it's important, on the basis of what I'm planning on talking about tonight, that I recap where we're at in the ACCC inquiry and report on northern Australia insurance. The inquiry started in July 2017, so it's been going for a number of years. It has consulted widely and had access to insurance data—so the ACCC has had the power to go in and get data from insurance companies. It has gone out and spoken to communities about the high cost of insurance premiums, which seem to be going up and up and up.

In November the ACCC made 15 draft recommendations. Those recommendations were distributed so that people could consider them, give feedback and discuss them, and so, I would assume, the government could consider them as well. In July this year the ACCC made additional recommendations on top of those first 15. That means we now have 28 final recommendations. I was asked today: 'Are those recommendations final or are we still waiting for the next part of the report?' No. Those recommendations are final. They have been final since July and they need to be considered by the government. Twenty-four of those recommendations relate to action that the federal government could take or legislate for. There are recommendations that the Queensland government or the WA or Northern Territory governments can consider, but they constitute only five of the recommendations that have been made. The insurers also have two recommendations that are solely for them to consider, but the bulk of these recommendations relate to legislation that the government needs to fix.

I have called on the government to implement those recommendations, but, at this stage, they won't even tell us when they're planning to respond to them. In Senate estimates I asked the government if they were even considering the recommendations. 'Oh, I'll take that on notice.' 'But when are you going to give us your response?' 'I'll have to take that on notice.' 'Have you consulted with the community?' 'I'll have to take that on notice.' It seems to me that the government is completely ignoring this report and completely ignoring these recommendations. But there is one member of the government who seems to be keen to take this issue up. It seems like the member for Dawson has forgotten that he's a member of the government at all, because right now the member for Dawson has distributed this proposal—

He just stands up for his community.

He hasn't been doing that for six years, has he? He's pointed out exactly what I'm saying. This is from the member for Dawson:

We have hit a crisis point with insurance in North Queensland. Premiums are skyrocketing and some insurance companies are refusing to provide cover in certain 'disaster prone' areas, leaving little to no market competition.

Maybe the member for Dawson has read the report. The rest of the government haven't read the report, but it seems the member for Dawson has read the report. He says, 'Right now I am lobbying both state and federal governments to take action.' The member for Dawson is a member of the government and has been a member of the government for six years and he hasn't done anything until now. Now he wants to tell people in his community that he's out there fighting for them, fighting within the government. Well, I'll tell you what: if the member for Dawson wants to actually take action on this issue, he can start by doing a number of things. He can ask the ministers to answer the questions that I asked at estimates: when will we get a response? He can ask the government to implement the recommendations from the ACCC report. Just walk into a minister's office, ask them to draft legislation, talk about it in your party room and bring it to the table in parliament. We'll support the recommendations. Make sure that it's here. Get it through the Senate. We'll support it. But the member for Dawson knows that this isn't about actually getting anything done or fixing the crisis that they have been talking about for six years. This is about getting out there and campaigning in regional Queensland and bashing up the state government, even though 24 of these recommendations are for the federal government and five of them are for the Queensland government. But this is about going out and bashing the state government. Well, I'll tell you what. People are sick of it. You said you would fix this crisis. It's about time that you took responsibility for it.

I rise tonight to speak regarding a matter of concern in my home state of South Australia. I speak in relation to a bill which seeks to decriminalise prostitution, that being the Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Bill 2018. And I will refer to this as 'prostitution' rather than 'sex work', as the bill refers to it, as in truth the term 'work' is gravely misleading, as it is not really work in the traditional sense. In truth, it's a form of control, a form of abuse. As opined by Dr Caroline Norma of RMIT Melbourne, a co-editor of Prostitution Narratives, it is more accurately described as a human rights violation. I will also refer, in the main, to its impact upon women, because those prostituted are more often than not women. As a senator for South Australia, I feel that I cannot let this process pass by without registering my deep concern at that which is being proposed. I fear that the bill will not keep our citizens safe. In fact, if passed, it will do the opposite: it will make South Australia a less safe place.

The sex trade has a unique level of complexity. In the words of a woman who had previously been a prostitute and was quoted during the debate in the South Australian Legislative Council, 'We are told of women who love working in the sex industry, but in all my time I have never met such a woman.' Whether or not you support the decriminalisation of prostitution, implicit in either argument is the concept of choice. Those who support decriminalisation believe that entering this line of work is the choice of the person. However, those who do not support it understand that those involved rarely choose this lifestyle; it chooses them. To say that every woman enters the sex industry by choice is therefore a lie. To make a choice, you need to have facts about that which you are choosing. Sadly, it is all too common for prostitutes to be held captive not just physically, as in the case of trafficked persons, but also by the lies of the sex industry. The industry knows, once you are lured in, it's hard to get out.

It's all too easy for politicians who are looking from the outside in to push an agenda under the misguided illusion that somehow this is for the betterment of women. I acknowledge that those who seek to prosecute an argument for the decriminalisation of prostitution do so with the misguided but nonetheless hopeful aspiration of attempting to make safer the lives of those who are prostituted, yet somehow they have failed to listen to those who have a history in the industry and the courage to speak up. They have failed to understand that those who exploit women will be the beneficiaries of this so-called reform. Make no mistake, the benefit of this bill will be to the pimps and the brothel owners alone.

As part of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Australia's submission in relation to the 2015 incarnation of this bill in South Australia, they noted that the New Zealand experience in decriminalisation found that the majority of prostituted persons felt the law could do very little about the violence that occurred, and that very few reported the incidents of violence against them. In Germany, the experience of decriminalisation has shown that this approach increases demand, promotes infidelity, promotes the breakdown of the family unit, turns criminals into legitimate businesspeople, inflicts post-traumatic stress disorder upon those involved, spreads disease, promotes human trafficking and encourages violence against women. In a report on prostitution in nine countries, the Journal of Trauma Practice, focusing on violence and post-traumatic stress disorder, found that prostitution was multi-traumatic. The statistics regarding the experiences of prostitutes are damning: 71 per cent had been physically assaulted, 63 per cent had been raped, 89 per cent of the respondents wanted to escape prostitution but didn't have any other options for survival, a total of 75 per cent had been homeless at some point in their lives, and 68 per cent suffered post-traumatic stress disorder.

South Australia Police commissioner Grant Stevens has already warned that police 'are very concerned the absence of regulation would create a significant opening for organised crime to enter the industry and to exploit the industry for the purposes of money laundering, sex trafficking, sexual exploitation and drug trafficking'.

