Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (09:31): I move:

That the motion relating to designating the Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country be called on immediately.

In moving this motion, please let me explain that it is procedural and, if passed, it will mean that the chamber will use government business time to consider the designation of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country. The government considered that this designation is important and needs to be dealt with this week. To ensure this, additional government time will be provided with the passage of this motion. Until both houses of parliament have passed a resolution approving the designation of Papua New Guinea as a processing country, the government is unable to transfer people to Papua New Guinea. If not passed this week, transfers could not occur for another three weeks, or until 29 October.

Supplementing the existing offshore processing arrangements in Nauru with a processing facility in Papua New Guinea will discourage irregular and dangerous maritime voyages and thereby reduce the risk of loss of life at sea. The designation promotes the maintenance of a fair and orderly refugee and humanitarian program that retains the confidence of the Australian people. Designating Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country also promotes regional cooperation on irregular migration and people-smuggling and their undesirable consequences.

The designation of Papua New Guinea also satisfies recommendation 9 of the expert panel on asylum seekers, which recommended:

… a capacity be established in PNG as soon as possible to process the claims of IMAs—

irregular maritime arrivals—

transferred from Australia …

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (09:33): I just want to respond to the arguments put forward by the representing minister in relation to this motion. I find it astonishing that the government think they can come in here and say, 'Oh well; because we hadn't got our act together earlier, we now need to rush this through the parliament today, because otherwise we won't have the designation done until 29 October.' We know what happened last time we saw this government rush through the designation for Nauru. It was rushed through and we started sending people to Nauru before the contracts were even signed with the service providers.

This chamber has called on the government to deliver those signed contracts—to lay them on the table. They have only managed to lay two. The main contracts for the service provider, Transfield Services, who will run these facilities, have not been put on the table.

We were told they could not be put on the table because they were not completed and were not signed, yet here we have the government today saying we must rush this through the parliament, we must tick off on it despite the fact that the details given in the designation do not cover all of the things that the Houston report says must be included in order to allow parliament to make an informed decision around these issues. What we see happening here is another attempt to botch the process. We have done with Nauru and we are about to do it again with Manus Island.

We can debate the merits of the designation itself when we come to that but the fact that the government want to hijack the rest of the parliamentary chamber time to deal with something they do not even have the details on—they have not even bothered to do their homework and get everything together—well, frankly, that is their problem. There is enough evidence out there to suggest that unless we fix the problems that happened in how we ran detention centres on Manus Island last time, the horrors that existed then and the pain and suffering that was inflicted on genuine refugees then these problems will happen all over again. And all we hear from the government this morning is: regardless, putting all that aside; we just want it rushed through. Frankly, it is just not good enough.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Minister Collins be agreed to.

Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (09:43): I move:

That, for the purposes of section 198AB of the Migration Act 1958, the Senate approves the designation of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country, by instrument made on 9 October 2012.

Yesterday, acting under section 198AB of the Migration Act, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the Hon. Chris Bowen, designated by legislative instrument the Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country. In accordance with the legislative amendments to permit regional processing, which came into effect on 18 August 2012, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship presented to the House of Representatives the following documents: a copy of the designation; a statement outlining why it is in the national interest to designate Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country; a copy of the memorandum of understanding with Papua New Guinea signed on 8 September 2012; a statement about the minister's consultations with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in relation to the designation; and a statement about the arrangements that are in place or are about to be put in place in Papua New Guinea for the treatment of persons taken there.

These documents were also tabled in the Senate today for senators' information. I call on my colleagues in the Senate to approve this designation to enable the first transfers of offshore entry persons to Papua New Guinea for processing in accordance with the new regional processing arrangements.

The government have accepted all 22 recommendations of the Report of the expert panel on asylum seekers, which was provided to the government on 13 August 2012. I reiterate that the panel's recommendations must be implemented as an integrated package as the best way to discourage dangerous sea voyages. This includes creating incentives to encourage greater use of regular migration pathways and international protection arrangements, and disincentives to irregular maritime voyages, including the application of a no-advantage principle and regional processing arrangements.

Designation of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country will reinforce arrangements already underway in Nauru and form a key part of implementing the panel's recommendations. It demonstrates the government's resolve to discourage asylum seekers from risking their lives on dangerous journeys by boat to Australia. The designation of Papua New Guinea along with transfers already underway to Nauru will undermine the people smugglers' product and send a clear message that there is no advantage travelling to Australia by irregular means. We have already seen a number of asylum seekers choose to return home voluntarily after being transferred to Nauru, which is evidence of the false stories that people smugglers are selling about what awaits asylum seekers in Australia. Further, additional and safer regular avenues for migration are being made available through the region, including Australia's increase to the humanitarian program to 20,000 places a year—reinforcing the message that asylum seekers should not risk their lives.

For the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to designate a country as a regional processing country, he must think it in the national interest to do so. The minister has clearly and publicly stated his view that designating Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country is in the national interest and those reasons are: it will discourage irregular and dangerous maritime voyages, thereby reducing the risk of loss of life at sea; it will promote a fair and orderly refugee and humanitarian program that retains the confidence of the Australian people; and it will promote regional cooperation in relation to irregular migration and the addressing of people smuggling.

Papua New Guinea has also provided Australia with certain assurances which include the specified assurances required by the legislation. It is important to note that every care is being taken by the government to ensure the welfare of transferees, including oversight arrangements allowing for transparency of the regional processing centres. This will include the involvement of key civil society actors; appropriate service provision, particularly in relation to health and welfare services; and the provision of mental health services, particularly torture and trauma counselling.

The government are dealing with people seeking protection and there is a need for fully considered arrangements to be put in place. By presenting the designation and the accompanying documents in accordance with the legislation, the government are providing senators and the parliament with the opportunity to be satisfied that what is in place or will be put in place is appropriate. Again, I call on my colleagues in the Senate to approve this designation to enable the transfer of offshore entry persons to Papua New Guinea and to bolster arrangements in Nauru to provide the circuit breaker to irregular maritime arrivals called for by the expert panel's report.

Senator CASH (Western Australia) (09:49): I rise to speak on behalf of the coalition on the motion before the Senate in relation to the instrument of designation of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country under subsection 198AB(1) of the Migration Act 1958 and to indicate that the coalition will be supporting the government's motion. It was almost a month ago that we witnessed a historic day in this parliament.

That historic day was because Labor members from both the right and, more particularly, the left stood alongside coalition senators in this chamber and voted to restore offshore processing. They voted alongside coalition senators to establish Nauru as a regional processing country.

At that time, I proposed an amendment on behalf of the coalition to the motion that was before the Senate. The amendment, if it had been accepted, would have required the government to implement the full suite of the former Howard government's border protection policies. Unfortunately, that motion was defeated. In addressing the Senate today in relation to this particular motion, it is timely to take a look at what has occurred since that time when the government again voted with the coalition to designate Nauru as an offshore processing country but, at the same time, failed to implement the full suite of the former Howard government's successful border protection policies.

The government's 2012-13 budget forecast for the immigration and citizenship portfolio is based on 5,645 arrivals for the entire financial year. Three months into this financial year, including the one month in which Nauru has been reopened, Australia has witnessed arrivals at a rate of approximately 2,000 per month. Remember that for the entire financial year the government's budget for this particular portfolio is based 5,645 arrivals. So in the first three months of this financial year Australians have already witnessed 4.5 times the governments' budgeted expectations. In other words, under this government's policies—reminding the Senate that one of these policies is that Nauru has been reopened—the budget in this particular portfolio area has yet again been comprehensively blown in the first three months of the financial year. I also remind the Senate that, as of yesterday—and this could have changed this morning since I have been in the chamber, and we have only been in this financial year for three months—there have been 101 illegal boats arrive this financial year alone, carrying 6,436 asylum seekers.

Let us compare that to what occurred under the former Howard government, bearing in mind that just four weeks ago this government refused to accept the coalition's amendment that would have seen the government introduce the full suite of the former Howard government's policies. Under the former Howard government's policies, which have been proven to be successful and in part have been adopted by a Labor government, Australia was averaging 45 people coming to this country per year. That was over the final six years of the former Howard government. As I said in question time yesterday, by this rationale Australia has witnessed under this Labor government more than 50 years of Howard government boat arrivals in the month of September alone. Just think about that and the impact that that has on the budget.

In the month of September 2012 alone, under the current Labor government's clearly failed border protection policies, Australia has witnessed 50 years of what boat arrivals were under the former Howard government. Again, this is going to have consequences for the budget in relation to this particular portfolio, bearing in mind—and Australians are well aware of this—that the government has now blown out the budget by in excess of $5 billion. Australians can only throw their hands up in dismay and ask what the government could have done had it not wound back the proven border protection policies of the former Howard government; we would have continued to see a low- to almost zero-rate of boat arrivals.

The $5 billion which the government has blown to date on this particular portfolio could have been spent on building hospitals, building schools and potentially on an NDIS, but that $5 billion has been blown by this government and its failed border protection policies.

I also remind the Senate that 60 boats, carrying 3,830 asylum seekers, have arrived in Australia since the government was dragged, kicking and screaming, to re-establish offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island. So, if the government claims, as it does on a regular basis in both the other place and this place, that its policy alone of offshore processing without the full complement of the former Howard government's policies actually works, they are in denial, because the statistics do not lie. Since we reopened Nauru, the boats have not stopped coming. In fact they have actually increased, because the people smugglers know this government is not fair dinkum.

This government is not fair dinkum when it comes to border protection in this country. As I said: 60 boats, carrying 3,830 asylum seekers, have arrived. Why do the people smugglers continue to put people on boats and send them to Australia? For this reason—despite the fact that the government did the biggest political backflip of all time—and the Left of the Labor Party, as they will again today. I note the irony of the minister having to give the statement to the House on behalf of the government. There was not a lot of passion in it but I can understand why. This minister has been an ardent advocate for onshore processing, as opposed to offshore processing. I can only imagine the pain that must be felt when you have to stand up and say to the people of Australia, 'We got it wrong and we have to now agree with the former Howard government policies which we are readopting.'

Under this government, only five per cent of people who have arrived since they reopened Nauru have actually been sent there. When you have five per cent, of almost 4,000 people, being sent to Nauru, you tell me: is that a deterrent to the people smugglers? It is an absolute joke. It is a step in the right direction, don't get me wrong. That is why the coalition supported the reopening of Nauru and is again today supporting the establishment of PNG as a regional processing country.

But as we have said time and time again—and we have been proved right in relation to this point—unless the government adopts the full suite of the Howard government policies, sending five per cent of those people who have arrived in the last four weeks is hardly a deterrent to the people smugglers. In fact, last week almost six times the number of people sent to Nauru by Labor turned up this week on boats. What does that say about the policy that the government is currently implementing? The number of Afghan asylum seekers that Minister Bowen has sent to Nauru could fit in a minibus. In other words, he has sent less than a handful. But, if you look at the number of asylum seekers coming from Afghanistan to this country, they could fill ocean liners time and time again. There is clearly no disincentive to people coming to Australia.

Again, statistics confirm that it is not this government that is calling the shots in relation to border protection; the people smugglers continue to run border protection policy in Australia. Despite these glaring statistics, the government still refuses to be honest with the Australian people. It still refuses to explain to the Australian people why in the first instance, in August 2008, it rolled back the former Howard government's policies. We are now standing here in 2012 as a Senate and we are adopting in part the former Howard government's policies. The government cannot explain the last four years to the Australian people and the extent of the political backflip that they have actually done.

Senators will be aware that this day has been a long time coming. In 2010 the Governor of Manus Island wrote to the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea and indicated that he was very happy and the state was very happy to have Papua New Guinea, and in particular Manus Island, host the reopening of an offshore facility. That was over two years ago. If you want to look at how many people have arrived since the Governor of Manus Island wrote to the Prime Minister of PNG, more than 20,000 people have arrived in that time. It has taken more than 20,000 people to arrive in Australia by boat for the Prime Minister to accept that offer made by the Governor of Manus Island in 2010 to the Prime Minister of PNG to restore offshore processing on Manus Island.

The coalition's position on offshore processing has been consistent since day one. We have been consistent in what we have told the Australian people, and under offshore processing it is acknowledged by all Australians that the former Howard government policies stopped the boats. We support the reopening or the reestablishment of PNG as a regional processing country because, as we have said all along, Papua New Guinea has signed the refugee convention and there are legally binding protections for the people that Australia will send there. It was the coalition that originally enshrined human rights protections in the Migration Act, under section 198A, for people who are offshore. It was the coalition that opposed Labor's Malaysian five-for-one people-swap deal. As we said and have continued to say, this deal was an abominable deal that could not provide sufficient protections for those sent to Malaysia.

I remind senators of the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the inquiry into the Malaysian arrangement, in which it was found:

… if the transfer of asylum seekers to Malaysia proceeds then the Australian Government will have failed dismally in fulfilling any so-called 'moral obligation'.

I said at the time that the Senate was debating the Labor government's Malaysian people-swap deal that the Left of the Labor Party should be ashamed of themselves. I said at the time that, going forward, the Left of the Labor Party would never again be able to stand up in this place and tell the Australian people that they believe in upholding the human rights of asylum seekers. Why? It was because the policy that the Left of the Labor Party sanctioned was not based on offshore processing; it was based on offshore dumping, and not the proper management of asylum seekers through offshore processing.

And, while the Left of the Labor Party screamed at the time that they were opposed to this type of treatment, when push came to shove, when they were actually asked to stand up for their principles and have their names recorded as voting against this abominable deal, they threw principle and all caution out the door and they were still prepared to support the Malaysian people-swap deal. That was absolute hypocrisy at its best. But then again, the Left of the Labor Party now proudly support offshore processing, as indicated by the minister's speech in the Senate today. They proudly support offshore processing, as they rightly should.

It was also the coalition that opposed the Gillard government's attempts to strip all protections from the Migration Act. We recall that the coalition's stance at the time was ridiculed by the Labor Party. However, the stance that we took on the stripping of protections by the Labor Party from the Migration Act was vindicated by both the High Court and the Houston report, which the government claims at this stage to rely on for its new policy and which found that the Malaysia deal did not contain adequate human rights protections for those who were sent there. It was also the coalition that insisted that in the changes to the law that passed the parliament to reopen Nauru this parliament would need to approve any country used for offshore processing to ensure appropriate human rights protections were in place.

Then we come to the present day. Just four weeks ago, in September, the government put before the parliament the special legislative instrument to authorise offshore processing in Nauru. That declaration has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate with the support of the coalition. This new designation that is currently before the Senate of Papua New Guinea as an offshore processing country is in a similar form and content to that previously debated by the Senate. Unfortunately for the Australian people, however, the government has come to the realisation far too late and at a great cost to the Australian people that it was wrong—that it was wrong to wind back the proven border protection policies of the former Howard government.

This is a government that still is not committed to offshore processing. It was dragged kicking and screaming to this place a number of weeks ago when it came to the re-establishment of Nauru as an offshore processing country. Even then, the government could not bring itself to say, 'This is Labor Party determined policy.' The government blamed the policy on the expert panel that the government put together to give it the answer to the problem. That, as we know, is the Houston report. What did the Houston report recommend? Again, it recommended the government take action to implement offshore processing on Nauru. If you have actually read the Houston report, as many of us in this place have, it is widely acknowledged that this is one of the most damning critiques of a government's policy that has ever been handed down. What did the Houston report actually find? The government accepted the findings of the Houston report, the expert panel which the government hand-picked itself and to which it gave the terms of reference. The minister has again referred to this and confirmed this today. What did the Houston report effectively find? It found that the government was wrong in principle to wind back the proven border protection policies of the former Howard government. The Houston report also substantially endorsed the coalition's approach to stopping the boats. That is why we are in this place today debating a motion that is currently before the Senate to designate Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country.

Whilst the coalition is supportive of the designation of PNG as an offshore processing country, I reaffirm to the Australian people that if and when a coalition government is next elected to govern this country, unlike the Labor government we will implement the full suite of the former Howard government's border protection policies. Too much has been lost over the last four years because of the Prime Minister's stubbornness and her refusal to admit what is so simple and what has been confirmed by the Houston report that the Labor Party in August 2008 just got it wrong. The coalition's policies on border protection have been proven to work. These policies work together and when combined it is irrefutable that they destroyed the people smugglers model. The same stubbornness by this government that rejected Nauru for years is the stubbornness that is still rejecting the other two planks of the coalition's policies—which are, of course, temporary protection visas and turning back the boats when it is safe to do so. Again, this has been recommended by the Houston panel. Ms Gillard has been proven wrong on Nauru and yet again the Australian public know that she is wrong on temporary protection visas and she is wrong on turning back the boats. The coalition understands that the Howard government's solutions worked then and they will work again when they are restored.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:09): I rise to speak against the approval of this designation that has been forwarded in such haste by the government. The concerns that the Australian Greens have are concerns that are shared by many in the Australian community. They are very similar to the concerns that we had last time we saw a designation put forward in this place, and that was of course in relation to Nauru.

It seems that every day that goes by this government, together with the opposition, are colluding, snuggling up, to share their obsession with deterrence. Yet despite Nauru already been open, despite the fact that we have sent people there and had a big fanfare about the poor souls that we have dumped on Nauru, it has not stopped anybody coming here by boat. The deterrence factor has already failed. It has been proven to fail. The Australian Greens said it would never work and we have been proven right. The fact is that the reason a deterrence policy will not save lives is because the only option is to give people a safer alternative and a safer pathway to seeking protection. We know that out of the 22 recommendations put forward by the Houston report one of the key underlying principles was that of ensuring we gave people safer options. Yet that is the one recommendation that this government continues to drag its feet on.

We have had big fanfare from the minister about the planeloads of people we have sent from Christmas Island and dumped on Nauru, and I am sure we will have fanfare all over again once the coalition and the government tick off on such an inhumane policy to dump refugees, men, women and children, on Manus Island. But when are we getting our first planeload of refugees from Indonesia, from Malaysia, from Pakistan, giving them a safer option than having to come by boat in the first place? Experts have always argued, both in the Houston report and outside, that the best way of avoiding people having to take dangerous boat journeys is to give them a safer option, but that is not what this parliament has been dealing with for the last two months. We have had to suffer the obsession of the Labor government and Tony Abbott's coalition to punishing refugees in order to see if they can claw back some cheap, quick electoral votes. That is the crux of it, Mr Acting Deputy President. This is not about saving lives, this is all about dirty, bottom of the barrel politics.

This designation has been put forward today does not deal with the concerns that the Houston report said needed to be satisfied in order for the parliament to say, 'Yes, we could send people here.' We do not have the details of that. Let me go to one particular point: even in the memorandum of understanding with Papua New Guinea that the Australian government has signed and tabled as part of this designation, a key aspect is left unagreed. That is in relation to how unaccompanied minors are going to be treated. So we have the minister here, Senator Lundy, asking this chamber to tick off on this designation and yet with regard to the most vulnerable refugees that arrive here in Australia needing our protection, those children, whether they are orphaned or whether they had to flee and leave their mums and dads and their older brothers and sisters behind, there is no detail in this designation of how those children are going to be protected, who looks after them, who will be their guardian, what their rights are. They are the most vulnerable refugees, and this agreement is silent. Yet this parliament is expected to sign off on it.

We see in the documents put forward by the government to argue their case for why dumping refugees on Manus Island seems such a good idea to them, 'Oh well, there is not appropriate accommodation yet so we will put people in tents.' Manus Island has one of the world's highest malaria rates, but we are about to dump refugees, people who already have a fragile state of mental health and physical health, in tents in a place which has a massive rate of malaria. There is nothing in these documents to give us any rise to this chamber feeling satisfied that dumping refugees on Manus Island indefinitely is a good idea at all.

We know that the United Nations refused to participate, as they have in Nauru. They have also said that they will not participate for Manus Island and Papua New Guinea.

This government could not even convince the United Nations to participate in this process, despite the fact that if we are to have a proper regional framework that works towards lifting levels of protection the United Nations has to be involved. But this is such a poorly structured policy, based only on the obsession of deterrence, which has proved to fail, and the United Nations says, 'No, we are not participating.' Regarding the whole policy process by this government, rather than doing what the experts say we need, which is to lift levels of protection around the region so that people do not need to continue to run in order to seek and reach safety, the United Nations has said that this policy pushes down levels of protection and that it undermines the best levels of protection in this region.

Rather than Australia doing what is right, as a wealthy country governed by the rule of law, a country that proudly participated in the drafting of the refugee convention, under Julia Gillard's leadership, under Minister Bowen's leadership and under the spruiking by Minister Lundy, this government is trashing our obligations to the refugee convention. It will leave men, women and children locked up for years and years and years on a remote island in Papua New Guinea. That is not a way of lifting levels of protection for people—the most vulnerable in our region.

