Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (09:35): Mr Deputy President Marshall, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair again.

I would like to indicate my support for this bill. And I do share the concerns of the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Milne, in relation to private members' time—it has been hard fought for. I think there are broader issues about question time as well. With a record number of crossbenchers, we need to have a fairer system in place so that crossbenchers can fairly participate in the debates in this chamber and the processes of this chamber, including question time and private members' time. I look forward to discussing that with my colleagues and with the whips of the major parties as well, so that we can head off some of the problems that are emerging.

In relation to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, I indicate my support for this bill. I will also be supporting the amendments proposed by both the Australian Greens and the opposition, in the sense that they are relatively similar and I believe either option will be an improvement to this bill. In particular, I want to express my support for the amendments proposing greater scrutiny of projects over a certain monetary threshold. I believe this is an important amendment and will help to ensure accountability and transparency. I also want to acknowledge the good work that the infrastructure assistant minister, the Hon. Jamie Briggs, has done. I think that what he has said about ensuring value for money on road projects is refreshing; I think that that is actually a good initiative on his part and, if he is successful, as I hope he will be, in improving the processes and the value-for-money criteria, then he will be doing this country a great service. But I also think that having greater accountability and transparency in respect of road funding is a good thing.

I will keep my remarks brief because time is of the essence when it comes to this bill. It has already been delayed, which is of significant concern to local councils, and further delays could jeopardise funding for vital projects, particularly in respect of Roads to Recovery. I acknowledge the many, many phone calls and text messages I have exchanged with Felicity-ann Lewis, the President of the Australian Local Government Association, from South Australia, who is doing a great job. I pay tribute to her persistence, to her interest and to her advocacy in respect of this issue on behalf of local government. I think all of my colleagues in this place are supportive of the Roads to Recovery program and want to see it extended, given that the previous funding ended in June and that some councils have begun new projects based on promises that the funding would continue. We must ensure this legislation passes as a matter of urgency. However, I do want to address a fundamental inequality in the way that funds are allocated.

South Australian local government currently manages 11 per cent, or 75,000 kilometres, of the nation's local road network and receives just 5.5 per cent of identified local roads grant funding, despite the fact that South Australia has about 7.2 per cent of the nation's population. As such, South Australia receives the lowest funding per capita of all states and territories, at just $23.23 per capita. South Australia also has the lowest funding spent per kilometre, with Queensland and Western Australia receiving almost twice as much. Victoria receives 2.25 times as much funding. New South Wales gets nearly three times as much. By contrast, Tasmania, which has about two per cent of Australia's population, receives $72.40 per capita, over five times the funding to South Australia.

To address this inequality, the supplementary local road fund was established; but, despite the continuation of the Roads to Recovery program, this supplementary account, which would have brought South Australia up to 7.9 per cent of the fund—an improvement but still not quite good enough—has not been included in the current budget, and that is fundamentally wrong. I urge the Hon. Jamie Briggs, the assistant minister for infrastructure, and the Hon. Christopher Pyne, the most senior South Australian in the cabinet, to fight for South Australia in the same way that Nick Minchin, Alexander Downer and Amanda Vanstone fought for South Australia when they were in the cabinet. I just hope that they have the same level of resolve when it comes to their home state of South Australia.

What this means is that South Australian councils will miss out on about $18 million for 2014-15, with some individual councils missing out on as much as $1 million each. So, while I support this bill, I call on the government to renew their commitment to infrastructure by reinstating the supplementary fund or at least by reallocating the existing funds on a more equitable basis. Improving Australia's roads needs a national approach, and funding should be fairly distributed across the country.

As I said, I support this bill. I look forward to debating the amendments in the committee stage but I want to make it clear that, whilst I support the opposition's and the Greens' amendments in terms of improving transparency and accountability, I do not want to see this bill ultimately delayed; I want to make sure that the funding for the Roads to Recovery program is flowing by next week. We cannot afford to have gridlock on a program that is obviously urgent, a program that both sides, both major parties, support. If we do not get the funding flowing by next week, then we are showing signs of that malaise, that gridlock, which has been so toxic in American politics. Let us not bring that to our shores.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (09:41): I thank all senators for their contributions on this important piece of legislation, the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, particularly Senator Xenophon. The government are committed to building the infrastructure of the 21st century, and the changes in the bill will help us achieve the recently announced budget infrastructure initiatives.