Many of those who have already spoken against the bill in the South Australian parliament have shared stories from those who worked in the industry, stories which show the manipulation and grooming which occurs in this loathsome trade. In one such passage, a woman explains how she became trapped in the sex trade following the global financial crisis. She moved to Queensland. She couldn't get a job. Her student payment barely covered her rent. She got behind in her payments and was worried about eviction. She was lured into bikini-waitressing, then stripping and then, finally, having become trapped in this insidious, sexualised world, she became so desperate and so lacking in self-esteem that she agreed to have sex with a strip club patron for $200, following a shift in which she hadn't made any money. Having almost bottomed out, she attempted a pill overdose and tried to cut her wrists with a razor blade in the client's bathroom. Such was his contempt for her that he proceeded with the encounter, regardless of her bloodied wrists; paid her $100, half the agreed amount; and left her to her own devices. Fortunately, she survived to tell this awful story. This is the reality of the sex trade.

I cannot and I will not accept that members of parliament, who have an obligation to protect people, would seek to make it easier to buy, exploit and abuse women. And it is beyond incongruous that, in a state where grid girls in the Clipsal 500 car race have recently been outlawed because they send the wrong message regarding the sexualisation of women, the decriminalisation of prostitution is proffered on the grounds of improving women's rights! Many of those who have campaigned against the objectification of women, who have rightly told the community that the value of women should not be based on their physical appearance, now seek to promote an industry which reaches the very summit of exploitation. It is staggering that anyone would seek to promote an industry which exploits women—an industry that is associated with human trafficking, substance abuse and the influence of outlaw motorcycle gangs.

You can understand my concern regarding a bill which undermines the struggle for equality, which turns a blind eye to the violence against women and which serves only the pimps and brothel owners. Not only would this bill send a message that prostitution is a viable career option for young people but it also provides for spent convictions, enabling convictions to no longer appear when a police check is conducted for employment. This is madness.

Let us not kid ourselves: the decriminalisation of prostitution does not mean the removal of an illegal industry. Instead, South Australians would be faced with an industry which operates next to their local bakery, their local cinema and their local supermarket. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to realise that the decriminalisation of prostitution will mean an increase in its prevalence and an increase in demand. I refuse to believe that this so-called reform, which allows young men and women to be purchased, should ever receive support from our elected representatives, regardless of their political allegiances. This bill will not achieve its primary objective of protecting women from harm; rather, it will place them in greater harm. I hope that the House of Assembly in my state considers these matters when voting on this bill, ensuring that the safety of our community is paramount in their concern, and votes this bill down.

I rise tonight to speak about the Newstart payment and the inadequacy of this payment for Australians who are working at trying to get a job and to get ahead in life. I am asking for those on that side, on the government benches, to finally acknowledge that they could not live on $40 a day. I have heard countless stories in my home state of Tasmania about the hardship of those people who are desperate to get a job. They want to get a job, because we all know that that is a better outcome for everyone, but we also know that there is a real issue in our community of underemployment and casualisation.

I was able to attend the meeting of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee on the adequacy of Newstart last Friday in Launceston, where we heard real stories from local people living in Northern Tasmania, basically. We heard from a gentleman who came before us to tell us about his struggle in being able to find a job. He is a father of an eight-year-old boy. He had been saving for months to be able to take his son to something that most of us in this chamber, if we so choose, are able to do at a drop of a hat: to take his young son to an AFL match in Launceston. He was able to save that money, but he was then made to feel totally inadequate and that he had let his young son down, because he could not afford to buy a meat pie, which is part of the whole experience of going to watch Australian Rules football. He was embarrassed about that. That is not good for anyone, and it is certainly not good for our long-term unemployed people. He has been struggling for quite some time. He told us in that committee that he is made to feel by this Liberal Morrison government that he is unworthy and that we would all be better off if he was not around to be a drain on society. That is outrageous.

I could probably come to terms with that if that were the only story I have ever heard with those sorts of catastrophic experiences, but we heard from another woman. She was a 61-year-old woman who spent 35 years of her life working and paying her taxes in this country, helping to build the country that we have. She basically worked in manufacturing and on the shop floors. She found herself in a position where she was made redundant. Part of the requirement was she had to use all her redundancy payment and all her savings. She is 61. She has some health issues. She is desperate, because she does not know how she is going to pay her car registration or her insurance. That is really telling.

What do we hear from those opposite? Senator Cash was in here last sitting week talking about how the best form of welfare is a job. Yes, it is, but we in Tasmania and people right around this country heard religiously from the Prime Minister that he was going to be a government of jobs, jobs, jobs. Well, for six years, we've not seen one new job in Northern Tasmania from the Abbott, Turnbull and now Morrison governments. My local constituents, the people of Tasmania, have had enough.

Why should a woman, at the age of 61, be made to feel that we would all be better off if she were quiet and she just disappeared? This is the sort of evidence that was given to us. Other people, young people, have been giving evidence to this committee about their hardship—about how they've been working in retail and hospitality but have been unable to get a full-time job, and that the only time they have a decent meal is when they go home to mum and dad or somebody else invites them home for dinner. We also heard, from many providers of services for young people and those who find themselves in hardship and unemployed, that there's been an influx of young people who had never ever stolen a thing in their lives, who had never once crossed that line, but who now find themselves in a very desperate situation where they are stealing. And why are they stealing? Because they're hungry. They are actually stealing food. That says to me that there is something seriously wrong in this country, when we expect those people who find themselves unemployed to have to try to survive—because I can tell you, through real practical experience, that you cannot live on $40 a day.

What is even more galling is that our federal member, Mrs Bridget Archer, who is the new Liberal member for Bass—who has, herself, had to rely on unemployment benefits in the past; there's no shame in that; I'm not casting aspersions on her for calling out when she needed a helping hand—has turned her back on her fellow Tasmanians by accepting the mantra of this government that, 'It's too hard. It's too hard!' The Prime Minister says that what this country needs is 'more love'. Well, the Prime Minister can talk the talk about more love, but he's not showing any love to the people in this country who find themselves unemployed.