UNHCR, as I said, has refused to participate in this process, yet the government cannot even be bothered to make that clear in the designation that it gives to parliament to date. I guess it just assumes that we all would forget about it. It is an inconvenient truth that not even the world's leading refugee organisation will have a bar of this. Not only will the UNHCR not participate but also even the International Organization for Migration will not participate in this policy on Manus Island or Nauru.

The facilities, as outlined in the documents put forward by the government today, show that they are not ready to be housing refugees. We know that they were not ready in Nauru either. We also know that we started sending refugees to Nauru before the Australian government had even signed the contracts with the service providers. This chamber has demanded that the government table the contract with Transfield Services and they are still refusing to do it. Yet the government has the gall to ask the parliament to turn a blind eye to all of these botched mistakes and just allow them to start dumping people in another place, because they need the space and because their promises that offshore dumping was going to stop people coming by boats have not worked.

More people have come on boats in the last month than the month before. Yesterday we had a boat arrive with 100 people. This is not stopping desperate people from seeking safety and protection. The only way you do that is by ensuring people have safer alternatives. That is where the government has put no effort. We have heard nothing from the government about how many people they will resettle from Indonesia—genuine refugees who have been waiting in squalid conditions, hiding in Indonesia because they cannot go to school, cannot go to the doctor and cannot get work. But they have already been assessed as genuine refugees by the UNHCR.

When will the government start resettling some of those people so they do not have to come by boat? We have heard nothing from the government as to that particular recommendation from the Houston panel.

We know that this particular designation goes nowhere near addressing the very serious concerns about the negative impacts of detaining people indefinitely. Refugees will be locked up as prisoners for doing nothing but trying to seek safety and protection, which, despite the language that is used sometimes in this place by the other side, is not illegal. It is perfectly legal to seek asylum in Australia, as it is in any country that has signed the refugee convention. But this government wants to dump refugees—men, women and children—on a remote island in tents, surrounded by Dengue fever and malaria, indefinitely when all the expert knowledge tells us how damaging, how inhumane, how illegal that approach is. There is nothing that this government and senators on the Labor side have to feel proud of when today they will vote to indefinitely detain and indefinitely imprison refugees who have fled war, torture and persecution—all so that the government can say it is being tough and sending a message of deterrence that we know clearly is not working at the moment.

There is in the MoU with Papua New Guinea the allowance for this government to dump children on Manus Island. The question this government does not want to answer is: who will be going to Manus Island? When will we be sending orphaned refugee children, unaccompanied children and young children to Manus Island? If we do send young children and young families, which this designation allows, how long will those children spend in immigration detention on a remote island, suffering the lack of access to appropriate services?

We know that the health contract that has been signed does not allow for adequate mental health services to be available on Manus Island. In fact, the contract that was tabled for IHMS, the health service provider that will offer this service to both Manus Island and Nauru, says that the regular counselling that will be available to refugees on Manus Island will be via a telephone call to Sydney. A telephone call to Sydney will be the regular counselling services provided—outrageous. All of the evidence we have is that detaining vulnerable refugees—who have suffered the consequences of having to flee war, torture and persecution—indefinitely, remotely, out of sight and out of mind just compounds their suffering and compounds their traumatic experiences. Yet this government just wants to blindly follow in John Howard's footsteps.

The interesting thing about Senator Cash's contribution to this debate is that the senator fully admits that this is John Howard's policy. We have gotten to a point where the Labor Party has adopted the callous, cruel, inhumane policies of John Howard as their own, and there is no getting out of that. It was all in the name of stopping people coming here by boat but it has not worked.

It is not working and it has not worked. The only result will be years of suffering and inflicted pain on the very fragile, vulnerable refugees that we detain indefinitely, that this government will lock up on Manus Island and make them suffer for as long as they need to suffer so that the government thinks that that will send a message to others.

The experts have consistently told us that if we want to stop people having to take dangerous boat journeys, we need to have an open mind; bring people here safely ourselves. Yes, we have had a commitment to lift the refugee intake. When are we going to start resettling people from Indonesia? Why has the Australian government not brought people from Indonesia who have been assessed as genuine refugees and who have been waiting for years in Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan? Why aren't they here? Why haven't we had the first plane load arrive? It is because this government is not genuine about a humanitarian response.

This is all about competing with the heartless, callous policies of Tony Abbott's coalition. It is a race to the bottom. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel and there is no forethought for what impact indefinite detention will have on the children whom we send to Manus Island. All of the experts say indefinite detention is the worst possible thing that we can be doing to vulnerable refugees. The UN says we should not be doing it. The health experts say we should not be doing it. The government's senators, members of the House and ministers have argued in the past against indefinite detention. Yet here we have a policy that we are being asked to pass in this place to indefinitely dump refugee children on a remote island in Papua New Guinea, wiping our hands of responsibility for them.

This indefinite detention issue is exactly why I have circulated amendments in this chamber to limit the length of detention for any individual on Manus Island to 12 months. If this government cannot be organised enough to assess people's health, security and refugee claims within 12 months, they cannot be trusted to do anything. Twelve months is enough time to do those things. Anything beyond that is unnecessary suffering for these people. If people are found to be genuine refugees, we resettle them. If they are not then we send them home. But you do not need any longer than 12 months to get an answer on somebody's assessment. Most other comparable countries do it in far less than 12 months.

This is the second designation in the last month that we have spoken on in this chamber. Yet, again, it is riddled with gaps, hastily put together and does not have the information that this chamber needs access to in order to make a proper decision. But we will see this voted through today because the government and the coalition are so obsessed with being anti refugee, anti humanitarian and doing everything to make John Howard look good.

Therefore, I move:

At the end of the motion, add the following words:

"And calls on the Government to put in place a 12 month time limit on detention of an individual in Papua New Guinea."

Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (10:29): I rise to speak about the thrust of the motion and what the government has moved today, but I will start by making reference to the remarks of Senator Hanson-Young a moment ago.

Senator Hanson-Young has described the processing of refugees and asylum seekers in places like Nauru and Manus Island as being callous, cruel and anti-refugee. I accept that her position and that of the Greens, unlike that of the government, has been consistent throughout this debate. They have always argued for onshore processing and they have always argued against offshore processing in places like Manus Island, Malaysia and Nauru.

But I remind the Senate in considering this issue today that, unlike the situation we are often in of debating an abstract Greens solution to a problem, we have actually seen the Greens' solution to the boat issue implemented over much of the last five years. We have had the Greens' policy working, and the consequence of that policy has been 26,347 people arriving since 2007 on 446 boats and, most conspicuously, most spectacularly and most horrendously, the deaths of over 700 people in that process. I, for one, am not prepared to be lectured about how cruel the implementation of an offshore solution might be when the alternative we have seen in place for the last four years has led directly to the deaths of 700 people.

In the last six years of the Howard government, when the Pacific Solution was fully in train and fully implemented, we cannot be sure, but there were probably no deaths at sea because there were almost no boats coming to Australia's shores. That, by itself, is sufficient reason to reject a continuation of the failed policies of the last four years based on onshore processing of asylum seekers.

I listened to Senator Lundy's speech with considerable interest. In fact, everything that Senator Lundy said in the course of her remarks, with the exception of the reference to the 20,000-people humanitarian intake increase, could have been said by an immigration minister in the Howard government. It was a complete articulation of the Howard government policy, although she failed to mention that there were other elements of the Howard government's policy which have not been implemented as part of this government's policy.

It is probably not of great value to rake over the fact that, in the course of moving from an effective offshore processing solution which operated throughout the last six years of the Howard government to today's partial re-instatement of the Howard government's Pacific Solution, we have been through at least four iterations of the government's policy. After being told that offshore processing did not work we were then told, after hundreds and thousands of arrivals, that maybe it did work and we could have offshore processing happening in East Timor. Then it would happen on a regional processing centre which has never transpired. Then it would happen in Malaysia. In fact, at one stage in the course of that iteration of options Manus Island was also talked about as an option for the government to pursue, and this was openly entertained. The government's pride was too much at risk to reopen the Howard government's detention centre on Nauru, but it was prepared to entertain the option of Manus Island. For some reason it did not pursue that particular option.

We have seen change after change in the government's policy, and to be frank it is very poorly placed today to lecture us in this chamber about what we should do to fix the problem of unauthorised boat arrivals. It has demonstrated that it has absolutely no idea, and today has only the option of returning to the successful solutions of the former government in order to be able to fix this problem—or so the government thinks.

The point about this motion is that while it picks up another piece of the solution that was employed by the Howard government prior to the 2007 election it does not fully pick up the policies which were effective in deterring the business of people smugglers, the flow of boats and the deaths at sea. It does not do those things because it leaves out key elements of that policy. It refuses to acknowledge that turning back boats in certain circumstances was an effective policy that was absolutely devastating to the effectiveness of the product that the people smugglers were selling.

People climbed on to those boats that they had paid US$10,000 or whatever the cost was to get a place on those boats and they headed a couple of hundred kilometres off the coast of Indonesia only to be intercepted and turned back by an Australian naval vessel. Quite possibly the boat would return to the same port from which it had departed and then other asylum seekers in that place or in contact with people in that place would realise they had done their dough, wasted their $10,000 as they had not got very far. The damage to the business case of the people smugglers by such actions was enormous. That is why in certain circumstances the tactic was employed successfully and legally under the Howard government. The absence of that particular policy tool today is another reason that this government's policies are under great doubt. In my opinion it is quite likely that these policies will not succeed in replicating the success of the former government's policies.

The government also refuses to reinstate temporary protection visas to underscore the fact that arrival in Australia in this fashion does not give one a permanent capacity to stay in the country or to bring other family members here. Removing that particular capacity does an enormous amount to undermine the attractiveness of arrival by boat. My party has always argued that we should do our utmost to deter those kinds of arrivals, and the deaths at sea of over 700 people in the last four years has reminded us all of how sensible and appropriate such a policy is.

I note with interest that the government is now touting proudly—and Senator Lundy did this in her remarks—the fact that a number of people who were either transferred or going to be transferred to Nauru have elected to return to their country of origin, specifically to Sri Lanka. I understand that some 46 adult men have left Christmas Island to avoid being transferred to Nauru and have returned to Sri Lanka, as well as a couple of others who got to Nauru and returned to Sri Lanka through other means. The fact the government is making much of those instances is significant. If we wind the clock back a little we would recall that when the government was still in the mode of denying that offshore processing was going to work it kept telling us that Nauru did not work. Why didn't Nauru work? It did not work because most of the people who were processed there ended up back in Australia. That is an interesting use of language: most people processed there—that is, those who got to Nauru and went through the process of being processed—ended up back in Australia.

But those figures ignored the fact that under the Pacific solution a large number of asylum seekers never got to Nauru. They either never went to Nauru or went to Nauru and elected to leave and go back to another country or to their current country of origin because they chose not to go through the process of being assessed for a visa to come to Australia. Those people were excluded from Labor's calculation of the success or otherwise of Nauru because it did not suit their case. In fact, if you include those people who arrived by boat in Australia and who were either sent to Nauru or were going to be sent to Nauru but were diverted back to their country of origin, only 43 per cent of those who made boat journeys under the Pacific solution actually ended up with visas to live in Australia. That was the statistic which made the Pacific solution a success but it was the one that the Labor government denied or fiddled with in order to claim that the Pacific solution was in fact a success. They were happy to white out those people who chose voluntarily to return to another country in claiming that the Howard government solution did not work but today they are very happy to claim that those people going back to their countries of origin is in fact an indication of Labor's success in their replication of some kind of boiled-down or pared down version of the Pacific solution.

The policies that are being pursued to date after the dismantling in October 2008 of the Howard government solution have manifestly failed. By boat, 26,347 people have arrived. There have been 446 boat arrivals. The government, for this financial year, has calculated its spending on dealing with this issue based on the arrival of 5,600-odd people but we have seen since the beginning of the financial year averaged arrivals of 2,000 people per month. We have already exceeded the quota for arrivals for this financial year, and it is only three months old.

Clearly this government still has no idea. Clearly this government does not understand how to solve this problem. It is time that they either fully embrace the policies that were effective in the past or they accept that they cannot do that and let another government take over and deal with this problem effectively—if indeed they have not already so trashed the effective solution to this problem, have not so stimulated the trade of the people smugglers and made those businesses boom in a way which they simply did not between 2001 and 2007. They have not done that to such an egregious extent that it is no longer possible to push that genie back into the bottle.

Let me simply repeat what has been said by many coalition members and senators in the course of debates here and in the other chamber: while the coalition welcomes the fact that the government is dismantling its own previous failed attempts at restricting the unauthorised arrival of people by boat, it has not implemented the Pacific solution that was so effective under the former government. While it has half-heartedly embarked on this process, while it has left so many key pieces of the puzzle out it will not in all likelihood succeed in preventing arrivals of people by boat. I say that with the greatest concern and sadness because, while people continue to make those perilous journeys on boats, they continue to risk their lives. Once again, Australia will need to examine how it can take further steps to prevent that loss of life at sea.

The coalition, as Senator Cash indicated, will support this motion but we acknowledge this is only a very small piece of a solution which the government is very far from having found.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (10:45): In rising to speak today I will say what I have said on several other occasions in that this is once again a very unhappy experience for me in having to speak up against this motion. Many of the arguments in this debate have been thrashed out quite comprehensively but I think it is important to reiterate that this is an incredibly complex problem. None of us here have any simple solutions that will resolve it. There are many factors at play, many of them global, international factors, many of them in our region and some of them here on our doorstep.

Because it is such a complex problem and because it is an issue of such tremendous complexity, it is an issue that requires leadership. For wicked problems like this, it is critical that we have governments and political leaders who are prepared to show some leadership and courage, and to try and take the community with them rather than trying to appeal to people's fears and concerns. But instead of that, rather than having a debate in this country that is measured and that highlights the limitations that the Australian government has in terms of influencing the movement of people across the world, we have seen a debate that has been dominated by simplistic slogans and the notion of quick fixes and simple solutions, rather than leaders having the courage to acknowledge that this is a difficult problem that ultimately requires a much longer term set of measures to ensure that we do get the response that we are after.

We have seen a game of political football. Those on the conservative side of politics say, 'We stopped the boats.' That is a function of how debased the political discourse in this country has become, that a problem like the movement of people across the world that results from so many different factors has become reduced to a four-word slogan like 'We stopped the boats'. It is a function of the fact that we have a political debate in this country that has been diminished by the contributions that many people have made on this issue. The lesson for the Labor Party is: whatever you do on this issue, it will never be enough for those opposite. Here we have an opposition who essentially voted for the government's policy and are now doing everything they can to distance themselves from it. They need to realise that they own this policy. It is theirs just as much as it is the government's.

I think it is important also to correct some of the things Senator Humphries said earlier in his contribution. He alluded to the claim that we have essentially seen the Greens policy being enacted over the past five years. Again it is a reflection of the fact that this debate often occurs without any genuine reference to the facts as they actually exist. What is the Greens policy? We want to see an increase in the humanitarian intake. We want to see more funding for the UNHCR. We want to see greater focus on regional processing. We want to see an uncoupling of our onshore and offshore quotas. We want to see people's lives at sea being made safer. We want to see all of those things happen, and none of those things have been in place. So to say we have actually seen the Greens policy enacted over the past five years is just plain wrong.

It is a great injustice to this debate when we have those sorts of contributions, to then gloss over the fact that it was a conservative government that saw the death of 350 people during the sinking of the SIEV X: 'We will gloss over that part of history because it is inconvenient'. It is time that the debate on this issue was at least returned to a level where there is some degree of civil discourse, where the facts as they exist are on the table—not as those opposite would try to construct them. It is very important that we do that because we will not make any progress on this issue unless we do so.

My principal objection to the motion before us is that we are violating a very important principle when it comes to those people who seek our protection—that is, we must first do no harm. By sending people to PNG, we are saying that we will inflict harm and suffering on one group in the community, people who are deserving of our protection in both a moral and legal sense. We are saying to them, 'We will inflict harm upon you' and no-one can deny that what is before us is a policy that inflicts tremendous harm on people. We are saying to them, 'We will inflict harm upon you in an effort to try to change the behaviour of another group of people.' That is a principle that we should never support.

I am very concerned, as are many others who have made contributions to this debate. We argue that we are acting in the interests of refugees. I do not see any refugees arguing in support of this policy. I do not see a clamour from refugee groups suggesting that we are doing is in their interests. In fact, what I hear is in large part the direct opposite of that. Of course, we have the same arguments against this policy from human rights groups like Amnesty, from churches, from the ACTU, from a number of academics and from human rights lawyers.

One of the most interesting contributions recently was from some people within PNG. We know there are parliamentarians in Papua New Guinea who are appalled at what has been inflicted on them. We have PNG's former Attorney-General Sir Arnold Ahmet, who says that Australia is being presumptuous by essentially debating the legislation before PNG had the opportunity to even discuss it within their own parliament. He said:

We cannot overnight be expected to rubber-stamp. It's like a patronising attitude towards Papua New Guinea and we cannot simply be expected to do this. And I think that Australia has handled it very poorly.

He goes on to say that:

Struggling Pacific island states cannot be presumptuously treated like Australian territories with the token gestures of development dollar for removing this problem from Australian soil. This is a moral dilemma. We can't simply be forced upon to take these people.

Even worse than that, not simply are we treating PNG with disrespect but we have the Catholic Bishop of Manus Island, who described the Australian government's plans to process asylum seekers as 'immoral'. Bishop Ambrose Kiapseni was a critic of the Howard government's use of Manus and said that he believed what we were doing on Manus Island with this approach was 'far worse' because we were not prepared to outline the limit on how long asylum seekers would stay there. He says:

…keeping the people like that in a place maybe they don't want to stay in, I think that's like forcing them. So[it] is immoral in that way. It's like putting people in jail without a sentence.

Just think about that. He is stating that he believes that this approach is worse than the Howard Pacific solution.

It is worth considering the conditions on Manus as well.

We have essentially a developing country with a range of communicable diseases, including malaria; we have health infrastructure that is inadequate; and we are saying to people who are both legally and morally entitled to our protection that we are going to send them to that environment so we can try and use them as an example for others. The President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, said that she was very concerned about the change in the balance between executive discretion, ministerial discretion and the opportunity for review by the High Court. In her words, she says that we have 'a strengthening of ministerial discretion, the executive role, and a weakening of the capacity for judicial review'. She says that to change that 'is a worry in a modern democracy where people should have ready access to the courts'.

We have a number of important contributions to this debate, including from some of the people directly affected, who say, 'We don't want it.' There are also very sensible pragmatic reasons. I think there is a very sound moral argument for why this should not proceed, but there is also a pragmatic argument. We know that, to date, there has not been a significant impact on the flow of people seeking our protection. We know that, in fact, to date there has not been a significant impact, because it is unlikely that a policy like this could be worse than the conditions that some people are fleeing from. I find it a little offensive that this argument has been dressed up as an argument for compassion for refugees. There is nothing compassionate about a statement that says, 'We stop the boats. We'll decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' That is the construct through which this debate has been had. That has nothing to do with compassion and has everything to do with politics.

Ultimately, this is an issue that requires a much more mature debate. It requires a return to the bipartisanship that we had during the Hawke and Fraser years, where this issue was not used as a political football. Unfortunately, that bipartisanship broke down during the tenure of the Howard government, when he saw opportunity in the lead-up to an election to politicise what should have been a manageable problem, not one that was seen through the prism of politics. Unfortunately, that is not the tenor of the debate; it is a function of the lack of leadership and courage from some of our political leaders at this time.

We know that the numbers are not with us in this parliament. We have a bill before the parliament to try and make what is essentially a very bad piece of legislation a little better. We have a bill that would at least ensure that the health of refugees is monitored and that we get a clear and accurate assessment of what their health needs are, as well as how we can best meet those needs. The bill has been supported by the AMA and it essentially says that there will be an independent health panel made up of experts, operating at arm's length from the immigration department and reporting to the parliament so that we can ensure that the parliament at least has some role in ensuring that the welfare of refugees is looked after.

Ultimately there is a much better way of dealing with this problem. It requires bipartisanship. It requires us to offer people a safer pathway. It means that we need to increase our humanitarian intake and work on a regional solution. We need to better resource the UNHCR and provide people with other avenues of reaching this country. I am sure that there will always be a time when some people will use whatever options are open to them to arrive here, and it is our responsibility, both legally and more importantly morally, to offer them protection.

In a wealthy country like Australia it is a sign of strength and not weakness to be able to afford people that protection. It is with some sadness that I speak again today. We will not be supporting the motion today and we will be ensuring that we do whatever we can to make what is essentially a very poor piece of legislation a little better for those people involved.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (11:00): I rise to speak today on the designation of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country. And so our nation's trajectory of shame in relation to our treatment of asylum seekers continues. I have spoken on this too many times before. We once had a proud history when it came to the way in which we responded to some of the world's most desperate and wretched peoples. At that time I think we could have held our heads up high if that had been our national anthem at the time. Those particular lines, 'For those who've come across the seas/We've boundless plains to share,' genuinely reflected the way we saw ourselves as a small but proud nation prepared to sign up to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In fact, we were one of the first countries willing to sign up to that convention which, as we all know, was a response to the disgrace that was the case of how Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were treated during the Second World War.