The amendments to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 are sensible and necessary to facilitate the government's ambitious land transport infrastructure agenda. The bill provides funding certainty—funding that is critical to local government by continuing the vitally important Roads to Recovery program. The Roads to Recovery program, as many of us here know, lapsed on 30 June 2014. No payments can be made to local governments until this bill has passed, although we have committed $2.1 billion over the next five years to the program, including a doubling of funding to each and every council in the 2015-16 financial year. That is what is at stake with this legislation.

The current nation building act, established by the former minister, Mr Anthony Albanese, made no provision for the Roads to Recovery program to continue beyond 30 June. The shadow spokesperson for infrastructure claims to be committed to local government and to this program, but he has failed local government by failing to provide for this vital program to continue on his watch. Without the passage of this bill, local councils stand to lose the $2.1 billion that I referred to in funding for this vital Roads to Recovery program.

The opposition spared no time in criticising the government's decision to pause the indexation of Financial Assistance Grants to local government for three years to help bring the budget back to surplus. This was a decision not taken lightly by the government. It is no secret that everyone is contributing to fix the economic mess left by the previous, Labor government. Australia's debt is already costing us billions of dollars in interest payments. This year alone, we are paying $12 billion in interest costs. Wouldn't it be nice if this could go to local councils as more funding through Financial Assistance Grants or to the Roads to Recovery program? But it cannot—a lost opportunity because of the reckless mismanagement by those opposite.

Labor failed to come clean with councils about their own agenda to block the flow of the $2.1 billion that I mentioned to local councils for the upkeep of their local roads—money that local councils completely rely upon. If the opposition were serious about local council funding, they would not have voted against this bill in the House of Representatives. I say that again for the benefit of those listening to us: if Labor were serious and honest with the Australian public, they would not have voted against the bill in the House of Representatives, which is what they did.

During the winter recess we saw Labor claim that this program has been held up by the government's actions. But both Labor and their allies the Greens are yet to support the bill. In fact, as I have said, they voted against it in the House of Representatives yet were unable to point to one single element of the bill that, in their view, was unacceptable. It was just plain old deliberate obstructionism. They were playing politics—and they continue to do so.

The primary intent of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 is to continue the Roads to Recovery program—which Mr Albanese failed to provide for when he was the minister, creating an expiration date of 30 June 2014. That is why we are in the problem we are in. Mr Albanese proposes a private member's bill to fix the problem. Let us not forget that the shadow spokesperson is on record as saying legislation is not needed for the program. This private member's bill, which the government has not yet seen or been consulted on, is a media stunt to respond to the outrage expressed by local councils right across Australia. Again, this is clear evidence that the Labor Party are just plain playing politics. We know it is a media stunt because Mr Albanese attempted to suspend standing orders in the House on Tuesday to introduce a bill but actually had no paperwork to back it up. The Australian public, local councils and this Senate chamber have now seen exactly what he stands for—legislation by media release and nothing more. He made Labor vote against the bill in the House, and local councils around Australia were understandably outraged. The only way the Labor Party and the shadow minister can save any face is to talk of introducing his own legislation to save the program. If he now accepts that legislation is necessary, he should quit the theatrics and the politicking and support the government's legislation.

Labor has also been claiming that the bill contains amendments that are unacceptable to the opposition. Yet the main purpose of the bill is to continue the Roads to Recovery program—the bill that they themselves voted against in the House without being able to point to one single clause, paragraph or enactment of a bill that is now described as unacceptable. The bill also changes the name of the act to remove the politicisation of the Infrastructure Investment Program from within the act. Mr Albanese seems desperate to preserve his legacy and is playing a childish tactic of attempting to ensure that the name 'Nation Building Program', which he gave to this act, is retained. What he is doing right now, with roads running into disrepair, is the complete opposite of what he wants to call the bill.

The government has also included a few other minor amendments in the bill to reduce duplication, to streamline the operation of the act and to reduce red tape consistent with our red tape reduction agenda. The amendments proposed by the opposition in the Senate, which the government deems unacceptable, include wanting to enshrine the name of the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program in the act. These projects are already funded under the act and budgeted for and, as such, including a new separate part is a completely unnecessary duplication. Mr Albanese has briefed the crossbench that, unless the heavy vehicle program is named specifically in legislation, it will not continue. Let's be clear, this government is committed to that program and is spending more on the heavy vehicle program than Labor ever did. The budget papers clearly demonstrate this. Mr Albanese himself did not find it necessary to make significant amendments when he corrected the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. He did one minor thing at that time. He only changed the definition of 'road' in legislation because that is all that was needed to establish the program. So why is he now proposing eight pages of amendments just on the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program?