We also had evidence last Friday, as this committee has wherever it has been around the country, that it's not just the long-term unemployed—people who those on the other side feel very comfortable in dismissing because they don't think they will ever vote for them—but that there are also people who find themselves unemployed having been made redundant, who had never thought that that would ever happen to them because they had qualifications and had worked hard all their lives. They find themselves unemployed and what they find is that this government, those on that side of the chamber, have been talking about, 'jobs, jobs, jobs,' and saying that 'the best form of welfare is jobs, jobs, jobs', when the reality is that, in my home state of Tasmania, in Northern Tasmania, where I'm based, there are in excess of 11 people who will apply for each job. Some weeks ago, I advertised for a position in my office. I got some fantastic applications, but I got many applications from people who had qualifications far in excess of what I was looking for. We had people who were applying because that's what you have to do to get this paltry $40 a day, so they were applying for jobs that they had no experience for and no hope of getting.

There is desperation in the community. We have people who are thinking very seriously about taking their own lives because this government makes them feel, on a day-to-day basis, that they are unworthy—that they are a blight and a burden on society. That is outrageous! What this federal government, under Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull and now under Mr Morrison, have not even considered is that the cost to the Commonwealth government will only ever increase while they deny these people an opportunity to live—because I can tell you: you cannot live on $40 a day. You've got to pay rent; you've got to pay registration, if you're lucky enough to still have a car; you've got to be able to put food on the table; and heaven help you if you've got children and someone else to support.

People are now choosing not to eat. They're choosing to go to bed rather than to turn on the heater at night. And I can tell you: in somewhere like Tasmania, where I'm living at the moment—and I would imagine it would be the same here in Canberra—it is too damned cold not to have the heater on. So what they're choosing to do, if they're lucky enough, is go to bed with either a heap of blankets or an electric blanket because it is the only way they can survive. This is not good enough. Those people on that side deny people the opportunity to just survive. As someone who lived on government benefits, through no fault of my own or my husband's, I can tell you that you are hard-pressed to survive. The longer you're on Commonwealth benefits, the longer it takes you to regain and get back to where you should be. If your washing machine breaks down or your iron blows up, there is no ready, available cash to be able to go and replace those items.

This government, under Mr Scott Morrison, is not only heartless but trying to pull the wool over the eyes of all Australians. The Prime Minister talks about being a Christian and says that Australians just need more love. Well, it's about time he fronted up and showed some decency. I'm not even expecting him to love the unemployed, because it's obvious the government has nothing but disdain for those people who are on unemployment benefits; otherwise, he would be doing something now. (Time expired)

Tonight, all across our country, from the city to the bush, communities are being buried beneath some of the most intense firestorms that we have seen in the history of our country. Beneath the smoke and the ash, emergency personnel are toiling, dealing with unprecedented conditions, desperately trying to beat back the blazes and trying to keep together to defend their communities—often while their homes are at risk. Homeowners and communities are coming back to moonscape-blasted expanses where once their families thrived. And tonight, as those folk grieve the destruction of their homes and the inevitable uprooting of their lives, as communities wonder how they will ever recover and as firefighters and emergency service workers battle on against these blazes on the fire front, I want to extend the deepest empathy, love and solidarity of our green movement to them. We are with you in this moment of trial and grief, and we will work alongside you on the journey to recovery. The sacrifices you have made and the efforts you have expended in these last few days have shown what is possible when our community comes together to support each other. From your example, everyone in this place should draw new determination to do everything we can to protect homes, community and the planet, regardless of how difficult those political choices may be. After all, if you can find the strength to continue on and rise to the challenge of rebuilding, as we know so many of you will do, then what on earth do we here have to complain about?

Over the past couple of days, community leaders have been calling on this parliament and others to take urgent action to address climate change. They have been calling, as they have been calling for the last two decades or more, warning of the effect that the pollution that we are creating will have on our bushland and on our weather patterns and of the disasters that it is now creating. I was particularly inspired by Aaron Crowe and Fiona Lee of Bobin who, despite the absolute horror of losing their whole world as the fire front took their home and their community, drove five hours to Sydney to deliver a drum full of ashes—ashes that were once their home—to the steps of the Parliament of New South Wales, amid crowds of young climate protesters. Together, they went on to raise over $5,000 for New South Wales Rural Fire Service personnel, finding the strength in that moment to take action. Again, I ask this place: if they can show such courage, what are we complaining about?

We here know what we have to do. We know the steps that need to be taken to address climate change—indeed, we have known for decades. Instead of taking action, the major parties have decided to keep taking donations from the corporations that have caused and are profiting from the problem. I know that it is difficult to change the way that they do politics. I know that the addiction to corporate donations and influence on our system is all that some in this place have ever known. But, tonight, I beg you: please look into the faces of those who, by luck and the courageous work of our emergency personnel, have survived. Look at the landscape left behind. Take courage and act. The time is now.

The Australian submarine enterprise is approaching a significant decision milestone: where will the full-cycle dockings for the Collins class submarines be done in the future? Will it be in Adelaide, where it is currently done, or in Perth? The submarine enterprise is, according to its stakeholders, delivering and meeting their expectations. It has gone from what was probably best described as a collection of disparate entities working to their own interests to what is referred to as an effective enterprise working together towards common goals, achieving world's best practice and very high submarine availability. This is fantastic. It proves that Australia is capable of taking on the challenge of being a parent navy for a submarine class—something we know takes commitment, planning and leadership.

So it should come as no surprise that I am blown away when I see people framing up an argument to deconstruct a system that's working just to transfer it to another location for shallow reasons, at huge cost to the taxpayer and at great risk to submarine availability. I refer the chamber to a recent opinion piece on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's blog, The Strategist, by retired rear admiral Rowan Moffitt. After a long period of silence, he has popped his head up and weighed into a political debate. I don't understand why. He makes a very limited number of valid points. For example, in relation to transitioning ASC from a construction yard which built the Collins class submarines to a maintenance provider, he states, 'It took over a decade and the Coles review before an acceptable outcome was reliably achieved.'

Around about the turn of this decade, we had shocking submarine availability. At one stage, Cameron Stewart reported in The Australian that none of our six submarines could go to sea—not one! Not a single submarine could go to sea. The article reads:

The Australian understands the entire fleet of six Collins-class submarines cannot be put to sea despite the navy's claim that two of them remain officially "operational".

The situation is so dire the navy is believed to have deferred major scheduled maintenance work on its most seaworthy submarine, HMAS Waller, in the hope that at least one submarine will be available in the coming weeks.