Proudly, we signed up to the convention in 1954, and as a result of that convention we undertook obligations on a world stage to treat people seeking asylum with respect. We took on an obligation to assess persons claiming asylum as to whether they were genuine refugees. What we know now is that of those persons coming to Australia seeking asylum over 90 per cent are ultimately assessed to be genuine refugees. We also undertook obligations of non-refoulement under the 1951 refugee convention—not forcibly returning people seeking asylum to the country from which they were fleeing.

The designation motion that is being debated today is only possible because of the shameful passage of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act several months ago. In my view, the passing of this legislation heralded a low point in Australia's willingness to allow human rights violations in order to achieve a pragmatic, political outcome. The Human Rights Law Centre has analysed the human rights violations in that legislation and they have been scathing in their analysis. They have said that the legislation:

… enables the government of the day to designate any country as a regional processing country—

and, of course, that is what we are doing today—

regardless of the human rights protections afforded in that country either under international or domestic law. This is likely to give rise to violations of non-refoulement obligations under the Refugee Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture, all of which have been ratified by Australia.

The Act provides for the removal of unaccompanied children to a regional processing country for a broad range of reasons considered to be in the 'national interest', contrary to the general obligation under the Convention on the Rights of the Child to ensure that the best interests of the child are given primary consideration and the specific obligation to ensure that asylum seeker children receive all necessary human rights protections and humanitarian assistance.

This is the pass that we have come to in Australia. The Human Rights Law Centre went on to say:

The Act provides that the rules of natural justice do not apply to a range of Ministerial decisions, including decisions as to which countries should be designated as regional processing countries, whether an asylum seeker should be sent offshore, and which regional processing country an asylum seeker should be sent to. This directly breaches Australia's obligations under the ICCPR to ensure that, in the determination of rights and obligations, a person must have access to the courts and is entitled to a full and fair hearing.

The litany of human rights violations continues.

This designation today—what would it involve? What does it represent? Essentially, if this motion is passed today and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea is designated as a regional processing country, it will be one of the wealthiest nations in the world outsourcing our moral responsibilities to one of our poor neighbours, one of the poorest countries in the world. Our neighbours like Nauru and Papua New Guinea are far more economically challenged than what we are.

On one hand, we posture on the world stage and in our own neighbourhood about the need to work together but our actions—and they are actions promoted by the Australian Labor Party, and Tony Abbott and the coalition—convey a lack of respect for our regional partners and an unwillingness to take genuine responsibility for those asylum seekers who seek refuge with us.

Let us compare the situation that we face with those of our regional partners—partners like Indonesia, who have 10,000 asylum seekers; Malaysia, who have 90,000 asylum seekers; and Thailand, who have more than 140,000 asylum seekers. About 6,000 asylum seekers come to Australia each year by boat, and it is a small fraction of our immigration intake of 110,000. We welcome the fact that the refugee intake has been increased to 20,000 but this is still extremely low in comparison to our peers, other wealthy nations, in the world. So in 2010 Canada received 23,160 asylum seekers and in France it was 47,790.

In Australia we expect our regional partners Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand to agree to new responsibilities for thousands of asylum seekers but we are not prepared to shoulder the burden equally. We use our economic power and influence to pressure more vulnerable states like Nauru and Papua New Guinea to take on our moral responsibilities for us.

What will it mean to designate the Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country and, more specifically, asylum seekers to Manus Island? I would like to refer to the words of a man called Paul Lonot Sireh, a Manus Islander, a Manusian. He was born and bred there. He did his primary and secondary schooling there and then went to a seminary to study for the priesthood. He left Papua New Guinea for Australia about 12 years ago and he has recently written some heartfelt words about the prospect of having Manus Island designated as a regional processing centre to take Australia's responsibility for refugees. He said:

Being a Manusian, I am feeling sad for my island and my people.

…   …   …

The move to spend millions of dollars to reopen the Manus detention centre is very much like building a palace in the middle of a slum. Manus Island is a forgotten province in PNG to say the least as regards development. People's lifestyle is undisturbed and peaceful. However like most developing peoples we are now feeling marginalized and our needs ignored by both governments. Because I reside in Australia, I am privileged to have access to a modern and western lifestyle, with three meals a day, better clothing, and many other benefits from living in this country. Manus Islanders don't have these privileges.

Can both the Australian and PNG governments help improve the living conditions of the islanders before thinking of spending millions on an exercise that will not be beneficial to all? If foreigners are to be sent to Manus, how will the needs of all Manus Islanders be met?

What would be the ideal way to boost the local economy on Manus? Here are a few suggestions for much needed improvements to infrastructure. Our deserted Lorengau town needs to be developed with good roads, housing and good sanitation. The Manus highway is very much like a logging track. The wharf has been there since World War II. People are dying every day because there are insufficient drugs and no hospital facilities to attend to the sick. The airport terminal needs to be renovated or completely rebuilt. These are just some of the vital needs of Manus Island if Australia and PNG governments are serious about boosting the local economy.

I will interpolate here with my own comments: through Australia exerting economic influence to displace our moral responsibility to process those people coming to our shores seeking asylum by placing them in a less privileged country like Papua New Guinea and a less privileged area in a less privileged country like Manus Island, the divisions that can be set up, the jealousies, the misunderstandings that can occur, we must take some responsibility for. By displacing our moral responsibilities we are spreading the wretchedness of those people who are coming to Australia seeking asylum from us.

I will continue with Mr Sireh's words:

But my main concern is that Australia is a prosperous First World nation that is economically capable of accepting a much large number of refugees who reach our shores seeking asylum from war, violence and persecution. By offering Manus PNG, with a much weaker developing economy, substantial aid to process many of these asylum seekers, Australia is lapsing back into the habits of its colonial past by exploiting the resources of another nation, in this case the willingness and economic needs of the remote Manus Islanders.

The government is asking Manus-PNG to do what they themselves are not willing to do. The fact that the government's motive is to deny asylum seekers the protection of Australian Law makes moving their problems to PNG all the more reprehensible.

…   …   …

Despite the many differences, are there not also many parallels with the early history of Australia, when England decided to solve her convict problems by sending them around the world to Botany Bay—out of sight, out of mind?

Mr Sireh reminds us of the experiences of the Palestinian asylum seeker Aladdin Siselam, who remained the sole detainee on Manus Island for 10 months in 2004. Mr Siselam told ABC Radio's Saturday AMprogram that it would be wrong to reopen the facility, that it is a bad decision and he gave testimony to the effect on his own mental health of being detained on Manus Island. He went on to say he continues to experience a mental disability from the post-traumatic stress he experienced after that detention and suffering, and that it has been difficult for him to rebuild his life. I will come back to what we know are the ongoing consequences for people's mental health of indefinite detention.

Mr Sireh says:

I strongly urge that such experiences should not happen again. To re-open the Manus detention centre would be inhumane and destructive for the health and wellbeing of all involved.

Please leave Manus Island alone if the local people can't benefit from it, and the very name of Manus Island becomes linked around the world with injustice and persecution.

As I have already indicated, we are denying asylum seekers their basic human rights—rights that every human being is entitled to. The legislation that enables this designation to occur explicitly denies the rights of natural justice. It provides explicitly that protections within the legislation are not binding on the government and it removes the role of the minister as a guardian for unaccompanied minors, children, and begs the question: who ultimately will be responsible for these people? They are vulnerable because they are minors and particularly vulnerable because they are asylum seekers.

One of the worst aspects of this policy is the fact that it subjects people to a term of detention which is indefinite on the basis of this idea of no advantage being given to those people who seek asylum by coming to Australia by boat. As Julian Burnside, the eminent jurist, has pointed out: this is nonsensical. What are the dynamics? How can this concept of no advantage and how can the length of detention be determined when there are so many flaws in applying the formula?

How does one determine when a person seeking asylum in Australia and arriving by boat would otherwise have been resettled? How do we determine what the average term of waiting for resettlement would have been? Do we take the average standard of an African refugee camp? Do we look at waiting times in Malaysia or Indonesia? Depending on what formula we apply, the difference could be between five and 40 years. Either of those possibilities would be totally unacceptable.

Effectively, this policy has people being sentenced to exile in a place that is out of sight, out of mind for Australians, for an unknown period in conditions that are unacceptable. Their 'crime' is seeking asylum under a convention which Australia proudly signed up to in 1954. We know that there will be devastating consequences for these people. These people will, by and large, be the future citizens of Australia, and we as a nation will continue to pick up the tab for the economic costs; the ongoing assistance and rehabilitation for the mental effects of the detention; the cost of the opportunity lost by having these people's potential squandered for the period they are detained; their concept for what it is to be an Australian and the way that will fundamentally be affected by what they have experienced; and also our concept of ourselves as a people.

The effects of this will be generational, and I am sure that history will judge what we are doing extremely harshly. We know, particularly in relation to the mental health consequences of indefinite detention, how serious those consequences are because we have now been doing this experiment for a decade. We know that indefinite detention creates factors for producing mental illness and mental disorder. It seems to me that if we had set about to design a cruel process to achieve a devastating outcome we could not have been more effective.

These are people who flee trauma, persecution and threats to their lives and their families, who have often experienced or witnessed things unthinkable for those of us who sit in this chamber. They take perilous journeys to reach our shores and they come with hope, seeking solace and refuge—and we dash that hope, we dehumanise them, we demonise them and we lock them up indefinitely. And now we ship them away from our shores to places like Nauru and Manus Island, where there is one of the highest rates of malaria in the Pacific. It is not surprising that indefinite detention leads to self-harm, severe depression and suicide. We saw that time and time again at Nauru, where children swallowed shampoo in an effort to kill themselves. This is the responsibility that we all have to be prepared to take if we are going to implement this kind of policy.

This is a complex problem, but the Greens have been willing to genuinely grapple with this. There are no easy solutions, and so we have a Greens policy that is aimed at ensuring that people do not feel that they need to take desperate measures in order to get the opportunity to seek a better life. That is the way to stop the boats.

It is only through leadership—the kind of leadership that this country deserves and that we are all elected to take on as a sign of the trust placed in us by the Australian people—that we will see genuine progress in dealing with this difficult issue. There is much at stake. It is not just the immediate welfare of those people coming to us for refuge right now but also our international reputation. Most importantly, in the end it is about our own concept of who we are as a people and what we stand for. I genuinely believe that we are better than this policy would suggest, and urge the Senate not to support the motion.

Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (11:19): I reiterate to the Senate the integral nature of supporting this motion, which is to designate the Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country. I would like to address the amendment put forward by the Greens and the reasons the government will not be supporting this amendment.

The government is taking action recommended by a panel of experts. We have agreed in principle to implement all 22 recommendations of the expert panel's report on asylum seekers, and this is how responsible governments develop policy: we listen to the advice of experts. Those recommendations include regional processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea as soon as is practicable. The government believes that the measures it is putting in place as recommended by the panel will be effective. The combination of an increased refugee intake from offshore and no advantage for those who arrive by boat removes the attractiveness of attempting the expensive and dangerous boat journey to Australia. It is important to note, and in the context of this debate I remind my colleagues, that the expert panel report does not recommend temporary protection visas, a measure that in the past, contrary to what we have heard today, saw some 95 per cent of refugees permanently remain in Australia, and makes clear that tow-backs create risks to the lives of Australian Defence Force personnel and would only ever work with an agreement with other countries, something that Indonesia has made amply clear will not happen.

Through the course of much of this debate we are faced with opposition for opposition's sake and we as a government are doing our level best to take the politics out of this issue. As we have said consistently, there is still some way to go before we see the real effects of these policies but we are starting to see positives such as the recent voluntary returns of Sri Lankans. We know people smugglers will continue to test our resolve, but no-one should doubt the government's commitment to implementing the 22 recommendations of the expert panel. We believe that it is only through doing this, through responding to that expert advice diligently, that we will be able to end the appalling trade of people smuggling and help stop people dying at sea. People arriving by boat without a visa after 13 August 2012 run the risk of transfer to a regional processing country. That is clear.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): Order! I remind senators that the minister has the right to be heard in silence.

Senator LUNDY: The government has already transferred a significant number of people to Nauru and such transfers will continue to take place over the coming weeks and months. Indeed, the principle behind this policy is that saving lives is paramount. Contrary to the Greens' accusations levelled through the course of this debate, transferees will not be left on Nauru and Papua New Guinea indefinitely.

Senator Hanson-Young: How long, then?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, I remind you that under standing order 197 you may only interrupt another senator on a point of order or a matter of privilege.

Senator LUNDY: As I was saying, to have an effective policy it is necessary, as we know by the panel's advice and recommendations, to have a no-advantage principle for people seeking asylum—that is, for those seeking asylum they are not given any preferential treatment in processing their claims as a result of travelling irregularly by boat to Australia. This means that people who arrive in Australia by boat should not be resettled any faster than refugees waiting in refugee camps around the world. If the government is going to invest in a regional process, it is fundamental that asylum seekers should be required to access that process and not seek an advantage by travelling to Australia irregularly by boat. It is important to remember that irregular maritime arrivals would have been waiting long periods in the region for processing and provision of a durable outcome to this very difficult problem. We are not adding to that time, only reinforcing the principle that there will be no advantage gained in paying a people smuggler to bring them to Australia and, most importantly, risking their lives and perhaps the lives of their loved ones in that process.

These measures are in conjunction with the unprecedented rise in the humanitarian intake to 20,000 people. This will include refugees who have been waiting for a number of years in the hope of resettlement in Australia. It is also important to note that the panel has also recommended circumstances in which people spend time waiting in Nauru and Papua New Guinea be different than when asylum seekers were processed there in the past. The intention is that the facilities will be open, there will be appropriate mental health arrangements and transferees will have access to education and vocational opportunities. So I refute many of the propositions put forward by the Greens in the debate today about the treatment of asylum seekers on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea.

This motion seeks to implement a key and urgent recommendation of the expert panel report. As I stated a number of times in my opening comments and at the beginning of my closing remarks, this motion is about the designation of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country. The government's policy will be a clear demonstration that people can pursue regular options and be safely referred to resettlement countries like Australia as part of an orderly humanitarian program while at the same time providing no advantage to those who arrive by boat. Together, these things will undermine the people-smuggling trade. For these reasons the government will be opposing the amendment put forward by the Greens. I commend the substantive motion to the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ) (11:33): The question now is that the government motion moved by Senator Collins to approve the designation of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country be agreed to.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (12:45): October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. When the late Mrs Evelyn H Lauder, co-creator of the pink ribbon, launched the Estee Lauder company's breast cancer awareness campaign in 1992, she dreamt of a world without breast cancer. At this time breast cancer was a disease that was rarely talked about. Women who were diagnosed were terrified and, in some cultures, even ashamed or outcasts. Twenty years later information about breast cancer and breast health, and the knowledge that early detection saves lives, is far more prevalent and discussed regularly thanks to Evelyn. She was relentless in her determination to spread breast cancer awareness to as many people as possible in as many places as possible. She impacted on countless women and men with her bold vision for a breast cancer free world. This vision lives on in the hearts of many, including my own.

If we look to India, while the world debates whether women should be regularly checked for breast cancer from 40 to 50 years, the union health ministry in a landmark step has decided to start screening from 30. Is this a page we should be taking from their book? I leave you with that question to ponder. The incidence of breast cancer in Japan, Singapore, South Korea and India is three times what it was 40 years ago. It is known that in those countries, if detected early, breast cancer is curable and survivor rates are around 90 per cent.

Breast cancer cases are surging across the globe. A global analysis over the past three decades shows the number of new breast cancer cases diagnosed worldwide has increased dramatically from about 6.4 in 100,000 in 1980 to 16 in 100,000 in 2010. The rise in deaths from breast cancer globally has been much slower, increasing from about 2.5 in 100,000 in 1980 to 4.25 in 100,000 in 2010, reflecting the effectiveness of early detection and advancements in treatment, particularly in developed countries.

A report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and Cancer Australia shows that more than 13,000 women were diagnosed with the disease in 2008. That was about 37 women each day and the report says the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer in Australia each year is expected to rise to more than 17,000 by 2020. Let us look at this in more detail. One in nine will be diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 85. Currently in Australia 36 more women are diagnosed with breast cancer every day. Breast cancer is the most common cancer among Australian women, accounting for 28 per cent of all cancers diagnosed in 2006. By 2015, the number of new breast cancer cases among women is projected to be 22 per cent higher than in 2006, with an estimated 15,409 women expected to be diagnosed with breast cancer. This is in line with the estimate of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and Cancer Australia. Breast cancer is the most common cancer experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. Indigenous women were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than non-Indigenous women between 2002 and 2006. That was 69 and 103 new cases per 100,000 women respectively.

The risk of breast cancer increases with age. About 24 per cent of new breast cancer cases diagnosed in 2006 were in women younger than 50 years; 51 per cent were in women aged 50 to 69 and 25 per cent were in women aged 70 and above. The age standardisation incident rate has increased from 80.7 in 1982 to 112.4 in 2006. The highest age standardised incidence rate occurred in the ACT with 129.6 cases per 100,00, followed by Western Australia with 114.9, Tasmania with 114.8, Queensland with 114.6, South Australia with 113.5, New South Wales with 113.1, Victoria with 111.4 and the Northern Territory with 83.3.

What do we know about changes in mortality rates? Breast cancer and lung cancer are the two leading causes of cancer related death in Australian women. Lung cancer claimed 65 more lives than breast cancer in 2006. There were 2,618 female deaths from breast cancer in 2006. A woman's risk of dying from breast cancer before the age of 85 declined from a one in 30 risk in 1982 to a one in 38 risk in 2006. The age standardised rate of death due to breast cancer amongst women fell from 30.2 deaths per 100,000 females in 1994 to 22.1 deaths per 100,000 females in 2006, a decrease of 27 per cent. Mortality rates for Indigenous women in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory were not significantly different from those of their non-Indigenous counterparts—25 and 23 deaths respectively per 100,000 women. Australia's death rate from breast cancer was significantly lower than the rates for New Zealand, northern Europe, western Europe and western Africa.

On the positive side of survival for women, there was an increase in relative survival from diagnosis of breast cancer between 1982 to 1987 and 2000 to 2006. The five-year relative survival increased from 72.6 per cent to 88.3 per cent respectively. In 2006, the five-year relative survival rate was 98.2 per cent for women, with zero to 10-millimetre tumours. It was 94.7 per cent for women with 11- to 15-millimetre tumours, 93 per cent for women with 16- to 19-millimetre tumours, 87.9 per cent for women with 20- to 29-millimetre tumours and 73.1 per cent for women with tumours 30 millimetres or greater.

I would now like to briefly talk further about cancer. It is important to reiterate that, as Evelyn Lauder suggested and Maureen Case noted:

Every woman goes into her mammography with the fear of finding a lump, but the mammograms of 10 years ago aren't the mammograms of today … I hope to help women breathe a bit easier when they find out about these things. I also hope to give a voice to the critical, life-saving awareness message that early detection can indeed save lives; I believe that especially during this 20th Anniversary of The Breast Cancer Awareness Campaign, Evelyn Lauder would want not just me, but all of us to serve as this voice.

All women need to be aware of the risk factors. A risk factor is anything that increases the possibility of getting the disease. Different cancers have different risk factors. For example, we know that exposing skin to strong sunlight is a risk factor for developing skin cancer and that smoking is a risk factor for cancers of the lungs, mouth, larynx, bladder, kidney, and several other organs. Having one or more risk factors does not mean that a woman will definitely develop breast cancer but it might increase her chance of developing breast cancer. Some women with one or more risk factors might never develop breast cancer. Some risk factors like gender, age or race cannot be changed. Some of the risk factors influence the likelihood of developing breast cancer more than other risk factors. The risk of developing breast cancer can change over time.

The main risk factors for developing breast cancer appear to be being female—men can get breast cancer but it is rare and accounts for less than one per cent of all breast cancers; having a strong family history of breast cancer—however, the majority of people who are diagnosed have no known family history; inheriting a faulty gene that increases the risk of breast cancer; and having previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. There are other factors that we should also consider. These other factors that seem to slightly increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer include starting menstruation at a relatively early age—before the age of 12; starting menopause at a relatively late age—after 55 years; not having children or having a first child after the age of 30; not breastfeeding—the more months spent breastfeeding, the lower the risk of developing breast cancer; taking combined hormone replacement therapy after menopause, especially for five years or longer; gaining a lot of weight in adulthood, especially after menopause; and drinking alcohol, if you drink more than two standard drinks a day.