Labor and the Greens also want to complicate and inappropriately create an additional role for Infrastructure Australia in this bill when in fact this act has nothing to do with the administrative arrangements of Infrastructure Australia. This clearly makes no sense. If Labor was serious about looking after local councils and cutting red tape, it would simply pass the bill unamended. I ask Labor to point to just one aspect of the bill that is unacceptable. This is a simple piece of legislation. It is a very simple bill to extend the Roads to Recovery program and to fund our local government authorities for that purpose—to change the name of the bill and to tidy up other aspects of the act consistent with the government's red tape reduction agenda. That is all that it does.

It is true that we were forced to withdraw the legislation from the Senate in the final sitting of parliament before the winter recess because it was clear that it would not have passed without major unacceptable amendments proposed by Labor and their allies the Greens. Many of the proposed amendments are unacceptable to the coalition as they are either not directly relevant to the bill or will add needless bureaucracy and red tape to the operation of programs for local councils.

Today we are hopeful that Labor and Greens senators will do the right thing by local councils and the right thing by the communities within those councils. As a government we will continue to stand up for local communities rather than playing petty games which affect the everyday lives of commuters, particularly on roads in regional Australia. The bill reinserts a power for the minister to determine the Roads to Recovery list, which is essential for the program to be able to function. This power was removed from the act when it was amended in 2009 by the previous Labor government. Clearly, the opposition had little tolerance for the Roads to Recovery program.

The bill renames the act to the National Land Transport Act 2014, removing the link between the name of the act and the name of the Land Transport Infrastructure Funding Program. This means that when a funding program ends or its name changes in the future there will no longer be a need to amend the legislation and it will therefore be a reduction in the administrative burden. This removes the politics from the act. The opposition has claimed the bill was entirely about removing the nation-building branding of the former government and nothing more. This government is about substance and certainly not slogans. The bill is needed to extend the Roads to Recovery Act and that is what we are trying to do with this quite simple and straightforward piece of legislation.

I urge the crossbenchers to think very carefully about the way they will vote on the amendments particularly. You can vote to continue the Roads to Recovery program, which I trust that you will do, by rejecting the amendments proposed by Labor and the Greens. Local government will certainly thank you for that. The government will thank you for that. We will not have to see the unnecessary toing and froing of the bill and we will guarantee the much needed funding flowing expeditiously to local governments so they can manage their roads properly and safely. Alternatively, you could vote to support the various amendments by the Labor Party and the Greens, but you will be alone in doing so and will contribute to the uncertainty that now confronts local governments and local authorities as to where they are going to get their funding to do the road maintenance that their communities so desperately need.

Let me be very clear. As I have said, this is a very simple piece of legislation. It is a very simple bill to extend the Roads to Recovery program, to change the name of the legislation, and to tidy up some small and other aspects of the act consistent with our red-tape reduction agenda, and that is all it does. Why is that so offensive? Why has that become so controversial? This bill simply amends the act which was in place under Mr Albanese. Mr Albanese did not see it necessary to add a separate section on heavy vehicle projects. Mr Albanese did not have a so-called transparency clause that makes the minister direct Infrastructure Australia and his department, but then Mr Albanese did not have a transparent Infrastructure Australia either, and he funded many, many projects that came nowhere near Infrastructure Australia's priority list and ignored others on that priority list. Mr Albanese says that the government has no new projects. If the government has no new projects, why does he now insist on Infrastructure Australia assessing all the projects he previously committed to? Is he doubting whether he chose projects that do not demonstrate value for money?

The two major areas where Labor and the Greens will seek to add to the bill are in relation to Infrastructure Australia's functions and in relation to the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. I want to be very clear: the Australian government stand by their promise to ensure infrastructure projects over $100 million are assessed by Infrastructure Australia, and Infrastructure Australia will publish its justification for recommending projects for government funding. We will be introducing amendments in the house that specifically deal with this, and I am on the record to say precisely that. There is no need to delay funding to local councils for Roads to Recovery by attempting to create additional roles for Infrastructure Australia in this bill. They should be in the Infrastructure Australia Act where, of course, we all know they belong.

We are also committed to heavy vehicle safety. We agree that the program, the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program created by the Labor Party, is an important and successful program for heavy vehicle safety. In fact, we were so impressed with their program that we are extending it and providing more money for it than they ever, in fact, did. The coalition government are also helping those in the heavy vehicle sector by providing an enormous program of works, the largest infrastructure program ever to ensure safer roads for use by heavy vehicles and those that share the roads with them. Let me list a small sample of other initiatives that the government are pursuing to improve heavy vehicle safety. Firstly, a review of the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme and of heavy vehicle inspection regimes. Secondly, mandatory load proportioning or anti-lock braking systems for all model prime movers. Thirdly, state, territory and Commonwealth governments are working collaboratively with industry to determine research and trials for the next generation of braking control systems.