That was where we were at in 2011. Bad press and pressure on the submarine by then shadow defence minister Johnston gave rise to a significant review of the state of our submarine force. This was conducted by John Coles over a couple of years. The Coles review, which became the basis for fixing our submarine enterprise, found that there were five root causes: unclear requirements, lack of performance based ethos, unclear lines of responsibility, poor planning and lack of a single set of accurate information to inform decision-making. The report was handed down in November 2012 and Navy and industry, including ASC, have done a great job in fixing the problem. As stated earlier, we now have a world-class submarine enterprise giving us unprecedented submarine availability. Australia and the Navy now have a sustainment model where the submarines undergo self-maintenance periods, with intermediate- and mid-cycle dockings in Western Australia and full-cycle dockings—the most complex deeper maintenance activities, which take 24 months—in Adelaide, where the deeper knowledge base is. And it works. We've spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars getting things to the point where they are now. We now have retired people like Mr Moffitt suggesting we pick up full-cycle docking work that is being carried out in Adelaide, spend more than a billion dollars to carry it across the Nullarbor knowing full well that a significant—

Senator Patrick, your time has expired.

I had 10 minutes for my adjournment speech.

Okay. You have another five minutes.

And we now have people like retired Mr Moffitt suggesting we pick up the full-cycle docking work that is being carried out in Adelaide and spend more than a billion dollars to carry it across the Nullarbor, knowing full well that a significant majority of the 700 workers, each with more than an average of 11 years experience, will not shift with that work. Indeed, this point is conceded by Mr Moffitt in his blog when he says:

… the existing specialists are in SA and probably won’t want to move westward, given the exciting new frigate and submarine work on offer in Adelaide.

This is a tacit acknowledgement that the vast majority of the roughly 700 staff working on Collins won't move west—and the corporate knowledge of ASC will be gutted. If you were going to do the shift, you would have done it years ago; you would have done it when the system was broken. You don't spend the money fixing it to then break it when you shift it again. That's crazy. It's nonsense on stilts. It makes no sense. I just want to make it clear: I'm highly respectful of the men and women who serve in our defence forces, particularly those that serve in the operational units of the ADF, but I'm entitled to be critical of those senior officers who sit in their comfy chairs at Russell Offices or Campbell Park or Brindabella Park and think of ways to spend billions of dollars just moving deck chairs. Unlike individuals or businesses that have to earn money and then think very carefully about how they spend or invest it, Defence just gets the money handed to them. And the money the defence forces waste is sometimes incomprehensible to people: a billion dollars wasted on a Seasprite helicopter that never saw service and the LCM2000 project that resulted in a landing craft too big for the ship it was intended for. When they went to replace it, the watercraft for the LHDs was not buoyant enough to carry the Abrams tank. As Joe the Cameraman from the Channel 9 said, 'They can't bowl and they can't bat.'

Mr Moffitt talks about doubling the number of submariners, saying we now have fewer than 1,000 submariners in the Navy. And he said 'the fact that the RAN must expand this workforce substantially for the new submarines is barely mentioned' in the debate we're having on full-cycle dockings. But this is not a debate about submarine power; we're discussing submarine engineering and industrial capability. Having read his opinion piece, I'm not sure how it advances the debate or lines up the right questions for debate. My impression is that it was a mashup of a variety of points stitched together. I can only assume that the point of it was to simply confuse people. If that was the aim, he hit the bullseye.

It does not make sense to shift submarine sustainment to WA. We have a perfectly working situation now. It will cost more than a billion dollars to shift it. It will result in a massive loss of corporate knowledge. It will result in a loss of submarine availability. There are arguments about wanting to have this capability next to where the submarines operate from. I get the reason why we have our intermediate-level dockings and our mid-cycle dockings done there, but for a 24-month docking we take a submarine across to Adelaide. The crew then posts to another submarine and, in the end, we have submarines on both the west coast and the east coast, in Perth and probably in Sydney or perhaps somewhere near Jervis Bay or Newcastle or Wollongong. That's on record in an FOI that I've received. It makes no sense. If you're going to spend a billion dollars of hard earned taxpayers' dollars, spend it on growing something or building something new, not shifting something because it's a convenient idea in the minds of some senior Defence officials. It's a silly idea to shift full-cycle dockings to WA and it must not go ahead. It does not make sense. It's not in the national interest.

I just bring to the attention of the Senate and to the Australian parliament that we are obviously looking at serious concerns in terms of the bushfire threats in New South Wales, Queensland and southern Australia. We've certainly had our fair share of concerns with the drought in the Northern Territory. But what I want to bring to the attention of the Senate tonight is something that is personally very difficult for the families of Central Australia. On the weekend, a 19-year-old man was killed at Yuendumu, nearly 300 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs. Unfortunately, this was a case involving police, so it's considered a death in custody. I bring this to the attention of the Australian parliament because relationships more broadly in this country between police and First Nations people have always been tenuous. I am here with Senator Pat Dodson, whom we all know was involved with the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in this country. First Nations people had concerns in the 1980s and 1990s about their relationship with police in Australia.

I think it's important to put on the record here in the Senate, in the midst of all the pieces of legislation and all the other things that are occurring in our country, that I ask senators to take a moment to consider and to pay their respects to the family who lost someone quite dear. The Warlpiri people of Yuendumu are in sorry business. They're trying to deal with this tragic loss. The people of Alice Springs are trying to deal with this tragic loss. The police force and the families of the police force of the Northern Territory are trying to deal with this tragic loss. I just ask the Australian Senate to be respectful of the fact that there is an incredibly tense situation in the Northern Territory. I certainly pay my personal respects to the families: the Walker family, the Warlpiri families and all those who are related to the young man and are out at Sorry Camp. I call on the strength of country in the Warlpiri region and the Yuendumu region to give strength and peace in the hearts of those who are grieving, in the hearts of those who are trying to find a way forward and in the hearts of those who call Yuendumu home—people all around Australia, including non-Indigenous people and other First Nations people, who call Yuendumu home. I ask this Senate to think about them, to reflect on the fact that peace needs to be felt in all hearts, not just with our families across eastern Australia with the bushfires. I'm just asking the Senate to recognise that there is a serious concern here in Central Australia and that peace and respect should be provided to those families who are trying to find a way forward through this most extraordinarily—unfortunately—difficult and tragic time.