There are many levels of breast cancer. I do not intend to discuss all these in detail other than to emphasise that early diagnosis cannot be overstressed. For those women who have a mammogram, having been in the position myself of having something come back that is abnormal, I understand that feeling you get in your gut that this could be it—that the time bomb could be going off. The necessity of having follow-up examinations and scans is critical. Having been through that, when I had to wait 10 days for a scan, I had everything planned out. I was not very optimistic. I had planned my funeral and updated my will. But that is not necessary because early detection can give you a far greater chance of beating the disease.

We know early breast cancer can be contained in the breast but it may also spread to the lymph nodes in the breast and the armpits. Locally advanced breast cancer is where the cancer has spread to one or more of the lymph nodes or other areas near the breast or to tissues around the breast such as the skin, muscle or ribs but there is no sign that it has spread to other parts of the body. Secondary breast cancer is the term used to describe cancer that has spread from the original site in the breast to other organs or tissues in the body. Once again I cannot stress enough the need to have regular mammograms and self-examination.

The Breast Cancer Network Australia, or BCNA, has produced the My Journey Kit—a comprehensive resource kit for women who have been recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The kit consists of three main elements: the My Journey Information Guide which is fantastic—and I encourage those listening, particularly those in the chamber, to promote this on your websites; the My Journey Personal Record for recording contact details, personal information, notes and important dates and a place to store test results; and a range of brochures including the Beacon, a free quarterly publication of the BCNA. Another excellent resource produced by the Breast Cancer Network Australia is a resource for women with secondary breast cancer called the Hope & Hurdles pack. The pack contains a number of individual items: booklets, brochures, magazines and CDs that offer information, support and hope to women and their families. Breast Cancer Network Australia also distributes the Inside Story, a supplement to the Beacon targeted specifically at people experiencing secondary cancer. It includes personal stories, support, information and resources.

The breast cancer awareness campaign is devoted to defeating breast cancer through education and medical research. Another notable organisation helping the fight against breast cancer since 2008 is the McGrath Foundation. Their support helped more than 16,000 Australian families experiencing breast cancer with 77 McGrath Breast Care Nurses working in communities right across Australia. Their goal is to reach 150 McGrath Breast Care Nurses to ensure that every Australian family experiencing breast cancer has access to the support they need—and I emphasise: this disease, like every form of cancer, affects not just individuals but their families as well.

While many women regularly maintain their breast screening there are also many women who are less careful. I commend the work of all those organisations and individuals out there in our community raising awareness and advocating for women to be vigilant in their self-care. I congratulate again those two organisations I have spoken about because they have certainly raised the profile of breast cancer in this country.

But there is something that we should look at: should we, indeed, be starting to screen women at 30? That is a question we should be pondering and I look forward with anticipation to see what our researchers and medical professionals have to say on this.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Mrs Evelyn Lauder for her initiative in moving forward with this campaign. As I said, it is something that we should celebrate, because it has been a very successful campaign. We have not beaten the disease but I think that in terms of public awareness we are well on our way to ensuring that women do take better care of themselves.

This message is for all women. They are our mums, they are our sisters, they are our aunts, they are our cousins and they are our friends. As I said, men can also get breast cancer and, though it accounts for less than one per cent of all breast cancers, men should also be keenly aware of this disease.

I would also like to place on record my thanks and respect for our researchers and our medical professionals for their tireless work.

Senator HEFFERNAN (New South Wales) (13:00): I will begin by commending Senator Polley on an excellent speech and saying that it crosses over to men and prostate cancer as well—so congratulations.

I rise today with great melancholy to deal with what I think could be a possible fraud of the public purse. I rise on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia. They say it is never a secret that gets people into trouble; it is keeping the secret that gets you into trouble. I would like to delve into the keeping of a secret relating to the water buyback in the Nimmie-Caira, the lower Murrumbidgee. I am chairing an inquiry in which Mr Harris, from the New South Wales department, came to the inquiry and said, 'We're not prepared to reveal any of the commercial details around this deal.' I would like to take this chamber and Australia's taxpayers on a little journey and ask some questions to try to open up the secret and get the details.

As part of signing up to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, there is a requirement to buy back water from each state. New South Wales have discovered a unique proposition that could allow them to book 380 gigs—173 gigs net—by buying water off the flood plain in the Lowbidgee from farmers who for many years have diverted water, some of it flood and some of it supplementary, through the weir system of Redbank and Maude. I have to confess that I have had cattle on agistment and I know the country well. Dear old Barry Hodgson started it off years ago. This water has been unlicensed, unmetered, unregulated and free—except for an area cost which has been about $1 an acre. A lot of the country that is levied for that dollar an acre in a lot of years does not get the water. So these guys are about to win lotto—and good luck to them if they get away with it!

The original offer was placed in October 2011. This is about the New South Wales government trying to find a way to fill the water buyback book without affecting irrigators—and good luck to them, but I think this is a fraud. The states are almost putting the federal government in a situation of political blackmail by saying, 'If you don't agree to these sorts of deals, we're not going to sign the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.' As I say, this is all secret squirrel stuff. Mr Harris, in evidence to the committee, said that the proposed price that has been to the Commonwealth is commercial in confidence but has already been decided. That was on 10 September this year. They refused to say what the price is, even though they have said that they are prepared to pay 2¼ times the market value for the water, having issued the licence for the water. My question to Mr Harris is: how could they be negotiating without a conflict of interest the price of water for licences that were yet to be created? By 10 September they had decided the value of the water that was to be created in future licences.

Last Thursday they actually put an instrument through, signed by Mr Andrew Stoner—and I will table the commencement proclamation of the amendments to the Water Management Act 2000 No. 92—to enable the creation of 747 gigs of new water licences outside the normal regime. That is for what would be supplementary water—and the government could not explain to me the changeover between supplementary and flood. When you get an excess flow or an off-allocation flow and then get another rain and it becomes a flood over the bank, it is the same water.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Senator Heffernan, are you seeking leave to table that document?

Senator HEFFERNAN: There will be several documents. I will seek leave at the end of my speech. A lot of this water is being bought off a flood plain which has been engineered to flood-plain-farm and now they are proposing to buy the water back off that flood plain—and they have not been able to explain either in my committee or in the New South Wales parliament what they are going to do with the land after they take the water off it. They were going to turn it into a national park—but I think they have changed their mind about that.

The clerks of the New South Wales parliament have never seen such a proposition in the way that it has been put. It is a unique game. It has been done by an instrument which has no disallowance. Mind you, no-one—not this parliament and not the other parliament—knows the financial commercial-in-confidence details of this deal. It can only be reversed by killing off the entire Water Act. So it is pretty unique. Minister Hodgkinson, in evidence at the estimates in New South Wales, said that she had not read the business plan surrounding this deal, even though she has perused a summary—as reminded by Mr Harris.

To the best of my knowledge, the New South Wales offer in October 2011 to these landholders to buy back the water—which is buying back the water when you are not buying back the water because a lot of it is just floodwater that is going to go back down to the flood plain when it floods—was $100 million. We kicked up a bit of a fuss here in various committees—and I understand that I get a bit of a mention in the various paperwork in New South Wales as a troublemaker. In June 2012, that package, which, as I understand it, includes the land—I have never known where you buy water but you have to buy the windmills, the troughs, the fences and everything—grew to $183 million plus 10 per cent for a contingency, which is $205 million.

In estimates just the other day, Mr Stoner was asked what he knew about the Nimmie-Caira buyback. I have the transcript here. He said: 'I'm not aware of the Nimmie-Caira water buybacks.' Yet on 4 October he was actually a signatory to the enactment of the amendments to the Water Management Act that made into an instrument the water buybacks.

So then you hear that the minister has not read the financial plan surrounding it. Why the rush? They have rushed it through in a way that the clerks have never seen anything like before, the minister has not read the document and to the best of my knowledge there have been no valuations done. And how can Mr Harris, the bureaucrat involved, negotiate the sale of water licences and the creation of those water licences—negotiate the sale of the water licences before the water licences are created—and also come to a determination as to what they are worth?

The New South Wales government has said—and they are almost bludgeoning the Commonwealth government into this—that they are prepared to pay 2¼ times the market value of the water for these licences under a new water licence that was created last Thursday. Yet the price for those water licences was determined a month or two before. How can you then not see that there is something dodgy going on here, given that they do not know, and that there is no environmental plan to confirm, what you do with a flood plain once you take the water off it? And how do you prevent the floodwater going back down the flood plain in a flood? This is water bought back for the environment that allegedly is going to be sent to some other environment, but at the same time Mother Nature is going to say when it goes over the bank in the Lowbidgee at the Redbank and Maude weirs, 'It will go down the same flood plain'.

They were going to turn it into a national park. Now they are saying, 'Oh, we might give consideration to somehow engineering it so that the farmers can still use some of it'. These farmers are about to win Lotto, and good luck to them, because a lot of the land that the water was allocated to does not actually get there in the lower flows. So they are getting something for nothing and the government is getting 380 gigs. To get to 173 net gigs they are actually buying 380 gigs—that is somehow the magical average of the water, but we have to pay the top price. They will not tell us the value of the water, which they have determined is a special class of supplementary water, and yet Australia's taxpayers are supposed to cop this.

In evidence to the estimates in New South Wales the government has said—and Mr Harris has said—that the only way they will reveal the valuations is if the Commonwealth agrees for them to be released. So today I am here in the parliament, in the Senate, saying to the Commonwealth—pleading on behalf of Australia's taxpayers—to make this absolutely a transparent process. Why the secrecy? Why not tell us what they think the commercial value of supplementary water—this special class of supplementary water—is?

Bear in mind that they bought water off Tandou, and as the chief executive of Tandou said when I rang him a year or two ago: 'Bill, we've won the lottery! We've sold 230 gigalitres of supplementary water to the Commonwealth. We've won the lottery!' That was 11 gigs net at the conjunction of the Murray and the Darling, and they had to buy 230 gigs of supplementary water. As he said, 'We will buy this water back on the spot market,' because when supplementary water is available there is plenty of water in the system! How brain dead do you have to be not to see that this is cooking the water buyback book?

There is some urgency by New South Wales. The minister has not read the business plan. The person who signed off was the deputy governor—they had to get someone because the Governor was away; last Thursday I think it was. He did not even know what the Nimmie-Caira was, even though he signed off the government instrument on it. What are we to think on behalf of Australia's taxpayers? Mr Harris said he will not reveal the values because they are commercial in confidence. Will the Commonwealth release the details and make this a transparent process? It was gazetted in New South Wales last Thursday, but the price for the water in anticipation of getting the licences—put the cart before the horse!—was made some months ago. And the person who put the whole deal together and hardly kept the minister or the government informed, because there was an urgency about how they were going to cook the books, did the whole deal. How can you have an independent valuation if the one person is working out how to allocate the licences, then what the licences are worth and then the deal to buy back the licences? I just think that these sorts of things ought to have full transparency. I think that the only way out of this now is to kill the Water Act, because the instrument they used is not disallowable.

So this is with regret, and this will not be the finish of it today, because I decided I would not go through the technical side of this—there is plenty of technical work to be done. I might ask the question: if you take water off a flood plain which was originally a lignum flood plain and do not let Mother Nature do its thing on the flood plain, what happens to the flood plain? I can tell you: it becomes a poverty bush desert. To the best of my knowledge, that is what is proposed here. Originally they were going to turn it into a national park adjacent to Yanga, which was supposed to be a wonderful set-up—the same as Toorale. A waste of good country! The pigs are building up, the kangaroos are building up and there are no tourists, the Noogoora burr is building up, the Bathurst burr is building up, and the fuel load is building up. If the lightning strikes it could be like at Lignum Park between Mossgiel and Ivanhoe the other day, where it burnt 15,000 acres in one night just with one lightning strike.

We are allowing all this to go on at the same time as cutting back the people employed in these departments that are allegedly supervising it. They have just bought another national park adjacent to a place I have down there. On Saturday I saw a convoy of six national parks trucks with two people who were all smiles driving in—no tourists. God knows what that all cost and God knows what a waste it is of productive, beautiful saltbush sheep country.

But here we are at both a Commonwealth and a state level doing a deal which could be worth $200 million with the remediation required and they are saying, 'We are not going to tell you what we are paying for anything.' I say that this has the potential for a judicial inquiry. I think this has the potential to be a serious fraud on the public purse. I seek leave to table the commencement proclamation and the actual amended act.

Leave granted.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:15): Today I want to talk about an important situation concerning many vulnerable refugees, people who have been found to need Australia's protection. They are in genuine need of Australia's protection and we have said that we owe them that protection, and yet they remain in indefinite detention. They are, of course, the 60 men, women and children who have been caught up because they have adverse security assessments.

On Friday last week there was the case before the High Court where the High Court ruled that indeed the indefinite detention, the keeping of these people in detention and not giving them their protection visas, was unlawful. Once again we see the Australian government acting outside Australian law. These people are refugees. Many of them have fled the war in Sri Lanka, some have fled the war in Afghanistan, and some are persecuted Burmese living here in Australia.

Australia is meant to be the land of opportunity. There are many things that make our country great and chief among them is the fact that no matter where you come from, what you look like or who you are, you have the right to a fair trial and a right to a fair go. You have the right to build a life for yourself and to work as hard as you can to build a life for your family, and you have the right in doing all these things to become part of the Australian community and a proud Australian. At the core we are a compassionately minded people here in Australia. This fairness is evident throughout the community. It stretches all the way from our judicial system to the conversations we have around the dinner table in our home. One of the many reasons that I love this country is that the notion of a fair go is so entrenched in our psyche.

An essential part of this fairness is the belief that people must also be accountable for their actions and that if you break the law you have the right to have your day in court. You may be found guilty or you may not be found guilty, but you have the right to have that day in court and to have a trial before being sentenced if found guilty. You are not necessarily guaranteed a favourable outcome, but you are guaranteed the ability to see the evidence before you and the right to plead your case. This is the basic rule of law.

Yet this very essence of the Australian fair go that underpins our legal system and stretches throughout the various parts of our community is being denied to 60 refugees who have arrived here in Australia. They have been given the right to seek protection and they have been found to be owed protection, and yet because ASIO has given them an adverse assessment they have to remain in immigration detention indefinitely and they will not be given visas.

The unfortunate thing about this is that these people have no idea of the case against them. They have not been allowed to see the evidence. They have not been given a statement of reasons why ASIO has made this decision against them. They are not even able to argue whether that information is correct, or to explain it. As a result, the Australian government under the immigration minister keeps these people locked up, imprisoned, despite their already being found to be people who genuinely need our help after fleeing war, torture and persecution, and some of the most brutal experiences in our region.

It is this exact case that the High Court ruled on last Friday, stating that the government could not continue to deny these people their freedom simply because of this ASIO assessment. The government now have an opportunity and there is a choice that they have to make. We can fix this problem. We can put in a fair process and bring Australia back in line with other comparable countries to ensure that, regardless of who you are, what you may look like or what torturous situations you may have fled, you too have a right to a fair go.

If an Australian citizen were found to have an adverse security assessment, they would have a right to a merits review of the case against them. They would be able to understand why ASIO believes they may be a risk. They would be able to argue their case. They would have their day in court, effectively. Currently, under this government and these laws, we are not allowing the same access to justice to a small handful of very vulnerable refugees. The government now has a choice. The High Court has said that the current situation is unlawful. The government needs to amend the ASIO Act to ensure that people do have the right to have their assessments reviewed. People must be able to have the right to know what the findings are against them to understand the reasons why these assessments are being made. They must be offered the same rights of a fair go as everybody else to argue their case.

All of this can be done within the need—I absolutely agree: the important and essential need—to uphold the security of our nation. In other countries this is done through tribunals, with special advocates who can look at the evidence on behalf of the refugee and have the case out with the security agency. This is precisely what Australia should be doing. It is done in the United Kingdom, Canada and various European countries and, indeed, by one of our closest neighbours, New Zealand. This afternoon I will be tabling a bill in this place to address exactly these issues. I urge the government to consider the bill and to consider working with the Greens to ensure we can fix this mess and bring Australia back in line with comparable countries. The High Court has said that the rules have to change because the rules are wrong. The government have a choice: they can either work with the coalition in circumventing the High Court's decision and entrenching what the High Court has said is a bad practice into a bad law, or they can work with the Greens to put in place a fair, just and common-sense system.

As it stands, these people remain in a legal black hole, in indefinite detention with no access to the reasons and no access to information. It has taken the ruling of the highest court in the land to make the government realise that perhaps something is not quite right. That is despite the numbers of these people who have been traumatised further by indefinite detention after they have been found to be genuine refugees. As people who have suffered persecution, brutality and torture and fled war, they are refugees—there is no argument about that—but we have kept them locked up as prisoners, including their children. Amongst the 60 refugees who are caught in this legal black hole there are eight children, one as young as two who was born in the Villawood detention centre. Only last month that child celebrated—if you can use that word; I am not sure what kind of celebration you can have in an immigration detention centre when you have never seen the outside world—turning two.

There are other children who are caught up in this circumstance who, despite being able to go to school, are accompanied there by security officers. There is an eight-year-old girl in Villawood detention centre who has to go to school with a security guard by her side, day in and day out. Her mother said to me that when she gets home from school she asks why can't she have her friends over to stay. Well, of course, you cannot have friends stay with you in an immigration detention centre when you are kept prisoner by the Commonwealth government. She asks her mother why her mother and father are not allowed to work and have jobs. Well, you cannot have a job if the government has decided that, despite your being a refugee who had to flee for your life, you must remain locked up in an immigration prison.

The indefinite nature of these people's circumstance is driving many of them to deep levels of depression, anxiety, self-harm and attempted suicide. The man whose case was before the High Court has attempted suicide several times because he cannot stomach the indefinite nature of his circumstance. There must be a solution to this cruel and damaging circumstance. The government must amend the practices to allow these security assessments to be reviewed and to give people the ability to apply for other means of residence, even if they do end up still being found to pose a level of risk. Australian citizens who have adverse security assessments are not all locked up in prison. In fact, many of them are put on control orders. We do not do even that for these people. The bill that I will introduce into parliament this afternoon will give the ability to have the ASIO assessments reviewed, to have a special advocate, to have a statement of reasons, to have each case tested before a tribunal and to force the immigration minister not to leave these people rotting in indefinite detention. There has to be a mechanism to ensure these people can continue to live their lives.

A young mother, Ranjini, was ripped out of the Melbourne community with her two primary-school-aged children when ASIO decided she was now a risk, despite her having lived in the community as a refugee for five months. Her two boys are terrified. They now live in an immigration prison in Sydney and have no understanding of why that is the case. This poor young mother, who lost her husband in the war in Sri Lanka, came to Australia and was found to be a refugee. She had just started to put her life back together again when the immigration department cut short her hopes. She now remains with her sons in immigration detention indefinitely—until the government does something to fix this.

The High Court has said that this is illegal. The government has acted outside the law. Rather than circumventing the High Court's decision, the government should do the right thing to fix this problem for the long term. It should bring Australia back in line with comparable countries, reinstate the rule of law and insist on a fair process and an end to indefinite detention. This is an opportunity for the government to bring us back in line with the Australian fair go. It should not matter whether you are Australian or not; the fair go extends to all.

Senator THORP (Tasmania) (13:30): Nothing is more important than protecting vulnerable children from abuse and neglect. If we do not, as a community we deny those children the opportunity to reach their full potential and to live full and rich lives. Each child and young person in our community has the right to grow up in a safe and supportive environment. However, it is a sad reality that some children and young people in our society are subject to harm and abuse.

Child abuse is commonly defined as an act of a parent, caregiver, other adult or older adolescent that has the capacity to endanger the physical or emotional health or development of a child or young person. Child abuse may be used to describe a single act or a number of incidents that take place over time towards a child, including physical abuse, emotional maltreatment, neglect, sexual abuse or the witnessing of family violence. We know that child abuse and neglect is connected to poverty, long-term unemployment, mental illness, lack of affordable housing, drug and alcohol abuse and social isolation. The outcomes are lower educational attainment, increased likelihood of drug abuse and criminal activity, poor health, a greater likelihood of teen pregnancy and a lesser probability of finding meaningful employment.

There can be no area of social policy that deserves a higher priority than protecting children. Child protection services ensure that children and young people are cared for, protected from harm and nurtured in a way which allows each individual child to realise and achieve their full potential. Child protection is primarily a state responsibility and the system varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Variations arise due to factors such as funding, outsourcing, payments allocated to those providing care and the overall emphasis each state places on the importance of such service delivery.