I look back at how people with disability used to be treated and I can't help thinking we've made enormous progress in some aspects of care and treatment yet in others we've got such a long way to go. One of the first jobs I ever had was as a research assistant to psychiatrist Dr Eric Cunningham Dax. Dr Dax, for those who don't know, was a mental health pioneer, instrumental in some major reforms like moving people with mental illness out of institutional care to be treated in the community. He promoted approaches to care which were somewhat radical at the time but which are now regarded as absolutely basic.

In tonight's adjournment debate, I want to talk about one aspect of disability care in which we as a society are failing, I think, particularly badly—that is, involving people with disability in decisions about their palliative care. Palliative care is for people with life-limiting illness. It's not just about the last couple of weeks of life and it goes beyond just medical care. It's a holistic form of care which deals with a person's physical, emotional, social, cultural and spiritual needs. In this sense, palliative care goes to questions of where a patient wishes to spend the end of their life, who they want to be with, whether there are any cultural or religious practices they wish to observe, how they want their pain managed or under what circumstances they wish to have emergency medical intervention, or not at all, to sustain their life.

Palliative care is in a poor state in Australia, not just because of the lack of services but also because of Australians' general reluctance to have conversations about death and dying. This results in few Australians writing advance care plans or discussing their care wishes with close friends or family and, as a result, many Australians don't have a good death. They don't have a death in the place of their choosing or in accordance with their care wishes. This picture is even more grim for people with disability.

For many Australians with disability, particularly those with intellectual disability, the idea of involving them in decisions about palliative care is virtually non-existent. This is not because service providers, families and carers of people with disability are indifferent or uncaring; it's a case of caring and well-meaning people just not knowing what to do, how to handle it. Family members, carers and staff of service providers are generally afraid of having frank and honest conversations about death and dying with people with intellectual disability because they're worried about upsetting them.

This problem was highlighted in a March 2016 report written by Anna Holliday, who works for the disability service organisation Liviende Veranto—Li-Ve Tasmania, for short. Ms Holliday was initially tasked with investigating what constitutes best practice in delivering palliative care to people with disability. This was particularly important for Li-Ve Tasmania because a number of their clients in residential care and in independent living arrangements were obviously getting older. In some cases, the disabilities of the residents also resulted in them having shorter life expectancies and so the need to provide palliative care was becoming an increasingly frequent occurrence. After extensive investigations, Ms Holliday found there was no clear guidance on what constituted best practice in palliative care for people with disability, so her next task was obviously to develop it.

Ms Holliday undertook a project which involved conversations with 110 people about their perspectives, ideas and experiences when it came to palliative care, death, dying, grief and bereavement. These included 36 people with disability, seven friends and family members of people with disability, and 67 service providers. The findings of the studies were insightful, but they were also quite shocking. Service providers appeared to have very little awareness of end-of-life planning and services, and there was limited access to palliative care services. As a result, people with disability in the end stages of their lives were often transferred to hospital or aged-care facilities. These transfers obviously caused immense distress because people were taken out of a familiar environment, away from the routines they were used to and the people they were surrounded by on a general daily basis. Some people, because of their disabilities, had trouble expressing their wishes to aged-care workers or hospital staff who were not familiar with their means of communication. This diminished the quality of their care even further.

There seems to be an attitude in the community that people with intellectual disability are incapable of understanding the concept of death or of making decisions about their own care or living arrangements, and we find that people with intellectual disability often go along with the decisions that are made for them. We need to change society's attitude and stop underestimating the capacity of people with intellectual disability to make decisions for themselves and their capacity to understand death and dying. Unfortunately, for fear of upsetting people with disability, carers and family members will often avoid conversations about death and dying. The following quotes from Ms Holliday's report illustrate how this approach affects people with disability:

"Everybody else talked around me but no-one talked to me"

"When I ask questions or want to talk about him, people say 'don't worry about that anymore' or 'we're not talking about that anymore"

"Not one person has talked to me about Mum since she died. No-one says her name. I can't talk to anyone about her anymore"

There are also people who will engage in conversations but speak in euphemisms, like saying that the person who has died has 'gone'. 'Gone where?' is the obvious question to that. I often wonder why we as a society are so afraid to use the words 'death', 'died' or 'dying'. The irony of the way people with intellectual disability or cognitive impairment are treated when well-meaning people try to avoid upsetting them is that they get even more upset. As the report observed:

For a person whose cognitive functions are compromised … it is common that carers will try to minimise the effects of grief by presenting modified information. … However, listening to the experiences and perspectives of Tasmanians with disability, avoidance of the topic of death and dying significantly adds to feelings of confusion, isolation and fear when they are faced with the situation of a life limiting illness or death. Thus, resulting in people feeling fearful, disconnected and alone.

We need to appreciate that the failure to engage people with disability in conversations about death is also affecting our ability to involve them in decisions about their own care at the end stages of life. It is as true for people with disability as it is for everyone else that being involved in decision-making is the key to quality palliative care. Quality palliative care is a human right, and, where this right is denied to people with disability, they are having experiences of dying that are confusing and distressing, with some not even knowing that they're unwell.

Disability service providers and their staff also need to understand this. People working in acute care or aged care know that they will have to deal with death and dying, but often disability workers don't think of this as something they will have to confront. But working in disability services will mean having to provide palliative care and having conversations with your clients about death. Education and training is needed to help service providers and their staff understand that there is a lot more to palliative care than just a medical response to life-limiting illness. Certificate courses in the disability industry should include compulsory learning about death and dying, which are currently elective options.

Disability service organisations need clear policies and procedures on how they care for someone with life-limiting illness—policies which involve people with disability in decision-making about their care. This also means having clear policies on care coordination and what everyone's roles are. These changes will help develop a culture of normalising language which describes dying and death in concrete terms, but, like any cultural change, obviously this will take time. Li-Ve Tasmania have used their research to develop best practice guidance on how to care for people with disability and life-limiting illnesses and they are sharing this guidance with service providers not just in Tasmania but around the world. Ms Holliday is continuing her research with support from the University of Tasmania but is not receiving any state or federal government funding. She is also promoting partnerships and collaboration between the disability and palliative care sectors. (Time expired)

Farmers are still the backbone of this country. One Nation and I will continue to fight to make sure farmers who are struggling financially due to the impact of this extended drought get the support they need, the farm household allowance, but the government remains incredibly out of touch with farmers and their needs through these difficult times. Farmers are currently eligible for these farm payments for four years over their lifetime, and the amendments suggest that should be lifted to four years in each specified 10-year period. Longreach, in my state of Queensland, has been in drought for eight years plus, yet the first 10-year period started in 2014. My overwhelming issue with this is that the need for this funding often extends much longer. The eligibility for these FHA payments should be in place for struggling farmers for as long as the drought emergency lasts, whether it's five years, 10 years or longer, or for a period of time until they are deriving a farm income.

The point I've made previously is that we don't put time limits on payments for those receiving Newstart. In fact there are families that have received such payments for generation after generation, yet we allow that to go on with hardly any questions asked. It's worth noting that those receiving Newstart also automatically qualify for the energy supplement, healthcare card, rent assistance, family tax benefit, pharmaceutical allowance, education entry payment, Work for the Dole supplement, pensioner education supplement, remote area allowance and pensioner concession card. These support payments are paid on the basis of need and for the duration of that need, so why not do the same for this desperately needed assistance for farmers?

There has been talk of increasing Newstart, and I support an increase of $50 a fortnight, but I add that the support payment should be suspended for a year for recipients aged under 45 if they don't find a job within two years. Why not? If we are restricting these payments for farmers who are in dire straits, why not for other recipients of similar payments? I believe that concessions could be made for residents in rural and remote areas, due to a shortage of jobs in those communities. Also, those aged over 45 should not be subject to the suspension, due to the difficulty gaining employment for older jobseekers.

It is worth noting that farmers who receive these FHA payments are not just sitting on the couch watching TV or sitting down at the pub, unlike many other welfare recipients who take these payments as a right. The farmers are continuing to work, caring for the cattle, buying fodder, fixing fences, managing weeds and just doing what they can to make ends meet while they wait for the rains that will end the drought. From there they can rebuild their farming operations and their lives.

This problem of the government's failure to truly understand the situation in drought-affected farming communities was underscored even more strongly last week during the drought tour of western Queensland by Bob Katter and I. Farmers raised a number of issues during the trip. While I know that these are mostly state issues, I call on the Prime Minister to help sort them out. The farmers in Charleville had issues with the Queensland Labor government placing harsh limits on the harvesting of mulga on their properties, making it even more difficult to keep their livestock alive. In Roma there were issues with the allowable shooting of kangaroos, which are in plague proportions. One farmer mentioned that he has seen mobs of red kangaroos numbering up to 300. They eat pasture so low to the ground that there is nothing left for the cattle to eat, which is making cattle farming virtually impossible in these areas. At our pub meeting in Cunnamulla, local residents mentioned the problem of council rates, which are often calculated on a property's potential rather than on reality, increasing to the point of being the highest cost faced by struggling property owners. Some have had increases of up to 400 per cent. There were also a number of personal issues that western Queensland residents raised. They feel abandoned by the major political parties and their elected representatives, both state and federal, and feel they are dealing on their own with what is a massive crisis. In terms of physical needs, there is the obvious desperate need for water. While politicians can't make it rain, they can definitely plan for the future and get working to make sure water infrastructure, which lessens the impact of dry weather, is a serious priority. I say to the Prime Minister: failure to address this water infrastructure need will be a poor legacy of your time in the top job.

People in the bush are sick of past rhetoric and past promises. We don't need more feasibility studies. The government recently pledged $1.5 million for a feasibility study for a pipeline between Paradise Dam and Coulstoun Lakes in Queensland. This follows $2 million that was given to the Queensland government for a similar feasibility study 18 months ago, with no report to date. I ask the government: what has happened to that money? What was it used for? During the drought tour it was horrifying to see hundreds of kilometres of good land that is not delivering the crops and livestock it could, and the economic potential that comes with it, solely because of the lack of water. Farmers out west want to see work being done to address their water issues, so I say, 'Put a shovel in the bloody ground and just do it.'

Bob and I worked well together. We shared the shock over how bad conditions are out there, much worse than anyone can know—and it was not my first time out west. I know how tough it is out there, but during this trip I saw the hurt, the pain and the struggle on the faces of the farmers, and their loss of hope that anyone in Canberra actually cares. For many of us in this place it's a case of out of sight, out of mind. We need to make sure that elected representatives actually listen, and that is what Bob and I did. To the media who were expecting some sort of train wreck during our tour: I'm sorry. Many of you were wondering how long the marriage would last. Well, Bob and I were friends before the trip and I think we are stronger friends now. We both vowed to continue raising the issues being faced by our farmers and to push for the government to provide the support they need if they're to continue to provide this vital foundational service to Australia. We think farmers are important and should be supported to make sure they remain on the land.

I'm annoyed that the default position of the government seems to be to tell farmers to reconsider their futures. To me, that sounds like government code for: 'We have no answers. We give up and we want you to give up too.' That comes hot on the heels of a report that Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce suggested farmers who had endured too many years without profits should consider leaving farming. Mr Joyce has been quoted in the media as saying:

People who have not made a profit in the last 10 years really need to seriously think, what are you doing with your life? What are you doing on the land?

I'm not having any of that. Our farmers are the lifeblood of Australia. I'm not going to give up. I'm keeping this important industry alive and thriving. We don't demand that anyone else on government support payments make a so-called decision about their future, so why are we asking farmers to do that as a matter of course? Just because farmers live on properties with considerable farm assets, are they worth less than some welfare recipients?

We grow the best food in the world and we have the best milk and the best livestock, and we are not going to just throw that all away. I call on the PM to clean up our own backyard and look after Australians first before handing out hard-earned taxpayer dollars in foreign aid to other nations, who use us as a milking cow, and addressing climate change demands. I won't be taken for a mug and neither will most other Australians.

As a servant of the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak of my concerns tonight for the security of all Australians and to acknowledge the bravery of some very special hardworking Australians. I recently had the good fortune to meet some outstanding people and would like to single them out tonight with a special tribute for their courage—yes, courage. These people were abandoned: deserted by their employers, deserted by the big union and deserted by government. I am referring to the brave black-coal miners in the Hunter Valley from the Mount Arthur mine who were denied their entitlements by both their employer, Chandler Macleod, and the mine operator, BHP. Yes, BHP: the 'Big Australian', which disregards and discards everyday Australians and leaves them underpaid, broken and abandoned.