In Tasmania, just as in all other states, the state parliament has legislated services and programs which continue to be underpinned by state-based judicial systems. Until 2009, when the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009-2020 was agreed upon, this ensured that child protection took a predominantly legalistic focus and approach. The national framework was agreed upon by COAG and has ensured that child protection, regardless of state jurisdiction, is viewed as an element within the public health sphere. The national framework also recognised the increasing role played by non-government organisations and agencies in delivering crucial services to families experiencing difficult circumstances. National priorities have been developed which place emphasis on building capacity and expertise, increasing the support available for young people who are leaving care, developing national standards for out-of-home care and increasing the ability to share information and research amongst state governments and organisations.

It is well established that young people who reach the age of 18 and are leaving care to transition into independent living are amongst the most vulnerable and disadvantaged within our community. We must ensure that these young adults have support networks in place as they make their transition into adulthood, giving them every possibility to lead vibrant, independent and productive lives.

The development of national standards for out-of-home care models must also take into account cultural considerations of children and young people in our society. In the 2007 report commissioned by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, it was reported that, within the out of home care population, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children continue to be overrepresented. Any out-of-home care policy model which is developed must ensure that the family, community and cultural identities of these children and young people are sustained.

The National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children includes universal preventative initiatives to support all families and children, early intervention services targeted to vulnerable families and children, and targeted services and programs for at risk families. Minister Julie Collins, a fellow Tasmanian, must be congratulated for her wonderful work in this area.

In Australia, there have been sustained increases in the demand for child protection services and, unfortunately, the demand continues to grow. There is also as an emerging trend which highlights a preference towards foster and kinship care over residential care. The need for increased resourcing and consistent and effective policy direction is a challenge that we need to acknowledge. Accompanied by the reality of this increasing demand for child protection services is an academically informed and increasingly dominant perspective which recognises the importance of early intervention. Early intervention has the ability to make such a difference when provided in the right way and at the right time. It is well established that preventative techniques and early intervention are cost effective over the long term for our community.

We must ensure that any future policy focus places an emphasis on preventing abuse and family breakdowns. If we have the capacity to work with families who are experiencing difficulties in overcoming problems at an early stage, we can not only better protect at risk children but also build stronger communities.

In Tasmania, the delivery of child protection services primarily falls within the scope of the Department of Health and Human Services. A recent report suggests that when a system is overwhelmed, undesirable responses are taken to relieve pressure. These undesirable responses include possibilities such as the act of prematurely closing cases, removing children from homes as a first response, or providing inadequate support resource constraints. We must not allow such practices to arise.

We must ensure that we have a system which consistently and without doubt places a priority on the best interests of the child, particularly their wellbeing, growth and development. We have granted child protection workers the greatest responsibility, and that is to protect our children. We must not allow these men and women to be overworked, overwhelmed or underpaid. We must strive to do all we can, within our ability, to ensure that we do not let these men and women down.

Today, there are many challenges faced by our child protection workers. In their words, from the recent report prepared for the Community and Public Sector Union, the issues are: inadequate resources; unallocated cases; insufficient intervention services to prevent children entering care; staff recruitment and retention; case load sizes leading to insufficient support for children in care and carers; and quality of services, such as generic care plans. These issues demand urgent attention. While some states such as Western Australia place a cap on case loads at 15, it is common practice in my home state of Tasmania for child protection workers to be operating with case loads of between 20 to 30 cases at a time. This means that child protection workers in my state may become subject to overseeing between 20 and 30 investigations at any one time, placing these working men and women in incredibly difficult circumstances, particularly when individual cases are complex and intense. An underfunded system in Tasmania constrains options for children and young people. Children are often limited to being placed in either foster care or therapeutic residential care placements.

At present, I do not believe our state or federal governments have an adequate grasp of the importance of this issue. State and federal governments must understand that the protection of our children from neglect and abuse calls upon a large resource commitment, and this is a call we, as elected representatives, must respond to. If we do not act now, child protection systems in Australia will continue to encounter problems. We must be very cautious as workloads are contracted out to non-government organisations, as this will decrease the ability of the public to scrutinise and hold to account the practices and outcomes for children who enter the system.

Protecting our children may be a whole-of-community responsibility, but it is our child protection workers who are at the coalface. They know what is needed. They know that if they are overloaded, if their colleagues are not replaced when they are on leave, it is the children who will suffer. They are dedicated professionals who deserve to have the resources and tools to do their job as they see fit. They see the awful outcomes when that care is not given. They see the wasted lives. Ironically, they are also the ones who bear the brunt if anything goes wrong. This unfairness must be addressed, or we will lose good people. They will become risk averse if they have not become so already. I call on all our states and territories to give child protection the priority and importance it needs.

Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:40): I too rise today to talk about children in our community but in a different way from the preceding speaker, Senator Thorp. Nonetheless, I have a very important message to deliver about the safety of children. It never ceases to amaze and inspire me when I move around regional communities and meet people who are doing such a tremendous job in raising awareness of important issues. These people make sure that things which do have an impact and which are of importance in their communities are raised so that other people do know these issues are out there. One such person whom I have been talking to recently is Grace Farrah from New South Wales.

Grace is a journalist and a mother of a six-year-old daughter who suffers from severe food allergies. This is an issue which I do not think gets a lot of air time. It is very much a below-the-radar issue. Yet, for those parents who have young children who are at risk because of their food allergies, it is probably a constant nightmare—'nightmare' might be too strong a word but I am sure it is not for them—to try and keep their children safe. So I want to take the opportunity to raise this issue with the chamber to ensure that we are all aware of the difficulty of this issue and how important it is that we are aware of it and act upon it.

Grace has produced and directed Trigger, which is a short documentary film. She has also created an additional shorter four-minute version of this film. The film seeks to raise awareness of the real dangers of food allergies and the increase in the incidence of food allergy related bullying. It is probably something which not many of us in this place have given a lot of consideration to. The film features interviews with experts, children who suffer from allergies and their parents. It clearly explains the need for awareness and vigilance by the whole community to avoid the serious consequences of allergies.

Interestingly, the two films are not-for-profit projects. Grace very much just wanted to do something that would contribute to raising the awareness across our communities of how important this issue is. It is at www.triggerallergy.com. I say that intentionally for the record so that people know where they can access this documentary, to see what Grace has produced and to make sure that we appreciate and understand this issue right across the community.

At age two, Grace's daughter, who suffers from an allergy to peanuts, was accidentally given chocolate with nuts in it. She went into anaphylactic shock and was rushed to hospital. By the time she arrived at the hospital, her toes had turned blue. Luckily, the outcome was good and Grace's little girl is now six years of age. As a mother of two boys who are now grown up, I can only imagine how horrific it would be for any parent to have to deal with that situation.

A conversation with the daughter's kindergarten teacher was the catalyst for the creation of the Trigger documentary and website. The teacher expressed a wish that she could have access to something to show other parents in order to help them understand what is required to keep children with food allergies safe.

Certainly the film created by Grace could be used by schools to educate teachers and students, and to pass this on to other parents through newsletters and via school websites. Grace is currently seeking government support to assist in the distribution of the film and the overall increase in awareness. I must pass on my thanks to the federal Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Peter Garrett, and particularly the New South Wales Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner, who have really made an effort to provide some information to Grace that she can use in promoting this very important issue.

In talking to Grace, it becomes apparent she truly understands the stress that parents and teachers of children with allergies are under. She had told me:

Apart from the stress parents feel, teachers also have the same stress levels with trying to keep the food allergy children safe, as well as having to deal with the increasing issue of bullying. It is truly a never-ending cycle of vigilance and stress and it will help greatly to have as many principals, teachers, parents and children watch it so that they can see the very real effect that these allergies have on so many people and especially, how hard it is for the food allergy sufferers.

The natural desire for a parent to protect their child is further enhanced when that child suffers a potentially deadly food allergy. This creates a great amount of stress for parents and teachers, who are also trying to keep children with allergies safe and at the same time dealing with the increasing issue of bullying.

According to the NSW Food Authority website, Australia has one of the highest allergy prevalence rates in the world. I think that is probably something not many of us have considered. There is no cure for food allergies and the only successful method to manage a food allergy or intolerance is to avoid the foods containing the allergen or food component. In this day and age, the struggle for parents trying to keep their young children safe in that environment is increasingly difficult. While we cannot expect everybody across the nation to be aware and constantly keep their guard to deal with these issues when they are impacting other children and other children's parents, this is just a way today of raising that awareness, as I keep saying, so that people know that this is an issue and that there are things they can do to help prevent what must be a dreadful outcome for those parents having to deal with this.

The difference between allergy and intolerance is that an allergy is an immune system reaction whereas intolerance is an inability to digest a food. Symptoms of food allergy include dizziness, faintness, swelling of lips and throat, wheezing and shortness of breath, itchy skin or a rash, and, in the case of a severe food allergy, a life-threatening reaction called anaphylaxis, which causes difficulty breathing, vomiting and loss of consciousness. The eight most common food allergens are crustaceans, eggs, fish, peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts, sesame seeds and their products. These are responsible for 90 per cent of allergies to food. I am not sure that in this chamber they are statistics that we are aware of. I am not sure that in this chamber we have paid enough attention to this issue. I would certainly say that I had not before Grace Farah raised this with me. As a parent of two young children, I realised how important it is that we get this message out into the community.

Current estimates show that one in 10 Australian children suffer from a food allergy. In children, the most common allergies are milk, egg and peanuts. Interestingly, the specific cause of food allergy is yet to be determined. One theory is the cleanliness theory, which supposes that children, particularly those in more developed countries, are growing up in an environment that is so clean or free from germs their bodies do not properly develop their immune system. The cause, however, remains unclear, but it has continuously increased since the 1990s. Allergies can be triggered by what is eaten, but also by touch.

Despite the increase in food allergy cases and the high rate of emergency room incidents, there appears to remain a lack of public awareness of the real dangers of food allergies. A recent study conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics found increased awareness and education of parents and other carers remains a significant issue in preventing severe food allergy reactions. The study, which observed 512 infants, found a high frequency of reactions caused by accidental and non-accidental exposure. It concluded that undertreatment of severe reactions is a problem and further education and awareness are key to preventing the most serious allergic reactions—exactly what Grace Farah is trying to do with this video and the material that she has produced which is so usefully available on the website that she has created.

Some people, and not just children, do not have an adequate understanding of the serious nature of food allergies. One mother who viewed the Trigger allergy documentary contacted Grace and conceded she had long felt:

…food allergies weren't real and often sent peanut butter sandwiches to school. After viewing the film, I just want to thank you for educating me. I see those children in it and began to realize the selfishness of my views and my acts.

I think it is interesting that this has inspired that sort of response from people out there in the community and again it just comes back to that lack of awareness.

Simple pleasures children should be able to enjoy can become a nightmare and a source of stress and anxiety for parents. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to have to watch over a child when you knew they had to face this every day that as a parent you may have to deal with. Sleepovers with friends, school excursions, eating at restaurants and travel can present many difficulties for parents of children with allergies. A parent may have done all they can to provide a food allergy safety zone at home for their child. However, another parent or parents, teacher or carer simply may not have the understanding of the importance of allergen avoidance or the knowledge to act appropriately in an emergency. Some parents apparently even avoid sending their children to playgroup, day care or preschool. Parents such as Grace tread a fine line between caring responsibly for their children and being overprotective. I think as parents we are often all in that situation, but to be in the situation where you know that every day there is a life-threating situation just around the corner for your child, trying to balance that line between that responsible care and being overprotective must be incredibly difficult. In her blog, Grace states:

When our six year old went on her first field trip to the zoo. My first reaction was to ask if I could chaperone. I knew her teachers were well trained but despite this I couldn’t escape the knot that was in my stomach… There is that fine balance of wanting to protect them and also wanting them to lead an ordinary life.

There are also flow-on effects, and one of those is bullying in the playground by other children. As parents I think we all know that we do see bullying and that children can be quite cruel—a result of children making fun of something they do not understand, I suspect, when it comes to children with food allergies. There is often taunting of the children with the food that they are actually allergic to. Children's human nature is something that we still do need to work on when it comes to those things. We need to make sure that our young children are aware of the situation of other young children who do suffer from the effects of allergies.

A report by the American journal Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology found that about a quarter of children surveyed were bullied because of their food allergies, with most of the bullying occurring at school. Reasons for the bullying were found to be the allergy itself, as well as related issues such as having to carry medication, being set apart at meal times and getting special treatment. Sadly, and perhaps most disturbingly, participants listed the main bullies as classmates, but some of the 350 participants in the study listed teachers or other school staff members as the person who had done the teasing. So this is obviously not only an issue for children. We have to make sure that those grown-ups in the room, so to speak, are aware of the impact of this and that they behave appropriately when it comes to dealing with children with food allergies. The report concluded that 'these actions pose a risk of psychological harm in all people, but unique to this population is that bullying, teasing, or harassment can also pose a direct physical threat when the allergen is involved'.

This issue I have raised today is not something that is above the radar or something that we talk about in this place very often, which is precisely the reason I wanted to raise it. It is a big issue for many parents and carers out there in the community who are trying to look after children who have a food allergy and trying to keep them safe day after day after day. Those of us with children who do not have this difficulty to deal with can only imagine what it must be like to be consciously vigilant day after day and indeed, as I said earlier, to deal with an emergency when it does occur.

Hopefully, we can reduce the prevalence of these incidents by raising awareness of food allergies right around the country and how important it is for all of us to understand and know that we need to be aware and that there are things we can do. Grace would very much like to see schools informed of the availability of the film and perhaps encouraged to disseminate the information to parents and to consider whether this is something they would like to place on their website. We need to look at every avenue we possibly can to make sure that we do raise awareness of this issue. Not only is it very important to Grace as a mother and to her family; she is reflective of all those families across the community that have to deal with this very difficult issue. It is a responsibility that falls to us in this place to raise that awareness and to make sure that people know about this very difficult issue. (Time expired)

Proceedings suspended from 13:55 to 14:00

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) (15:04): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator Macdonald today relating to carbon pricing.

I listened—at least I tried to listen—to the words of Senator Ludwig, but it seemed to me that the more he used the word 'confused' the more confused he became, because his answer was virtually unintelligible in response to Senator Macdonald's quite clear three questions—both his primary question and his supplementary questions—in relation to the government's prediction of the carbon price being $29 by 2015-16. The mystery as to what Senator Ludwig was actually talking about may remain uncovered for some time, perhaps until Senator Macdonald gets to pursue that further.

What we on this side know about the carbon tax is the devastating effect that it is having on members of the Australian community. In my portfolio of housing, in particular, and—as my colleagues would know—in Western Sydney in particular, residents are looking at a hike of $208-plus in electricity bills, along with a multitude of indirect cost increases that nobody receives any compensation for, and most certainly the small businesses bearing them receive no compensation for them.

We have a hub for new homebuyers in my area of Western Sydney, and we have new home builders who are trying to start their lives and their families, but all the carbon tax is doing is making it that much harder. The Housing Industry Association estimates that the carbon tax will add $5,200 to the cost of building an average new home—even after compensation. If you think about the families that we all work with every single day, right around Australia, that does make a difference to a family's capacity to commit. When they are sitting around the kitchen table discussing whether they can build their new home, it does make a difference to whether they are actually able to sign on the bottom line, and anyone who does not think it does is not living in the real world. No matter how much this government talk about compensation, no matter how often they try to protest—methinks too much—they are denying the reality of the situation in which so many Australian families find themselves.

It is ironic indeed that the government would find themselves penalising people for building newer and more energy-efficient homes. Surely that is a particularly perverse approach that does nothing for the environment in the end. We already have a housing shortage in this country of over 228,000 homes. But, if the Labor government were actually listening to the concerns of stakeholders, they would see that the carbon tax is only making things much worse. If they do not want to listen to members of the opposition, perhaps they will listen to people who are actually experts in their particular areas, like the CEO of the Master Builders Association, Wilhelm Harnisch, who said:

… work in the pipeline is at very low levels and profit margins are low to non-existent. Builders and contractors have no capacity to absorb any cost increases incurred as a consequence of the carbon tax.

Mr Harnisch also said:

Treasury’s carbon tax modelling indicates that the carbon tax will reduce the gross output in the building and construction industry by 5.6 per cent by 2050. This impact is considerably higher than negative impacts on mining and manufacturing, which are anticipated to go down 4.3 per cent and 2.8 per cent respectively.

That is a very considered, very authoritative view of the impact of this government's policy on a vital Australian industry.

If the HIA is not enough for you, then what about the small business operator in Western Sydney—in Greenway in fact—who makes home construction products? He is completely reliant on the home-building industry. He tells us that he has recently reduced his factory operation from 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to 24 hours a day, five days a week, and turned off some machines altogether. The flow-on impact from that on jobs in communities which need more jobs in the areas in which they live, not fewer, is a very significant one. But, no, we are simply told to refer to the modelling and that that will answer the question, but it does not. It does not answer the question for real Australians, and they are the people whom we are representing here in this chamber.

We find small businesses across Australia but particularly in Western Sydney who are also concerned about the uncertainty that the tax is causing their business. They know that their costs will go up but they have no mechanism to recover those costs through their own prices because they will end up with the ACCC and Labor's multitude of other regulatory bodies talking to them about how they are doing that and why they are doing that. It is a one-way street that this government has set up to blindly pursue their policy in relation to this, without any real consideration of the impact that it is having on real Australians and the price that they have to pay. (Time expired)

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (15:09): For the first time in a long time, we have got Senator Payne on her feet talking about Western Sydney.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order on my left!

Senator CAMERON: I actually lived in and around Western Sydney during all of my time in Sydney, so I know a bit about Western Sydney. Senator Payne, I think Peter van Onselen will be happy that you have actually made a contribution.

Senator Payne: Come on down to High Street and see my new office any time you like.

Senator CAMERON: I am happy to come down to High Street. Organise it. I will come down to High Street, Penrith, with you and discuss why the coalition is not going to look after the kids of Western Sydney; why the coalition want to put in a direct action policy, which is a load of nonsense and which will cost Western Sydney families far more than anything this government has done; why we are prepared to ensure that families are looked after as the carbon price kicks in; and why we want to look after the future of the kids of Western Sydney. All you do is come in here with your nonsensical rhetoric and scare campaigns.

I did not hear you being worried about the workers of Western Sydney when you put your hand up in support of Work Choices. I did not hear you saying that the workers of Western Sydney will have a problem with Work Choices. You did not do that, Senator Payne. You put your hand up here and you supported Work Choices. You supported the workers of Western Sydney having—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order on my left!

Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr Deputy President, on a point of order on relevance: I know that we allow a very wide-ranging set of circumstances, but unfortunately the question we are talking about is not about Senator Payne; it is about the government's confusion on the $8 price of carbon suddenly becoming $29. I really want to hear what Senator Cameron has to say about it, because certainly the minister could not answer it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. I do draw Senator Cameron's attention to the question before the chair, and can I remind senators not to interject. Could I also remind Senator Cameron to address his remarks to the chair. Senator Cameron, you have the call.

Senator CAMERON: I certainly will address my remarks through the chair. But, with the greatest respect, Mr Deputy President, I will certainly draw your attention to the issues raised by Senator Payne in her contribution. You cannot have a situation where Senator Payne is talking about the cost impost on the families in Western Sydney, without dealing with all of the issues of the cost imposts on the families in Western Sydney. Senator Payne's support of Work Choices is an issue.

Senator Payne: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order, and I seek your guidance in relation to this point of order. As I understand it, we are currently in motions to take note of answers. The answer, theoretically, at least, in relation to Senator Macdonald's question about carbon tax was about carbon tax. My remarks were about carbon tax—entirely apposite and to the point. They have nothing to do with the matters that Senator Cameron is raising, which are not apposite or to the point.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, I do draw your attention again to the topic before the chair, and you have the call.

Senator CAMERON: Mr Deputy President, I will persist in dealing with the cost-of-living issue for the population of Western Sydney. It is exactly the right issue to be dealing with. I am happy that Senator Payne raised the issue of cost of living in Western Sydney, because the biggest impost in recent times on the working families of Western Sydney was the abolition of penalty rates under Work Choices. It was getting rid of their annual leave loading. It was workers getting $90 to $100 a week ripped out of their wages by the coalition's Work Choices position. This will continue under the coalition because the coalition have what they call direct action. What is direct action? Direct action is supposedly—

Senator Kroger: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think you have been very generous in the latitude that you have given Senator Cameron, but the fact of the matter is that we are responding and he is meant to be responding to the answers given to the question that Senator Macdonald directed on carbon tax.

They are two words that he has not covered in the 3½ minutes that he has been speaking and I would ask him to draw his attention to the question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron did return—

Senator Carol Brown: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. That is what I was going to say; he was talking about direct action and was returning to the issue of carbon price. So Senator Kroger getting up to make a point of order at that time was a little late.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brown. I was going to indicate to Senator Cameron he did return to the topic. I will be listening carefully to the remainder of his answer. He has wandered in the past. Senator Cameron, you are aware of the situation.

Senator CAMERON: I hope I do not wander because of that unfair interjection. I was dealing with direct action. As you are aware, nothing could be more relevant to the issue of the cost of living of workers in Western Sydney than the impost that this nonsense of a policy called direct action would have on working families in Western Sydney. You see, what the coalition seek to do is to use taxpayers' funds to provide so-called incentives to business in this country to reduce carbon pollution. What we are doing is exactly what Peter Shergold indicated in the Shergold report and that was: deal with carbon issues, deal with them through a market mechanism and do not wait till the rest of the world acts, but act now because it is the most important thing to do. I note Senator Sinodinos nodding sagely behind Senator Payne, and that is because Senator Sinodinos was there when this advice was given to the Howard government. Senator Sinodinos supported this position. Senator Sinodinos knows that the cheapest way to deal with carbon pollution is to use a market based mechanism. It was what John Howard said he would use. (Time expired)

Senator MASON (Queensland) (15:16): I suppose some might think it is a time for a celebration. It is 100 days since the introduction of the carbon tax. If I had thought about it, Senator Cameron, I may have baked a cake, but I cannot afford to anymore because it costs too much to bake. On a serious note, Senator Payne is quite right, particularly with respect to small business and the discount rates they get on electricity. It is costing up to 30 per cent more for small business throughout this country. That is a problem—it is affecting not only pensioners and working families but also small business.

I have somewhat of a penchant, some call it a fetish, for old government documents. I went through what I received at my home in Brisbane—a document called 'What a carbon price means for you'—one of my favourite documents. It says this:

A carbon price is not a tax on households—it will be paid by Australia's biggest polluters.

Yes, you will not pay, just the big polluters will pay. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen: you will pay. Australia will pay. Business will pay. You will all pay. But, according to this document, it is okay because:

Countries are already taking action on climate change. In addition, 89 countries—representing 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the world’s economy—have already pledged—

If you believe politicians' pledges—

to take action on climate change.

What are the comparable countries? What have they done? What has Brazil done? Russia? India? China? The United States? Canada? What have they done?

Senator Thorp: Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order around occupational health and safety. I am getting a headache.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Mason, I draw your attention to the fact that you are on microphone and ask you to consider the auditory level of your contribution.

Senator MASON: I was in quiet mode! However, I will do my best. Suffice to say that none of the comparable countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, Canada and the United States—are doing virtually nothing at all. China was mentioned—let me get to that in a minute. I am told, after today's performance from Senator Ludwig, that the government stands behind the $29 per tonne prediction. Today, the price in Europe is $8 a tonne. So it has got to rise 350 per cent in the next three years otherwise the government's budget predictions are out and there is no way they can fulfil their budgetary forecasts or return to surplus. It has got to go up 350 per cent over the next three years so they can balance their budget. Who thinks the European carbon price will go up 3½ times in three years? Who believes that, except Senator Thorp? No-one on earth believes that. If it does not happen—and it will not—this lot opposite will never, ever be able to balance their budgets. That is the problem. That is the farce of this entire scheme. From the word go, this has been an absolute fiasco.

We have got a Prime Minster and a government that believe unilateral action by the Australian government ahead of the world is good public policy. They believe even if the United States, Britain, Russia, India, China and Canada do nothing, it is in our national interest to adopt a carbon price. Why are those countries not adopting a carbon price? Because it will harm their economies. It is already harming ours. The cost of living in this country is going up. The cost for business is going up. If that is not bad enough, it is making no impact at all on the climate—none. Is it having any impact on carbon emissions in Australia? No. They are still going up, even if somewhat more slowly. It is having no impact on the carbon emissions and no impact on the climate. We are stuck with this blasted tax forever.

In the end, Mr Deputy President, never forget—and Senator Macdonald's question highlighted this—when the carbon floor price is not met, and it will not be met at $29 per tonne, their budget will be blasted to hell. They will never be able to balance another budget for another hundred years. We will never, ever let the Australian community forget what they have done to our country.

Senator THORP (Tasmania) (15:22): I hope that members opposite can hear me. The honourable senator was quite right when he referred to the fact that it has been a hundred days since the introduction of the carbon price. Let us remind ourselves of some of the dire predictions that were made leading up to that date. Do we all recall the Whyalla wipe-out? The whole area was going to be gone off the map; I believe it was almost set to music. In fact, just recently, the Mayor of Whyalla was quoted in his local press and more broadly as saying that the whole area is going gangbusters. So, no Whyalla wipe-out. Whole regions were going to be destroyed. You can almost hear the music in the background, and the lightning claps. Whole regions were going to be destroyed, including Gladstone. Yet, just in recent months—

Senator Fifield: Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I am having some difficulty hearing Senator Thorp. You might ask the good senator if she could speak up so that not only senators on the floor but those in the gallery may have the benefit of her contribution.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Fifield. There is no point of order. Senator Thorp, you have the call.

Senator THORP: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. You might point out to members opposite that we do have quite up-to-date IT in this area and that there are speakers.

Senator Fifield: Stop mumbling and articulate clearly so that we can hear you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order on my left!

Senator THORP: There have been billions and billions of dollars of investment in the Gladstone area, and that was only one of the regions destined to be wiped out. We were also going to see the death of the coal industry, the death of the steel industry and the death of manufacturing, and yet in those hundred days so oft referred to we have seen an additional 9,000 jobs created in the manufacturing industry. Huge price increases were anticipated, enormous price increases, but not according to the Reserve Bank of Australia. The price of electricity was going to go through the roof, but if you peel some of the layers off the onion and look more closely at the issue and take, for example, Western Australia, where electricity prices have gone up considerably—in fact, I have heard some quotes, and I am not sure whether they are correct, that it is by as much as 60 per cent in some areas—only nine per cent of that could ever have been attributed to the carbon price.

So here we are, back again in this place, with the pathetic fear campaign of those opposite now blaming the carbon price for any issues that maybe impacting on housing in Australia. It is very sad. According to the honourable fellow opposite, the loud one, he was saying—

Senator Jacinta Collins: Mason.

Senator THORP: Mason, I am sorry; I had a bit of trouble with the name, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Fifield, did you have a point of order?

Senator Fifield: Just that the good senator has been not only—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Fifield, I understand where you are going and I do not believe there is a point of order. I think Senator Mason had a mental blank—sorry, it was Senator Thorp. Senator Mason is the senator you are looking for, Senator Thorp. You have the call, Senator Thorp.

Senator THORP: We are but human. Treasury has just recently stated and anticipated not fear about the complete collapse of the Australian economy, no. In fact, Treasury is predicting strong economic growth will continue, with gross national income projected to grow at 1.1 per cent a year to 2050. Incomes will grow. Real income per person is projected to increase by $9,000 per year, from today's level, by 2020.

Senator Ian Macdonald: Which carbon price are they using?

Senator THORP: These figures are from the Treasury. Employment will grow, with 1.6 million new jobs created by 2020. Pollution will fall—unlike the comments from the senator opposite. By 2050, carbon pricing is expected to reduce Australia's domestic emissions by nearly half what they would be without a carbon price—a reduction of a significant amount. The price impacts will be modest. A one-off increase of 0.7 per cent to CPI, which compares with the 2.5 per cent increase that was the result of the GST. Gross state product for all states continues to grow strongly.

That is what Treasury says. Those are the facts. This is not emotive fear and rubbish. Whyalla has not gone, Gladstone has not been wiped out, the coal industry has not died, the steel industry has not died, the manufacturing industry has not died—in fact, 9,000 extra jobs were created in the hundred days. There have not been huge price increases. The price of electricity has been impacted by carbon pricing but not by the amounts that are often reflected in state prices. I think it is most inappropriate and most unfair by those opposite to try to blame everything that goes on in the global economy on carbon pricing, feeding the fear of vulnerable Australians. I find it quite despicable, particularly when you see it in the context of the fear people have around their futures, generally speaking. (Time expired)

Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales) (15:28): I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Ludwig to a question asked by Senator Macdonald today. Well, what a debate it has been. We have gone right round the world, particularly Western Sydney. We have talked about Work Choices and we have talked about Brisbane. We have talked about all sorts of things but, if we come back to where Senator Macdonald began this whole issue, it was around what the carbon price would be in 2015-16, because the Treasury modelling was estimating it would be $29 per tonne, based on assumptions about what many countries around the world allegedly would be doing or had pledged to do.

As we know, there is quite a gap between what governments pledge to do or promise to do and what they actually do. In this particular case, none of the speakers from the other side have addressed this very simple point: is there one serious economist in Australia who is backing up what the Treasury is saying about what the price will be for carbon in 2015-16?

Yes, under direction from the government, the Treasury has used the modelling, because the modelling is a machine—you put assumptions in, you get certain results out. They have pumped out this result of $29 a tonne based on the parameters they have been given by the government, and they have probably been directed to make assumptions about what other countries would do. So they have gone around to find any piece of information that justifies them being able to say that country X or Y is planning or pledged to do this or that, and they used that as a basis to say, 'On that basis we think it will be $29 a tonne as a world price.' But no serious economist in Australia, as far as I am aware—and I am happy to be corrected on this—has said that the Treasury modelling is appropriate in the circumstances, is appropriate in terms of pumping out that $29 a tonne figure.

We are talking about a situation where we are going from, at the moment, a European price of $8 a tonne. Make no mistake, the Europeans will continue to dominate this market over time because of the extent of credits that they have got on issue. They are at $8 a tonne. So are we saying that the biggest carbon market in the world, the one that will dictate prices come 2015-16, will be at $29 a tonne? What are we assuming about what European governments will do to get to $29 a tonne—at a time when the European economy continues to be mired in recession? We are saying, unilaterally, that they will take action that will lift their prices to $29 a tonne by 2015-16. It is possible that there is some miraculous recovery in the European economy that means that they feel more confident about putting additional burdens on themselves, such as a much higher carbon price, but the fact of the matter is that that is not looking likely at this stage. It is an unreasonable approximation or estimation to be making at this time. If you look at the IMF report that was issued recently, the World economic outlook, all the downside risks in Europe mean that growth is likely to be pretty anaemic across the European zone and not supportive of a strategy of raising carbon prices to $29 a tonne by 2015-16.

Senator Thorp, in particular, raised this issue of dire predictions about the carbon price and its impact on electricity. The fact of the matter is that the electricity price rises that were initiated by the introduction of the carbon price are wending their way through the production system as we speak. Across the economy there have been price rises of varying magnitudes. Some have been around the 10 per cent mark, some have been higher. But what the government consistently misses in this debate is that the carbon tax is being imposed on top of quite large electricity price rises which have been induced by, in some cases, electricity regulators seeking to promote investment in the sector to meet rising electricity demand. Consumers have now been faced with this double or triple whammy of rising electricity prices from a variety of sources: the Renewable Energy Target, the carbon price and also network investment. What the government has missed on the way through, or does not want to acknowledge, is that they are also in part in the gun because they have done something directly to raise electricity prices at a time when people are dissatisfied with the level of electricity prices because of all the other actions that have been undertaken, including by regulators. They seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that that is going to lead to them paying the price for not listening to Australians who are saying, 'We are fed up with the rising cost of living, particularly in utilities. We are fed up with what we are having to pay.' (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:33): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to Newstart.

That the Senate take note of the answer given by Minister Evans representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to a question asked by me today about what the government is doing about the provision of emergency relief for single parents who will be moved from parenting payment single onto Newstart from 1 January.

Although he did not say it, the minister's answer meant: no, they have not put in place any of these provisions. He gave me the usual government spin about what they say this is about, which is about encouraging people into work. We all know this is spin. What this measure is about is saving the government $700 million on the backs of the most vulnerable in our community—that is, single parents and their children. These cuts are coming in on 1 January at the time of year when people are facing their highest bills: the Christmas period, the school holiday period and the back-to-school period.

Minister Evans also tried to say that of course there is already a group of people that are subject to these requirements and this is just bringing the grandfathered cohort into that. Perhaps Minister Evans needs to look at the figures of those already accessing emergency relief. I think he would find that those single parents that are already on Newstart are doing it tough. For example, 36 per cent of those accessing Salvation Army emergency relief services are single parents. The three biggest groups accessing support from Foodbank, as articulated in their recently released report, are 'low-income families, unemployed people and single parents.' That would be the cohort of single parents that are already on Newstart, because Newstart, as I have articulated in this place a number of times, is at least $130 below the poverty line. Parenting payment single is just on the poverty line. So what this government, with the support of the coalition, did yesterday was vote to move single parents and their children to a payment that is significantly below the poverty line. Those cuts of between $60 to $100 to their income per week kicks in on 1 January. Happy Christmas to those families because on 1 January their income is going to drop!

This government has not made any provision for the fact that those families, a couple of weeks into January, are going to need to access some emergency relief or go significantly without. Not only is this the most expensive period of time; a lot of the types of work that single parents—85 per cent of whom are single mothers—can access are seasonal work, temporary work and casual work and, of course, many businesses offering those types of work close down over the holiday period. Also, these parents, mainly mothers, need to be at home to look after their children during this time or they have to pay for expensive child care. That is if they can access that expensive child care because there are a lot of families trying to access school holiday care as well.

So we have a group of parents who are going to be suffering real income cuts and who will have to do without and who will have to access emergency relief. Have the government thought about this? No. Have they looked at statistics as to emergency care? I have to question whether or not they have, but they would know that single parent families make up a large cohort of the client group of those organisations that provide emergency relief. Are those emergency relief and support agencies expected to pick up this new group of clients? As this process kicks in we are talking of between 100,000 and 150,000 families, being single parents and their children. So how are these emergency service organisations supposed to pick up this cohort when we already know that a large number of emergency service providers are having to turn away people because they do not have the resources to support these families? So what are the government going to do when these emergency relief and support service organisations are turning away family after family because they are not going to be able to provide that support because their services are already stretched? The government need to look at this immediately so that come 1 January these families have somewhere to go.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:42): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) 14 October to 20 October 2012 is Anti-Poverty Week,

(ii) poverty and severe financial hardship affect more than a million Australians and people living in poverty miss out on opportunities and resources such as adequate health and dental care, housing, education, employment opportunities, food and recreation, and

(iii) growing up in poverty represents a risk to children’s health and well-being and their prospects for the future; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) take further action to reduce the number of people living in poverty in Australia, particularly the number of children living in poverty, and

(ii) develop a national anti-poverty plan to facilitate coordinated action across all levels of government to meet targets which reduce poverty and its causes.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:43): by leave—At the request of Senators Moore and Wright, I move this motion, as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) 10 October 2012 is World Mental Health Day, which aims to raise public awareness about mental health issues both here in Australia and worldwide,

(ii) one in five Australians will experience a mental illness in any given year, and that mental illness accounts for 13 per cent of the total burden of disease in Australia, and

(iii) Australia and Australians have an opportunity and a responsibility to reduce stigma and remove the discrimination faced by people affected by mental illness;

(b) recognises that:

(i) mental illness is experienced across the lifespan, with many illnesses emerging before the age of 25,

(ii) people affected by mental illness can recover to live a happy and rewarding life with adequate and high quality services, and broad community understanding and support,

(iii) there is a need for a holistic and broad range of services and supports for those with mental illness, including community-based services and services delivered by both the Commonwealth and the states and territories,

(iv) policies and services must recognise and respond to the impact of mental illness on families and carers, and

(v) the recent national mental health reforms have focused on early intervention and prevention, improving acute and community services, and providing better supports for families and carers, and have received support from across the Parliament; and

(c) calls on:

(i) the Australian Government and the states and territories to continue these important reforms, including by working collaboratively to roll out programs that will improve health, community, housing, employment and education services for those with mental illness and their families and carers, and

(ii) the Australian community to continue to build a national understanding of the value of good mental health and reduce the stigma attached to mental illness.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (15:43): by leave—Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute, Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The coalition supports World Mental Health Day. We tried hard to make this motion a cross-party affirmation of the key principles behind the day, including pointing out that Labor had got the wrong theme, however the motion before us is a cynical, self-promoting exercise by the ALP and their Green alliance partners. Our objection is the paragraph asserting that the so-called mental health reform package has received support from across the parliament. This is simply not the case. There is widespread criticism by mental health experts of the lack of real action by the government and, most especially, of its draft 10-year road map. This is nothing more than a wish list with very little detail and all the hallmarks of the never-never so typical of everything Labor promises.

It is not surprising that this road map has been heavily criticised by mental health experts who have gone on the public record to register their serious concerns. The reality is that one in five Australians need help now, not a 10-year timetable which has aptly been labelled as a road map to nowhere.

Question, as amended, agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:54): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) trawling in the northeast area of the North West Slope Trawl Fishery, in depths of less than 200 metres off the Western Australian Kimberley coast was accidentally made possible due to an administrative error when the Western Australian and Federal Governments amended the Offshore Constitutional Settlement Agreement in 1998,

(ii) this error accidentally allows bottom trawling in areas shallower than 200 metres despite the fact that this is a critical habitat for goldband snapper and other demersal fish species which have been off-limits to North West Slope Trawl Fishery trawlers as they are a deep water crustacean prawn fishery,

(iii) the ecological sensitivity of this area has been acknowledged in the Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s correspondence with permit holders,

(iv) legislative instruments have been introduced prohibiting trawl fishing in this northeast area, but the most recent instrument expired in December 2010,

(v) since that time, the closure has been maintained informally by industry self-regulation,

(vi) negotiations between the Federal and Western Australian Governments which were intended to fix this error have stalled and the trawling industry has stated that they will commence bottom trawling in this area on the imminent cessation of the closure which is 30 September 2011,

(vii) a resumption of trawling in this area would adversely impact the benthos and demersal fish stocks of this region, thus putting the entire ESD [ecologically sustainable development] certified Northern Demersal Scalefish Managed Fishery at great sustainable risk, and

(viii) the Western Australian Department of Fisheries has stated in its latest State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report that the demersal scalefish resources in this area are fully exploited; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to reinstate the North West Slope Fishery Direction No. 02 Area Closure legislative instrument which excludes trawl fishing in the northeast area of the North West Slope Trawl Fishery in Western Australia.

Question negatived.

Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:54): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences study released on 2 October 2012, which found that:

(i) the Great Barrier Reef has lost more than half its coral cover in the past 27 years, and that if current trends continue coral cover could halve again by 2022,

(ii) this loss was due to storm damage (48 per cent), crown of thorns starfish (42 per cent) and bleaching (10 per cent), and

(iii) improving water quality is critical to reducing the huge damage caused by frequent outbreaks of the crown of thorns starfish; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to finally commit to renewing the Reef Rescue program for another 5 years with at least another $200 million in funding, to assist Queensland farmers to continue to reduce agricultural run-off into the Great Barrier Reef.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:54): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (15:59): I move:

That, in accordance with subsection 10B(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Senate approves the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment Determination 2012 (No. 1) made under subsection 10B(1) of the Act on 28 September 2012.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:59): A letter has been received from Senator Fierravanti-Wells:

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

The failure of the Gillard Labor Government to deliver on its promise of proper reform in mental health.

Is the proposal supported?

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

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 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.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (16:00): I start my comments on this matter by pointing out that today is World Mental Health Day. It was interesting to see in question time that it was the coalition that led with a question on mental health on this very important day, whereas those opposite left it until the last question. In fact, they were very lucky to actually get their last question on mental health in. What does that tell you? That tells you that for us on this side mental health is a priority, but those opposite left it until the last question of the day. That tells its own story of where their priorities are.

Let us look at what has been happening in mental health in recent years. The government was finally shamed into doing something—and I underline 'something'—on mental health in the 2011-12 budget. That came after sustained coalition pressure and it followed two motions in 2010, one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives, in October and November respectively. I remind the Senate that the Australian Labor Party and the Greens—the sanctimonious Greens—voted against these motions and therefore ignored the will of both houses even though the motions were passed.

So what was this so-called mental health reform package all about? The package is another that is really smoke and mirrors—an illusion. When you actually read the fine print, it has all the hallmarks of the classic smoke and mirrors so typical of many of the things that this government says that it has done. It has the typical big spend, the big headline of $2.2 billion, but when you look at the fine print it is tainted with the never-never brush of so many of the Gillard promises. We have this net spend over forward estimates which is really $583 million only, but then you have $580 million ripped out of general practitioner mental health services and allied health treatment sessions from the Better Access program. With no consultation whatsoever with the sector, it has caused enormous widespread concern in the sector.

Then, of course, despite the big headline figure, which those across the chamber are very good at talking about, in reality it was only $47 million in spending and $62 million cut in that first year. Regrettably, 18 months on, it is little wonder that those who previously stood alongside the Australian Labor Party are now justifiably critical of the government for its lack of action. After the budget the coalition successfully established an inquiry into the funding and administration of mental health, and this inquiry received over a thousand submissions. All were very critical of the cuts that the government had undertaken. Of course, if those opposite had not squandered billions and billions of dollars on useless things like pink batts and Julia Gillard memorial halls then we would not have had to cut funding to the most vulnerable in this country—that is, the mentally ill.