BHP and Chandler Macleod have been exploiting these miners as casuals. Even though these casuals worked side by side with the permanent workforce, for years they were underpaid by 40 per cent while on the same roster and projected, two years into the future, to be permanent workers. They had the same skills and the same jobs as permanent workers. They had the same responsibilities but received 40 per cent less pay. These casual miners have been risking injury or death without access to decent protection, like proper industry workers compensation, which everyday Australians rely on their employer and our government for. But where was the government when these people needed help? The government organisations in New South Wales entrusted with protecting these people let them down too. Every Australian should be worried because we could be next. As a mining executive myself, I've worked with miners and coal union delegates and I'm proud to have done so to establish a pioneering award that set new standards for our industry and led to performance and safety benchmarks for our entire Australian coalmining industry. These initiatives focused on ensuring that miners could return home intact to be with their families after every shift, and I understand that good safety systems and practices also improve productive capacity and reduce costs. They make sense.

Today, I'm appreciating real unsung heroes—people who did not give in and who were brave enough to not take no for an answer. I speak of people like Mr Simon Turner who, despite his massive injuries, did not give up. He's a real champion. Simon and many other everyday Australians like him were employed by Chandler Macleod under substandard pay and conditions, including no leave, no penalty rates, no accident cover, no shift allowance, no coal workers compensation, no long service leave and possibly cuts in superannuation, while their mates—the full-time BHP production workers they worked beside—did rightly get these benefits. When these casual workers took their concerns to BHP, the 'Big Australian' not only showed these workers the door but covered the whole thing up, including their injuries and accidents. BHP violated the law in not reporting injuries and accidents. When these people took their concerns to their employer, labour hire firm Chandler Macleod, it was the same story. Chandler Macleod discards and disregards their people: everyday Australians. Chandler Macleod's website says that they care about safety and that overlooking workplace safety can result in high costs, both social and financial, and could affect the company's reputation, but who can trust Chandler Macleod's empty words after this misbehaviour and these abuses and cover-ups?

When Chandler Macleod didn't help these honest workers, the workers took their concerns to the Fair Work Commission and to the coalmining long service leave authority. Again, these people were brushed aside and ignored. Fair Work and the coalmining long service leave authority were just like a mirror. Fair Work said they would look into it but nothing came back to protect these workers. Fair Work signed off on their enterprise agreement without checking whether they could even employ casual miners under the award. They cannot. And it gets worse. There are many hundreds of similar workplace agreements that the CFMMEU and Chandler Macleod set up to exploit casual workers. Many more workers could have similar claims, so watch this space. These employers and the union must have known that what they were doing was wrong and that it was also morally wrong. Their employer and the union ignored the industry award. But, to rub salt into the wounds of these miners, Fair Work ignored their calls for help too.

There is a complex web of companies in this matter. Coal Mines Insurance and Coal Mine Services, who operate in the Hunter Valley, are both owned fifty-fifty by the CFMMEU and the New South Wales Minerals Council, the employer entity. AUSCOAL Superannuation are also owned by some of these parties. So, whichever way they turned, these people had no chance. They were dealing with government legislated monopolies. The CFMMEU ignored the rights of these honest workers from beginning to end. They signed off on a substandard employment agreement. The CFMMEU broke the trust of these workers and discarded them.

When these workers took their concerns to the local federal Labor MP, Joel Fitzgibbon, they were shown the door again—six times—as they were by the state MP and Liberal state ministers. How hard it must have been for these champions to keep going. But then, thanks to meeting our One Nation representative, Stuart Bonds, an experienced and trusted figure in the Hunter Valley community, Simon and injured people like him got a voice at last. The trust that Simon Turner put in Stuart Bonds has been repaid, and now we are seeing the government and the union respond—maybe—at last. It has been a long journey, and it could not come soon enough for these brave people. Now we need action and not words from BHP, Chandler Macleod and the CFMMEU, and I call on them to respond. Stuart Bonds, who is a CFMMEU member himself, brought this matter to me, and then I drew it to the attention of this House, the federal Attorney-General's Department and New South Wales senator Marise Payne.

One Nation is always concerned for everyday people: workers, farmers, small-business owners—the people that the Liberal, Labor and National parties ignore and who the big employers, like BHP and Chandler Macleod, are exploiting and dumping. For the abused Hunter Valley black-coal miners, we now want what every Australian expects and is entitled to—that is, we want to ensure that all miners who have been scammed and denied their legal and moral entitlements receive a fair go. I know that decent Australians will want to see these rogue organisations held accountable for their abuses before it happens to them. We applaud these Hunter Valley casual black-coal miners who were left out in the cold by their big multinational employer and big union. Alone and without support, these people had to prepare their case, and they were able to prove correctly to me that the black-coal award does not have provisions for casual employment in production and engineering roles. I have devoted two weeks to understanding the many and varied breaches of the law and the breaches of industry standards perpetrated by these rogue organisations no longer worthy of our trust. I'm informed that some parties appear to have committed outright fraud against these miners. That is why I recently made serious claims in Senate estimates hearings and publicly, in the media.

Stuart Bonds and I will do whatever is necessary to achieve our aims in seeking justice for the miners robbed of their livelihood. Some miners have been crippled physically, emotionally and mentally. Until not long ago, nobody cared. I have publicly called for action against the employer, BHP, and Chandler Macleod; the mine operators, BHP; the union; and possibly against members of parliament, state government inspectors and agencies and the New South Wales Minerals Council.

I speak of the misbehaviour of the parties who have colluded to let these honest workers down. I refer in this collusion to BHP, Chandler Macleod and the CFMMEU, who ensured that these people had nowhere to go and nobody to listen to their complaints. These bodies, these organisations, knew that these people were casuals—in fact, they had been employed for years by the company, yet nobody cared. Shame on these businesses, these organisations, for what they did to these workers. Shame on the CFMMEU for collecting the cash and not supporting them.

The facts speak for themselves. These people went to BHP, who covered up their injuries and incidents. They went to Chandler Macleod, who refused to accept the claims for decent pay and conditions, and a fair go, and were exploiting these people. They went to Fair Work and were ignored. They went to the CFMMEU and were abandoned, discarded and tossed out. They went to the local ALP MPs and were shown the door. The government agencies did nothing to help. And the Liberal state ministers these people approached did the same.

In closing, I have recently met some very, very brave people who stood up for a fair go against the powerful. I pay tribute to Simon Turner, to others who are suffering and to Stuart Bonds. We will do whatever we can to ensure justice for these people, justice for all casuals in the Hunter Valley, and make sure that BHP, Chandler Macleod and the CFMMEU are held accountable and made to pay for their collusion that has hurt so many people.

It has been less than a month since Australia saw the brutal vision of racehorses being beaten, abused and cruelly slaughtered. Like most people who saw the footage, I was absolutely sickened and very angry at the evidence of hundreds of racehorses ending up at abattoirs and knackeries, where they were subjected to beatings, torture and electrocution, including of the genitals and anus. Horses were slaughtered in front of each other and bolt guns were used four or five times before horses were finally stunned. What kind of society have we become where such brutality is allowed to go on?

Animal welfare investigators have been telling us for some time that so-called wastage was a huge issue in the racing industry, but they were ignored and ridiculed. What we saw was much worse than what many of us had imagined. Australia was shocked and shattered at the extent and level of animal abuse. The horrific abuse and suffering of horses once they have stopped making a profit show the callousness of the industry that purports to look after them. They should hang their heads in shame. This should have been a catalyst for change, but the racing industry seems intent on shifting blame and simply waiting it out until people forget. The Liberals and the Labor Party seem intent on popping champagne with them rather than holding them to account. All we have seen are empty words and hollow indignation.

A week after the expose, Labor, Liberal and Nationals politicians literally lined up to stand by the horse industry at the Parliamentary Friends of Primary Producers event for Thoroughbred Breeders Australia. Racing and Sports reported that Deputy Prime Minister, Nationals leader and Riverina MP Michael McCormack said at the event in the wake of the ABC expose:

Well done to you breeders, you owners and everyone involved. This government will always back you every step of the way, I know I share bipartisanship when I say that.

Opposition leader Anthony Albanese said:

We can't afford, for what is overwhelmingly such a positive experience, to be damaged as well. We will do anything we can do to provide assistance …

He also said:

I'm confident that your industry will work your butt off … You'll open yourselves up to scrutiny because you don't want any taint whatsoever.

Open themselves up to scrutiny, working their butts off—what parallel universe are these people living in? This is a national shame.

But people probably would not be surprised that this cruelty against racehorses is enabled by the gambling industry. Betting and gambling profits are built upon the exploitation of chronic gamblers. Mainstream media ignore the problem because of the millions of dollars of advertising the gambling industry put through them, and so the cycle continues. Thank God for the ABC and their fearless independence in taking on these powerful people. It is no wonder that so many in this place are so hell-bent on defunding them.

So how is this allowed to happen? The simple reality is that the silence of politicians is bought through political donations. Tabcorp is at the centre of this. According to AEC 2017-18 reporting, Tabcorp donated $108,860 to the Labor Party, $72,790 to the Liberal Party and $36,350 to the National Party. Is it any surprise then to see politicians being the first to jump to the defence of the racing industry? Labor and Liberal premiers across the country throw tens of millions of dollars of public money at the greyhound and horseracing industries; that is a pretty good return on investment for Tabcorp, while society, the taxpayer and animals bear the costs.

As if to finish the circle, we see politicians jump on a conveyor belt that runs directly from this very building to the powerful lobby groups and back. Just look at the erroneously named Responsible Wagering Australia that represents reprehensible online betting companies, like CrownBet, Ladbrokes and Sportsbet, whose profits are built on the gambling losses of others. The chair of Responsible Wagering Australia is former Liberal senator Nick Minchin. The chief executive officer is former Labor senator Stephen Conroy. The bipartisanship is just touching, isn't it? The gambling industry makes political donations for the same reason the coal lobby does, the same reason the pokies lobby does and the same reason the big banks do: to buy influence and, in this case, to buy their silence.

At the core of what we saw in that footage of horrendous cruelty to horses is the inability and unwillingness of the racing industry to accept full responsibility for each and every horse they breed and to ensure each has a life free from cruelty and abuse for the whole of its natural life. When I directly asked the former Liberal Premier of New South Wales Barry O'Farrell, who headed up Racing Australia until a few days ago, whether or not the racing industry has a responsibility to look after the horses, he said:

I think they have a responsibility up until the time they leave the racing industry. If I sell you my car, Senator, it's no longer my responsibility to maintain it: it's yours.

Well, sorry, Mr O'Farrell, but a horse is not a car. A horse is a living, sentient being. When a billion-dollar industry is predicated on the breeding of thousands of animals purely for the purpose of providing gambling profits to racing, it has a special responsibility to guarantee those animals a good life. They don't get to throw the horse on the abattoir scrap heap when they are done with it, no matter what the route taken.

The industrial-scale slaughter of ex-racehorses that no longer turn a profit has always been an open secret in the industry. The question is: will the industry do anything about it? If those in this industry can't guarantee a dignified life for the equine athletes that they say they love, it's clear that this industry is losing its social licence. The case of the racehorse War Ends shows that no horse, no matter how successful it is at racing, is safe from being tortured and killed once it is no longer turning a profit. A former champion racehorse was tortured and slaughtered at the hands of abattoir workers, as seen in secret hidden-camera footage. War Ends won almost $400,000 in prize money and bonuses.

I've got a word of advice for the racing industry. It is pretty clear that you knew what was going on. You knew that horses that are no longer or were never fast enough are disposed of in abattoirs and knackeries around the country; it is part of the business model. You can sit back and try and ride this out, but you've been put on notice. And we're already seeing this in action. Melbourne Cup attendance was down to a 24-year low. TV ratings were down, dropping by a third in Melbourne itself. Betting turnover was down six per cent. Every racehorse deserves a dignified retirement, not to be trucked thousands of kilometres to be beaten, kicked and cruelly slaughtered.

I want to thank the brave activists who exposed this barbaric cruelty. These are people who are risking their safety, freedom and lives to bring us the truth. These people should be celebrated as heroes. But the stark reality is that, just a few weeks ago, every single person in here except the Greens voted to further criminalise activists bringing animal cruelty to the public eye. Every person involved in coordinating this footage would now be facing a one-year jail sentence. For that, as well, you should hang your heads in shame. Many of you will stand up here and say that you are horrified by what you saw and that you are against animal cruelty, but the reality is that not that long ago you knowingly voted to silence the very people who are exposing it.

Australians are getting pretty sick of Labor and Liberal politicians running a protection racket for animal cruelty. If the industry has nothing to hide, let's have a royal commission to look into it. But we need to fundamentally change the way we treat animals. Let's introduce national laws against animal cruelty, and an independent office for animal welfare. Australia can and must do better for animals, and the Greens intend to keep pushing both the Labor and Liberal parties until they take animal sentience and their right to live a life free from pain, cruelty and suffering seriously.

Senate adjourned at 21:14