Let me remind the Senate of the statistics. Sadly, six Australians commit suicide every day and more than 200 attempt to take their own lives—and this is only the official statistic; it does not reflect the statistic in the 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, which talked about the over 360,000 people who had contemplated suicide that year. One in four deaths among young people occurs through suicide. Suicide is the leading cause of death for 15- to 24-year-olds each year and suicide is the biggest killer of men under 44 and women under 34. Suicide ranks 15th in the overall causes of death in Australia, and we know the many confronting statistics which I have spoken about and which experts have repeatedly brought to the fore in relation to depression, anxiety and bipolar, personality and eating disorders.

One in five Australians need help now. Forty-five per cent of Australians will face some form of mental health problem in their lifetime. As I said, today is World Mental Health Day. The theme, which those opposite could not even get right in their notice of motion, is 'Depression: A Global Crisis'. I remind the Senate that, according to World Health Organization statistics, one person every 40 seconds worldwide commits suicide—a startling statistic. We have seen the many great initiatives in this area over recent months and we have spoken about them here in this place.

So what has happened with this so-called mental health money? Take, for example, the big promise in the 2010 election of $277 million for suicide prevention. Where is the money?

What has happened? Have the programs been rolled out? The answer is no, they have not been rolled out. This government have been extraordinarily slow at rolling out these programs and this is why they are attracting the criticism from those who previously stood by them and advocated, and were so glad to see something finally happening from those opposite in the mental health area.

We have also seen the cuts to the successful Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program. This program has been operating successfully for five years. What have seen a funding freeze. It is little wonder that eminent experts such as Professor Ian Hickie, Professor Patrick McGorry and Professor John Mendoza, the former chairman of the government's National Advisory Council on Mental Health, have been critical of the lack of progress in tackling vital mental health issues. But, like most things that this government does, it has the brush of the never, never.

There is the draft 10-year road map on mental health reform. During the last Christmas vacation period the minister announced the draft for the 10-year plan and gave the sector two weeks during the Christmas break to consult. Why? So they could say that there has been proper consultation. Ten months on and it is still a draft, and we are still waiting. It is little wonder that this draft road map has been so heavily criticised. As Dr Sebastian Rosenberg so aptly described it, it is a road map to nowhere.

Even with the latest iteration, which apparently emanated from the COAG process, the stakeholders in the sector were given only four working days to provide comment to the government on this very important area. That just goes to show the disdain that those opposite have for this area. If they really cared about the mentally ill in this country they would roll out these programs and not at the snail's pace like they are doing at the moment—they would put their heart and soul into it and respond to the needs of the sector, to what the experts have been telling them for years and years, and undertake the reforms that are so badly needed in this area.

Professor Rosen has called this 10-year road map another illusory, false start. Professor Mendoza said:

The Roadmap is yet another PollyAnna document from our Federal health bureaucracy that commits no one to anything.

Professor Ian Hickie said:

As a result of the mess left at the end of the Rudd era, key structural issues in mental health services remain unresolved.

Professor Rob Donovan said that this is a 10-year program but:

… there is no time line for the proposed actions.

It is little wonder that the government has many critics for its failure to take decisive action. (Time expired)

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (16:10): We have been reminded consistently today that it is World Mental Health Day and also that this month we are looking at the issues around mental health and discussing the fact that we are working together. These debates at this time of the afternoon are always confronting. Instead of having a clear debate about an issue, we get a political attack—even this notice of motion is phrased in such a way that it is just a clear political attack. We saw that this afternoon with the notice of motion on mental health when we tried to pull together a statement that we could use as a group across the parliament to say what is happening in mental health. It was not for us—we have our job, our issues and our concerns; it was for the stakeholders in this country who care about mental health.

I am sorry because I am trying very hard not to make this a one-on-one discussion between myself and Senator Fierravanti-Wells, who is no longer in the chamber. However, her last comments about disdain for people in this community with mental health issues are just not appropriate. We can have our differences—and we do—about policies and about time frames, and we can discuss those. But this Senate, after hours of discussion to develop wording that we can share and could not do so, actually gave the opportunity yet again to someone who is running a particular line to stand up and have another go—another go about a process around mental health that is government policy.

All of the issues raised have the opportunity to be considered and debated. In fact, the government is more than prepared to do so and we want to do so. But it is galling when we look at the history of mental health and the responses of governments in this country to be consistently attacked by the Liberal-National Party when we can say that in 2010 we had a process, a policy and funding into the future for mental health programs. There is this acrimonious process even today when, instead of focusing on the issues, we get into the political cut and thrust.

If we look back to 2006, those of us who were in the chamber at that stage when the then Howard government introduced a long awaited and much supported mental health program into this parliament, there was cross-party support. We had issues about what was in there and we had questions, but the process was welcomed. That has been unilaterally lacking in the process around our 2010 package, which our government brought to the budget and then into parliament and which was passed.

I note Senator Fierravanti-Wells's concern with the statement that she carefully described as cynical and said that it received support across the parliament. It did. It was voted up. Any of the legislation that came through in our package received affirmative votes in this place. I would have thought that that indicated support in the parliament. Nonetheless, it was a good chance again to have on this day a two-minute grab to say how long our government has been around mental health.

There will always be concerns about any mental health policy that is brought in because, as I have said before in this place, no government will ever be able to put enough funding into what is needed for full mental health care in this country. I wish I could say differently but I cannot. We have never pretended that we would have a panacea and a response to all issues. What we set out was our program over a five-year budgeted stage.

The other night I heard, and I have seen it attacked in the media by the LNP, that this is somehow an erroneous process because we put the funding in over a five-year period. It was publicised: each of the figures was there; there was no confusion across each budget line. Over a five-year period we put out what our initial plan—over $2 billion—was going to be. Somehow, because that was not done over four years, that gave the people who wished to have an attack a reason to say that it was not fully funded.

In terms of funding cycles and commitment to budget, governments set out the expectation of funding that they will put into the program. Sometimes they meet it, sometimes they do not, but at every stage there must be accountability and transparency, which is why we have the Senate estimates process. It is why we have a minister who is open and on record saying that anyone who has a question on these issues is welcome to contact the office to be involved. It is why we have ministerial advisory councils and a consumer advisory council on mental health—a wonderful issue and one of my favourite types of the program. It is funded into the future, is allocated this year and is already starting its work. It is a core component of our mental health program. There was no confusion over the way the funding for this process would operate. The figures are in the budget papers, open to scrutiny, and they can and should be scrutinised.

Another of the key issues we put forward was the National Mental Health Commission. There were consistent attacks from people across the chamber on the way that we were presenting a commission: it was not good enough; it was not effectively structured; who was going to be on it? Not, 'How was it going to work?' But the commission has been set up; it is working. Its first report card on mental health in this country—determined independently by them, not including input by government, but the first-ever independent assessment by a mental health commission—will be brought down at the end of this month.

This is a very important time for mental health in our country. This will not be a slap-dash, tick-and-flick exercise. This will be a confronting document owned by the community, looking what is happening with mental health in this country. I hope it will stimulate more debate in this place, hopefully not with an attack to say why the government has failed but rather about what is in that report. How has the program of mental health funding been working—our plans, our strategies that were put out in the budget papers last year? What difference are they making? No policy program can be only on paper. People who live with mental health issues—their families and their carers—assess the way that things are working and assess what is the change for them

There will be some good news, I know. But I also know that there will be some confronting statements back to us saying what has not been working the way they hoped it would be. That will be the document's feedback. That will be the assessment by our mental health commission, which was a core—disputed—component of our mental health package that will give us the steps to the future.

Recently, we have heard it consistently asked: what is happening with the roadmap to recovery? I am on record that I do not like the title—it is as good as an annual report—The ten year roadmap for national mental health reform, but the roadmap is taking time to develop. There is no surprise about that. It is the first time there has been such a process and, as well, it is not the Commonwealth government's document. The clear indication of this roadmap is that it is a document which engages all the players who have a commitment to this process, most particularly, governments—state and federal—and we all know there is difficulty pulling those people together to come up with a clear commitment. They have made a commitment at the threshold stage about where we should be going with mental health 10 years into the future. However, tying down the accountabilities and the budget will take more time. We are not putting it out or having an agreement until that is tied down. That will involve more consultation, which is still going on. It has been to COAG and needs to go back to COAG.

There has been widespread opportunity for people to be involved in this process. We have heard Senator Fierravanti-Wells talk about her two-week process. The roadmap has been through the websites and since that process started over 1,000 people have put through information about what they felt should be in it. There has been ample opportunity through the Mental Health Council of Australia, through targeted consultation processes, for people to have a say. It could well be that people want more time. They may have missed the timing. Whatever, the opportunity then is to get back into the system and talk to the department about what those concerns are. It does not mean that people will be excluded. In fact, the core aspect is that people must not be excluded.

For too long in our community, in our parliament and in debates people who know about and are involved in mental health have not had a voice—they have been excluded. That cannot continue. That will not necessarily mean that there will be open agreement on every issue. I am absolutely intrigued that Senator Fierravanti-Wells spends so much of her time quoting experts, experts whom we respect and know. Professor Mendoza, Professor Hickey, Professor Rosenberg, Professor Rosenfeld—all men for that group, unfortunately, but there are many people in the area who are women, who I have had the privilege to know and work with for over six years. Their opinions are deeply valued.

Not only are their opinions deeply valued but they are also encouraged and welcomed. Indeed, if their opinions are critical, we must hear their message. No-one is saying they cannot have a say. No-one is responding publicly to them by saying, 'You are not allowed to have these comments—you must agree with the government.' Mental health is a dynamic area. There will be a range of professional opinion. In fact, we often joke when we are having meetings in this area about how, when we have a group of people concerned about this area, particularly those with professional qualifications, it will be surprising if we can get agreement across all of them.

What we do have is an open commitment to the process. There is concern that things may be taking longer. However, that is what happens in the process; things are put out, decisions are made, programs are funded and then it is open for people to say whether they support it or not. That is a positive action in our program which we value rather than dismiss, and these comments are definitely not feared. They will not be closed down and people will not be rejected. In fact, their comments are part of the ongoing discourse, and I can guarantee that those people I have named will continue to be involved in the discussion. They are not turning their backs and refusing to continue in what is their professional area for which they have trained and in which their expertise is acknowledged and celebrated in our process.

We stand by the programs we have put forward. We have funded them, and I will not go into detail in this limited time about the various priorities the government has put out—they are on record. We had the commitment to youth and the headspace program of which we are all so fond has been nurtured and funded by this government and our program. The EPPIC centres, which caused great debate about whether they were the appropriate way to move forward, have also started their development.

We have heard that it is wrong for people to de-fund any element to make savings in the area of mental health. I reject that. In every form of government program there are very tough decisions made about how you fund into the future. There were decisions made—again, not hidden but on record—about changes to the Better Access program, and we spent a fair bit of time in this place discussing that. It is fair to say that we do not agree, but in terms of the government program we believe that money can be redistributed and that different ways of supporting people can be implemented.

We wish that every program could be funded. That will not happen, but the savings we have made, which are clearly identified and which were the subject of a significant Senate inquiry, and there on record and we are working with people into the future to see how their needs and their expectations will work with the government program.

It is important that governments of all flavours continue to be committed to working on mental health in this country. It is a commitment from our government that we will continue to do so. We do not believe that we take a cynical or disdainful approach—in fact, we care and we need to be involved into the future.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (16:25): As the Australian Greens spokesperson for mental health I am pleased to participate in this debate on the matter of public importance. It is an opportunity to highlight the extremely important issue that is the reform of mental health in Australia. We know now that one in five Australians will experience mental ill health in any given year and, against a backdrop of what is acknowledged to have been decades of neglect of mental health funding and the mental health sector, there is clearly an important need for reforms to be undertaken by all governments in Australia—federal, state and local governments.

What could we achieve if we had genuine commitment to this? I am interested in seeing this issue transcends politics because I think it is far bigger than that. Most Australians would understand that with mental health touching on the lives of so many Australians, if not them individually or their families, carers and friends, it affects our productivity, the workforce and our general sense of wellbeing in the 21st century. With all of that being so pervasive in Australian society most Australians would expect that their elected representatives would be able to transcend politics and work together to find common ground to advance promotion of mental health in Australia, and to actively work to mitigate the worst effects of mental ill health.

Today marks the 20th anniversary of World Mental Health Day. It was first initiated by the World Federation for Mental Health in 1992 by Richard Hunter. Mr Hunter saw World Mental Health Day as a focal point around which global mental health advocacy could gain maximum public attention. It is a good opportunity to give consideration to the current state of mental health globally and, importantly, in Australia, and to the way we can improve the situation.

World Mental Health Day provides an opportunity for us all to work together to raise public awareness and to encourage education about mental health issues worldwide. There has indeed been a lot of positive change over the past 20 years. Just this morning, the Executive Director of the Mental Illness Fellowship of Australia, David Meldrum, was speaking on Radio National. He gave his view that there has been a generation of work around breaking down the stigma surrounding mental illness. Fortunately, in his view, the public debate around mental illness has become a lot more open. That is certainly an experience I would agree with, and I think many people in Australia would understand that there is now a lot more literacy and willingness to speak about these issues.

This open discussion is important because mental illness touches us all in one way or another. It is well understood that one in five Australians will experience mental ill health this year alone, and approximately 45 per cent of all Australians between 16 and 85 will have a mental health condition at some stage during their lifetime. Significantly, mental ill health is the third major morbidity and disease burden in Australia behind cancer and cardiovascular disease. That is a statistic that will surprise many; certainly, cancer and cardiovascular disease are acknowledged to be severely debilitating for many Australians, for the Australian economy and for our sense of wellbeing, but I think it will still surprise people to know that, sadly, mental ill health comes in third place to those.

These numbers mean that mental health policy goes to the heart of our nation's wellbeing. When it comes to numbers there can be no pussyfooting around: we have to look at the numbers of dollars available to address these statistics as well. Goodwill and fine intentions are not enough; we actually have to look seriously at what money as a community we are prepared to devote to ameliorating the mental health burden in our health system.

The total health burden of mental health in Australia is now 13 per cent, but as yet dedicated mental health funding is still hovering around six to seven per cent, so it is actually half of what we would require if we were going to fund mental health services proportionately to the mental health burden. If we are to genuinely tackle the serious challenges posed by poor mental health in Australia then we must be aiming to ensure that the amount of funding provided for mental health services, programs and policies accurately reflects this burden so that the funding is commensurate with the need. To achieve this we must have a commitment by government to increase mental health funding year by year until the proportion of mental health funding from the health budget reflects the true cost of mental ill health to the Australian community. To do otherwise is a false economy, because there is a clear established link between mental ill health and physical ill health—physical conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and so on are clearly linked and that is why there is a greatly concerning gap in life expectancy between particularly those people who have persistent and severe illnesses and the average Australian population.

The Australian Greens acknowledge that there was a solid commitment made to mental health by the government in the 2011-12 budget with about $1.5 billion allocated in the five-year package for new initiatives or the expansion of existing initiatives. Unfortunately progress on the implementation of programs has flagged as part of this investment has been slower than we might have liked. Concern by some stakeholders has been raised with the Australian Greens that this funding might not ultimately be the health budget centrepiece that it was originally regarded as, given the context of chronic underfunding of mental health services over previous years.

One area where we have been consistently seeing difficulties in accessing mental health services and the quality and range of those services is in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia. While people living in country Australia generally experience mental ill health at levels equivalent to people living in urban areas, they encounter higher risk factors for mental ill health including unemployment, lower socioeconomic status, poorer levels of education and reduced access to mental health services. People living in country Australia receive less than half the total number of mental health services of people living in metropolitan areas. Male farmer suicides are reportedly as high as one a week and it is likely that official statistics do not reflect the true number of these incidents. There are other factors arising from the loss of identity or income, including in changing employment patterns and industries, that reflect environmental and economic pressures that we will be continuing to face in Australia in the 21st century. The lack of available services and difficulty accessing existing services exacerbates the situation and ultimately means that the burden of mental illness is proportionately higher in country Australia.

Over the past few months I have been touring Australia and I have met with mental health service providers, consumers and carers who I call the experts in mental health care. I have heard about many of the gaps in service delivery, problems with accessing mental health services and the good initiatives that are working really well but are stretched due to lack of funds and resources. One of the things I have consistently heard about is the importance of outreach services. This is particularly relevant in situations where there is great geographical isolation. Also many people who experience persistent and severe mental illness do not have access to their own independent transport so they become increasingly isolated and unable to access what services are available. I recently came across an outreach service called Rural Alive and Well in Tasmania which decided not to sit back and wait for people to approach them but to do advocacy, counselling and referral to further support in a bid to reduce suicide in the Midlands of Tasmania. At a time when many are doing it tough support like that is invaluable.

It is absolutely non-negotiable—and few people would argue that it was—that adequate funding be given to mental health in Australia and that equal need should mean equal access no matter where people live. Given the recent sizeable investment in mental health in Australia it is time to evaluate whether the funding is improving the delivery of mental health services in Australia. So it is imperative that we identify current unmet needs and gaps to service delivery and work to improve these. That is what the Australian Greens are in the process of doing, particularly at the moment in relation to rural, regional and remote areas. The Australian Greens will keep working collaboratively in a non-partisan way towards increasing awareness of mental ill health in Australia in the interests of reducing stigma and promoting wellbeing which will be of benefit to all of us.

Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (16:35): I am in the rather unusual situation of wanting to support the statements of all the senators who have spoken before me. People are quite right to say that the issue of mental health should not be politicised. That does not mean we should not hold the government to account for slow implementation and poor policy-making. That is something we certainly need to do. I am delighted to have this opportunity to recognise this 20th World Mental Health Day. It is interesting to note that it is only the 20th World Mental Health Day. Many other physical diseases are great fundraisers and have organisations with household names that have been going far, far longer. The stigma of mental illness still prevails and is only slowly being rolled back, but we need to do more.

Mental health is often an invisible problem. It is more prevalent, as many other speakers have said, in rural and remote areas than in metropolitan areas simply because of the huge amount of unmet need for psychological and psychiatric services. The level of unmet need is particularly high for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and suicide rates in our Indigenous communities are 26 times those of the general population.

You have already heard that in Australia one person dies from a suicide attempt every four hours. The figure from many of the hearings the Standing Committee on Community Affairs has had is very conservative, because many suicides are reported as something other than suicide. The family does not want that report and police, coroners and others are reluctant to make that assessment unless they have some very strong evidence that it occurs.

The headspace program, which of course was an initiative of Professor Patrick McGorry, former Australian of the Year, and others is now seeing about 20,000 young Australians a year but they estimate that there are still 350,000 young Australians who need help and cannot get access. In this situation the government has developed a 10-year roadmap—we do not need help in 10 years—and emasculated the Better Access program, which was doing a fantastic job of giving people who needed low-level mental health services the opportunity to get well. I think it is worthwhile looking at some of the comments in the motion on World Mental Health Day that was proposed in the Senate today. It makes the point that mental illness is experienced across the lifespan, with many illnesses emerging before the age of 25; that people affected by mental illness can recover to live a happy and rewarding life with adequate and high quality services and broad community understanding and support; that there is a need for a holistic and broad range of services and support for those with mental illness, including community-based services and services delivered by both the Commonwealth and the states and territories; and that policies and services must recognise and respond to the impact of mental illness on families and carers. I would suggest that the government's current delivery of its mental health reform package does not do those things; it is not holistic.

The decision to cut back the Better Access program to a maximum of 10 consultations, no matter what, is damaging people right now in Australia and will continue to do so. The Better Access program was in many ways a victim of its own success. It was introduced by the Howard-Costello government. In its first year in 2007 2.7 million services were delivered under the Better Access program; in 2008 it was 3.8 million and in 2009 4.6 million—almost a doubling in three years. That would have continued because of the massive reservoir of unmet need in this area.

I was somewhat interested to hear Senator Moore suggest that the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mr Mark Butler, is open to hearing about issues and problems in the area. The Alliance for Better Access, a group that has come together to try to fight to get some understanding from this government about why they should not simply emasculate the Better Access program, has been trying to see Minister Butler for over 12 months. In August they were told that he did not need to see them. So much for his open access and desire to talk to everyone who wants to get involved in this area.

I would like in the short remaining time I have to talk about some of the cases, from many emails received in my office, that are going to be affected. One senior practitioner in rural Queensland has sent me an email saying:

Regional centres have profound unmet health needs as it is. The cuts to Better Access will prove fatal for some.

This is not an exaggeration. The end of treatment when treatment must continue is even worse perhaps than not having started treatment. This practitioner goes on to say:

Last week I was contacted by this patient who I have treated for five years on and off who has a diagnosis of complex post-traumatic stress syndrome and is one of the most profoundly traumatised people I have treated in over 15 years of practice. This patient presented with a credible and involved suicide plan, had been giving away belongings and had written goodbye letters to the select few supports in her life including her psychologist.

In other words, she was ready to kill herself. My correspondent goes on:

The fact that she had been cut off from any further help from Better Access was the last straw. It then took us over 18 hours to find a hospital bed for this poor woman.

How can we allow a situation involving dozens and dozens of cases of people who have no other source of hope to continue. That is why in this situation we criticise the government's implementation. It is as poor here as it has been in so many other areas.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales) (16:43): I welcome the opportunity to debate the government's record in the area of mental health reform, which I acknowledge is particularly relevant today on World Mental Health Day. As we know, Mr Acting Deputy President, mental illness does not discriminate. It affects the lives of many Australians from all backgrounds. It also impacts on the lives of friends, family and work colleagues of those affected. One in five people and one in four young people will experience a mental health issue in any given year.

But only 25 per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds who experience mental health issues will get help. Sadly, we know that mental illness disproportionately affects the lives of our most vulnerable—people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, particularly the homeless, migrant communities, regional communities and Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders.

The government's $2.2 billion mental reform package over five years is delivering real assistance and real improvements to the lives of those thousands of Australians with mental health issues. What this means is that the government has been able to deliver vital programs—and I thought today in my contribution I would give five examples. Firstly, headspace, the National Youth Mental Health Foundation, is tackling mental health issues early for our young people, particularly in regional areas and on the city fringe, with new centres being opened in Werribee, Liverpool and Rockhampton—bringing the total number of operational services to 40, with a further 30 announced sites in development. At the end of the 2011-12 financial year, more than 67,000 young people had been assisted by headspace, with more than 700,000 occasions of service delivered. Secondly, there is KidsMatter. KidsMatter is a mental health and wellbeing framework for primary schools and early childhood education and care services that promotes mental health and early intervention for children. As of the end of July this year there were more than 815 primary schools around the country participating. Thirdly, the government has made big investments in online mental health support with online services such as eheadspace, ReachOut.com and myCompass. Fourthly, the mindhealthconnect portal went live on 29 June this year, on time and to schedule. In its first month of operation, more than 37,000 unique visitors had accessed the portal. That is an average of 1,258 Australians each day seeking a range of information on mental health matters. Finally, the National Mental Health Commission is up and running—again, on time and on budget. The commission has met seven times to develop Australia's first ever national report card on mental health and suicide prevention. The commission met with more than 400 key stakeholders, carers, and consumers in every state and territory. The government does have a strong commitment to working closely with key stakeholders such as community and advocacy groups, states and territories, local government, NGOs and communities to provide support to those vulnerable members of our community at mental health risk.

In May this year I attended an event marking the 20th anniversary of Suicide Prevention Australia. That organisation has been very important in ensuring that we remain vigilant and continue to prevent suicides and attempted suicides and support those whose lives have been affected by suicide. The development and funding of initiatives like the Taking Action to Tackle Suicide package and the National Suicide Prevention Program are critically important to organisations like Suicide Prevention Australia.

Last year the government established the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Advisory Group to guide the development of Australia's first national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander strategy. There has been $24 million provided to boost the capacity of crisis hotlines such as Lifeline and to help train front-line community workers in suicide prevention through the Mental Health First Aid program. Safety is being improved at suicide 'hot spots', where community prevention activities for high-risk groups are being supported and suicide postvention outreach teams to schools are being funded.

Together with a range of organisations, the government has been focusing on building national suicide prevention sector networks. It has also been creating and disseminating suicide prevention information and doing other a range of other very valuable work through its joint membership of the National Committee for the Standardised Reporting of Suicide. The government's $2.2 billion five-year mental health reform package and its continuing support for organisations such as Suicide Prevention Australia are making a real difference for vulnerable members of our community and, more broadly, for public health in Australia.

I think that on a day like World Mental Health Day it is important to stress that nationwide mental health reform needs ongoing bipartisan political support. It deserves ongoing bipartisan political support, something that this sector has called for for many, many years. Previous governments, I acknowledge, have made significant inroads in mental health reform, and I believe that the current federal government's package is another significant step in providing the quality services and support that are so critical to so many of the most vulnerable in our community.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (16:53): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance on mental health, and I welcome the comments by Senator Faulkner that it is an issue where there is bipartisan concern, and that previous governments have made substantial and, might I add, effective commitments in this area. I think that is the point where government speakers have missed the heart of this MPI from the coalition's perspective. We share the desire to do something and we share the desire to make sure it is bipartisan. But that does not absolve us from our responsibility to hold the government to account when they are not delivering on their promises, or when they are not working effectively with the funds that they have committed. This is an area where we cannot fail. We cannot fail the many individuals and families who entrust us to come to this place to use their taxes effectively to provide the support that our community needs.

Almost 45 per cent, or 7.3 million, of Australians aged between 16 and 85 report that they would have met the criteria for a diagnosis of a mental health disorder at some time. One in five Australians will experience a mental illness this year. Anxiety disorders affect some 14 per cent of people aged between 16 and 85; they are the most common disorders. It is perhaps not until you know someone who has been affected by that that you realise how debilitating it can be for them, for their families and for the work that they do, and why we as a community need to support them.

Mental health accounts for nearly 13 per cent of the total burden of disease in Australia, but only about six per cent of the health budget goes to mental healthcare services. The coalition, in holding the government to account, was successful in initiating a Senate inquiry looking at the funding and the administration of mental health services. I bring those two points out deliberately because it is great to have a vision, and this government has been very good about putting forward its vision, but vision without dollars is hallucination. One of the things where people are hurting is that this government talks, as Senator Faulkner did then, about $2.2 billion over five years, but the question is: when is that money being spent? The bulk of it is in year 5, and there have been cuts to programs—successful programs—in the meantime that have hurt people.

The package of measures announced in 2011 had that headline figure, but only $583 million of that $2.2 billion is to be spent over the forward estimates in the four years. In the 2011-12 financial year, the total amount spent was only $47 million. The government cut mental health funding by ripping $580 million from GP mental health services and the allied health treatment sections from the Better Access initiative. Some 1,500 submissions to the inquiry were received. I have had phone calls and emails from many people in South Australia talking about the impact that this has had, both from families and from providers who recognise that mental health is often not something that can be cured just overnight. It requires ongoing and consistent support and a relationship to be built up between the person providing the service and support and the person who needs it.

A survey of 404 GPs that the AMA did found that the proportion of doctors bulk-billing patients for preparing mental health plans had dropped from 78 per cent prior to the cuts to only 38 per cent following the cuts. The Better Access program had provided care for more than one million people before the program was cut, and the AMA's conclusion was that the 2011-12 budget cuts were clearly all about the budget bottom line and did not actually have improved outcomes for mental health patients as their priority.

In terms of administration, not only is there a problem there with the funding but the other criticism that the coalition has is of the way that the government is going about it. Senator Faulkner made the comment then that the Labor Party works closely with all the stakeholder groups. But I have to say that, in the Senate inquiry looking at the way it undertook changes to the Better Access program, one of the very clear messages that came through from the stakeholders was that there had been scant consultation. The government relied heavily on a Better Access evaluation which has been widely criticised for deficiencies in both its methodology and its data set.

The coalition is concerned about the consequences of a shift from Better Access to the ATAPS, and that they have not been fully considered. This is particularly worrying given the challenges that the ATAPS are facing, which are highlighted in the ANAO report. Fundamentally, there is the question as to whether the ATAPS structure is going to be sufficient to meet this demand.

I would like particularly to talk about some of the challenges that people in rural areas face. I have spoken in this place before, in June this year, about things like the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program. People in South Australia—from Clare, for example—highlight the value that this program has provided in providing local access to mental health care that prevents people deteriorating to the point where they need to go to Adelaide to seek deeper care. And yet, despite the widely recognised success of this program around Australia, this is one of the programs that have been capped by the government as opposed to being built on.

Good leadership theory tells you that if you want to succeed you build on your strengths. This has been one of the areas that have been a strength as well as the Better Access program, and I would encourage the government to seriously look at removing that cap and boosting these programs that are helping rural communities.

The other area of implementation is making sure that the bureaucracy does not get in the way. During a recent visit to the Riverland, when I was speaking to a GP who delivered headspace programs, she talked about the frustration of being restricted to providing the service in one location where most of her clients were young people who had no ability to travel there from regional towns. She was happy to travel and provide the service but the system would not let her. This government needs to improve and deliver its promise on funding better mental health outcomes.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (18:53): I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise this evening to make some comments on the Australian Research Council's annual report 2011-12. The ARC is a great organisation. Its mission, according to page 16 of the annual report, is 'to deliver policy and programs that advance Australian research and innovation globally and benefit the community'. Its three key objectives are: to support excellence in research; to build Australia's research capacity, particularly through supporting early careers researchers; and policy and evaluation to provide informed, high quality policy advice to government and enhance research outcomes through effective evaluation. I am sure that if Senator Macdonald were here this evening he would have a lot to say about the research that goes on in our universities, particularly around the area of climate change.

However, tonight I want to make some commentary on other types of research into science. Some of the projects that were supported through the ARC funding rounds last financial year are around the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training. We have heard in recent weeks about the importance of research into groundwater, particularly in the coal seam gas debate, and how little we know about our water resources going forward. Obviously, the Murray-Darling Basin debate, which is currently occurring, also needs highly specialised social scientists and hydrologists and the like who can provide us with guidance as legislators going forward on the best way to manage our rear sources in that regard. Some of the other areas that the ARC funds through the National Competitive Grants Program go to biological science, my old favourite mathematics, physics, chemistry and earth sciences as well as the social sciences et cetera and the creative arts. It is broad ranging. These grants actually drive research throughout our community.

I also want to talk about the role of this government in supporting science research, and here I would like to refer in particular to an article on higher education in the Australian today. In relation to the ARC, whose annual report we are considering right now, the article states:

THE Australian Research Council has confirmed that all funding announcements are on hold as the Gillard government seeks budget cuts.

I would like to directly quote the Australian Academy of Science policy secretary, Bob Williamson, who said in the same article:

We understand the government wants a balanced budget but attacking the science budget isn't the way to do it. Science represents the future, including the future of the economy beyond the mining boom.

The ARC's role in assisting our nation with science research and development and, hopefully, the commercialisation of that research and the technological advancement that it will bring to our society is something that we obviously support.

The government's decision to halt those funding announcements will have severe implications for these grants and this research going forward. When we are looking for collaboration in research, it is the business partners who will be teaming with universities and their teams of researchers who look for certainty. So announcements like this from the government actually put at risk those things. The minister himself said:

World class science and research is crucial to Australia's future competitiveness.

I could not agree more, minister. Again, Minister Evans said:

Australia's universities and industry research facilities need to be world class to compete with the rest of the world, particularly with rapidly expanding capacity of the Asia Pacific.

Having just travelled back from the Asia-Pacific with the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee and having seen China's commitment to commercialisation and focus on science research, I could not agree more.

The reason that we are in this parlous state is that this government is big on the rhetoric of education and infinitesimally tiny on delivery. We have the home insulation scandal, the school halls rip-off, the $67 million wasted on administration costs for the set-top box, the carbon cop office makeover and the NBN network blow-out. These are very real impacts over the course of this government, not to mention the $22 million a day it spends on interest repayments for its debts that mean it is unable to facilitate the science research that this nation so desperately needs. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator THISTLETHWAITE (New South Wales) (18:58): Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of welcoming an officer from the Australian Defence Force into my office as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. Wing Commander Jonathon Durden was seconded to my office from his home base of Amberley, in Queensland. His visit was the reciprocal half of an exchange which I commenced in August when I deployed to Afghanistan and was hosted by the ADF.

This evening, I would like to take the opportunity to briefly outline the background to the program and explain why it is such a valuable initiative for this parliament.

In order to illustrate the program, I will go on to discuss both my own experiences in Afghanistan and those of Wing Commander Durden whilst he was working here in Parliament House. I would also like to state that much of this speech has actually come from the pen of Wing Commander Durden. He prepared most of this speech whilst he was working in my office for that period.

In the period immediately following the Second World War, many members of parliament served in our armed forces and experienced the deprivations of war. This was a consequence of the time. In the post-war years it ensured that decisions made within this parliament pertaining to national security were informed by hard-won personal experience. Over the ensuing years, some of that firsthand knowledge of military experience has naturally declined, and that is why programs such as the Australian Defence Force exchange program are so valuable.

In 2001, the ADFPP was implemented to provide parliamentarians with the opportunity to work alongside the men and women of the ADF, to experience their daily routine, to deploy to places where they deploy, to walk a mile in their shoes and to gain an understanding of the immense challenges which they face. I was privileged and fortunate to do precisely that in early August of this year when I deployed to Afghanistan with three of my colleagues from this place and the House of Representatives. We were in the company of the extremely dedicated men and women of the ADF.

In July, I boarded the defence charter, which leaves every Wednesday from Sydney airport to Al Minhad Air Base, where Australia's main base for operations in Afghanistan is located. Then we boarded the C130 Hercules on to Kandahar and Tarin Kot. It is not until you actually touch down in that dust and heat that you can begin to realise the magnitude of the challenge that our defence personnel are facing in Afghanistan. Imagine a barren desert with very few trees, swept by dust storms and cloaked in searing heat in the middle of their summer. Consider a mission where we must train and mentor an army which is drawn from a population whose culture, language, beliefs and experience of the world could not be further from our own, and then realise that this mission is being conducted in the face of a determined, adaptive and hardened army that resides not only outside the razor wire perimeter but also sometimes, unfortunately, within.

These are the circumstances in which our personnel have been continuously operating for nearly a decade. But we also experienced the wonderful work that many aid agencies and the Australian Federal Police are doing. One story really hit home to me the value of the work that Australians are doing in Afghanistan. In Tarin Kot, we spoke to some surgeons working in the local hospital who said that six years ago the average number of babies born in the hospital in Tarin Kot per month was two. Women just did not come in to have babies. Consequently, Afghanistan had the highest rate of infant mortality in the world. If you go there today, because of the work of Australian doctors training locals in midwifery and training local nurses and doctors, about 100 babies a month are born in that local hospital. That demonstrates the value of the work that Australians are doing in Afghanistan, and they do it with professionalism, with humour and with compassion.

While I was in Afghanistan, our troops welcomed me and my colleagues with open arms, and after an eventful and edifying week and a half I returned to Australia with a new appreciation of our defence capabilities and the environment in which they are currently deployed.

Recently, Wing Commander Jonathon Durden, who spent six months in Afghanistan in 2009, volunteered to spend a week working with me here in Parliament House. Regular operational deployments have punctuated Wing Commander Durden's career. In 2003, he was deployed as the operations and force protection officer in Baghdad. In 2008 he was seconded to the Royal Air Force Regiment and spent six months training in Scotland before deploying to Kandahar as the wing influence officer. This job involved liaising with local tribal elders, district chiefs and police executives to win consent for operations at the Kandahar air base. In August 2010, Squadron Leader Durden, was deployed on Operation Pakistan Assist for a predominantly health-focused mission in the wake of the Pakistan flood disaster. He was awarded a Chief of Joint Operations Commendation for his work.

Whilst here, Jonathon accompanied me on a variety of activities and, of course, spent some time observing the work of this chamber and the senators. In the wake of that, towards the end of his work experience here, he explained to me that the experience gave him an entirely new perspective on the business of government, the mechanics of our legislature and the day-to-day work of senators. More importantly, Jonathon said that the experience gave him a much greater understanding of the relationship between his part in Australia's ongoing progress and our own. In his future role as the Commanding Officer of 1 Airfield Defence Squadron, Jonathon said he would carry with him a much deeper understanding of how parliament shapes the democracy which he and his colleagues are charged with defending.

I have found both my deployment to Afghanistan and my hosting duties as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program to be thoroughly rewarding and worthwhile. I now have a much greater perception of the realties which face our defence personnel. Additionally, I have contributed to the professional development of one of our military officers, and that is a satisfying experience. In my experience, through my engagement with Wing Commander Durden, I believe the ADF parliamentary exchange program is achieving the aims for which it was conceived.

It is a wonderful opportunity for senators and members of parliament to experience the work and lives of our very talented Defence Force personnel and for us to reciprocate with that obligation to provide an understanding to Defence Force personnel about how our democracy works and the work of members of parliament. I commend this program to all parliamentarians.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:07): I rise tonight to speak on an issue of great importance, and one that I feel needs to be spoken about with honesty, compassion and openness. A few weeks ago, I was privileged enough to meet with Nick Lee, whose wife, Jodi, was diagnosed with bowel cancer in 2008 at just 39 years of age. Jodi had no symptoms before her diagnosis. She complained of constipation, abdominal pain and some bloating one day. Tests the following day revealed a large tumour blocking her bowel. Jodi underwent emergency surgery but, unfortunately, the cancer had spread to her liver and lymph system. Jodi had stage 4 bowel cancer and at best had only two years to live. It was a tragic sentence. Jodi passed away in 2010, leaving behind her husband, two children, Jack and Arabella, and of course a devastated network of family and friends.

I would love to be able to say that stories such as this are uncommon. But the Lee family's story is, unfortunately, not atypical. Bowel cancer is Australia's single most common internal cancer and our second leading cause of cancer related death after lung cancer. It kills nearly one person every two hours—that is, a staggering 5,000 Australians every year. One in 12 Australians will develop bowel cancer in their lifetime. Worse still, by 2020, it is estimated that 20,000 new cases will be detected every year. Perhaps most critically, if diagnosed early, 90 per cent of bowel cancer cases can be treated and cured.

But we do not place the emphasis that we should on the importance of prevention of this insidious disease. We all know that smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer, and for generations governments have admirably taken on big tobacco by strengthening advertising standards and, most recently, with the push for plain packaging of cigarettes, yet similar attention is not given to the prevention and treatment of bowel cancer.

Bowel cancer currently costs the federal government an estimated $1 billion per annum in terms of health costs, but biennial screening at a participation rate of just 40 per cent could save between $53 million and $71 million per year. But of course these economic costs cannot be measured against the human cost—the human cost to Nick Lee and his family and the human cost of the thousands of Australians who die each year from bowel cancer, yet it is a disease that, if caught early, can have that 90 per cent cure rate.

With bowel cancer, there is not an obvious bad guy to fight like there is with big tobacco and there is no distinct cause, so there are no explicit pictures or messages to scare people into healthier behaviour. There is only screening and early detection. We need to address the reasons why people are shirking screening tests. There is no question that the idea of a bowel screening test is uncomfortable and difficult for many. But what is more difficult, as I am sure Nick Lee will attest to, is losing a loved one to this awful disease. Many people do not experience any symptoms until the cancer becomes more advanced or has spread, which is why early detection is key. Jodi Lee's cancer could have been detected earlier, and we would be telling a very different story today if that had been the case. Bowel cancer predominantly affects people aged over 50, but it is increasingly being diagnosed in people in their 30s and 40s.

While the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program will eventually offer biennial screening to all Australians between the ages of 50 and 74, I am concerned that this program will not be fully implemented until after 2018. Where does that leave those under 50, who we know are still at risk of developing bowel cancer even if they have no family history of the disease? We must be doing more to encourage people to get screened for bowel cancer. Bowel cancer is a major health issue in Australia and it is critical that the Australian public are made aware of the issue and the solution, and that solution is early detection.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work Nick has done in this regard since Jodi's passing. Nick has taken this tragedy, the kind of event that would make many of us turn our backs on the world, and is using it to try and raise awareness of the prevalence of this disease and to promote the importance of bowel cancer screening. He has established the Jodi Lee Foundation, a charity with a clear message, which is that the early detection of bowel cancer saves lives. The foundation's objectives are to promote awareness about the high incidence of bowel cancer in Australia, to educate Australians about the importance of bowel screening and the tests available and to improve the uptake of regular and appropriate screening for bowel cancer by all people from the age of 40.

These are excellent goals, but I find it hard to understand why it took the death of a young woman to establish such a foundation. If this cancer is our second biggest killer, why are we not hearing about it more? Why are there not more of us, whether politicians, celebrities or everyday people, lining up to raise awareness? Where are the funding, the morning teas, the sponsored walks and the readathons?

I said before that this subject needed to be addressed with honesty and compassion. There is something about human beings that makes us uncomfortable about discussing bowel conditions. But it is time to overcome that. We might not even realise it, but our inbuilt reticence on this subject is costing people their lives. I thank Nick Lee for the work he and the foundation are doing. I am so very sorry that he ever had reason to become involved in this subject, but I believe many, many people will be thankful that he has. I strongly encourage the government to begin working with the foundation to raise awareness of this issue and to begin building an even more comprehensive strategy to increase testing in Australia. Lives literally depend on it.