In relation to heavy vehicle safety, may I take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Ricky Muir who over recent weeks has been instrumental in seeking continued government support for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. I pause to congratulate him on that very important contribution. My home state of Western Australia with B-doubles and very heavy vehicles certainly appreciates that input. It is a measure of the importance of this program for the Australian community that it attracts support from others in this chamber, and it is refreshing to talk to senators in this chamber who are willing to work constructively to secure clear and positive outcomes that benefit all Australians. Senator Muir, well done.

In summary, the bill streamlines and enhances the operation of the act to the benefit of states, territories and the Commonwealth by removing unnecessary duplication. It provides clarity with one set of funding conditions and approval processes for the majority of projects funded under the act. The bill also assists the government's deregulation agenda by repealing three spent land transport infrastructure acts. There are no regulatory or financial impacts on businesses, or on the not-for-profit sector, from the amendments to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009, or from the repeal of the spent legislation. The bill is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.

The bill was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry on 6 March 2014. The committee's report, which came down on 24 March, supported the legislation in its current form. So, let's talk no more of seeking to divert the parliament's course of providing strong funding for local governments and actually delivering on that funding. We have suspended private member's business today, not lightly, but with due consideration to the fact that local councils are desperately needing this money.

I commend the bill to the house. I commend this bill to all senators, and I urge you to think about those communities that need the support of their councils and their councils' funding to deal with this roads issue. I thank the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:07): by leave—I move Greens amendments (5) and (6) on sheet 7495 revised:

(5) Subsection (4) does not limit the matters to which the Minister may have regard in determining whether to approve the provision of Commonwealth funding for the project.

4C Cost benefit analyses to be made public

(1) The Minister must ensure that the following information about a Black Spot Project, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, Investment Project or Transport Development and Innovation Project is made available on the Department's website, if Commonwealth funding is provided for the project:

   (a) a description of the project;

   (b) when the project is to start and is likely to be completed;

(c) Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the project under subsection 4B(2) (if applicable);

   (d) any advice given by Infrastructure Australia in relation to the project as mentioned in paragraph 4B(4)(c).

(2) The information must be published no later than 14 days after the Commonwealth first informs a recipient of the funding that Commonwealth funding will be provided for the project.

(6) Schedule 1, item 14, page 7, after proposed section 4C, insert:

4D Cost benefit analyses of other projects

(1) Infrastructure Australia must give to the Minister a cost benefit analysis of a land transport infrastructure project if:

   (a) Commonwealth funding is provided for the project (under this Act or any other law) on or after the commencement of this section (whether the provision of the funding was agreed to, approved or announced before, on or after that commencement); and

   (b) capital expenditure on the project is $50 million or more; and

(c) Infrastructure Australia is not required to give a cost benefit analysis of the project to the Minister under another provision of this Act.

(2) The Minister must ensure that the cost benefit analysis is made available on the Department's website.

These amendments amend the bill so that for any project of $50 million or more in capital expenditure, the minister must have regard to the Infrastructure Australia evaluation of the project. The evaluation of the project must include a cost-benefit analysis, the priority of the project as per Infrastructure Australia's infrastructure plan and any other relevant matter, and the evaluation must be made available on the department's website. If there is any Commonwealth funding for the project, the department website must make information available with the description of the project, time lines, the advice by the Infrastructure Australia and the evaluation.

We have suggested the $50 million benchmark because this was the benchmark that was in the recommendation of the Productivity Commission report in the public infrastructure, which was undertaken this year. In the report, they stated:

All governments should commit to subjecting all public infrastructure investment proposals above $50 million to rigorous cost–benefit analyses that are publicly released …

We think that moving these amendments to this bill is a very good opportunity to put this recommendation into legislation. Accountability and making sure that investment in transport infrastructure is cost-effective is incredibly important because, when you are investing in transport, we have got a limited budget. We have got to make sure that they are being spent in the most appropriate way possible. That is what this amendment is seeking to achieve with these important investments that are going to be made into our transport infrastructure.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:09): Labor opposes Green's amendment (5). Labor has opposition amendment (7), which is a copy with slight changes. Labor supports $100 million as the mandatory threshold for Infrastructure Australia evaluation. Black spots, heavy vehicles and transport innovation projects are never anywhere near $50 million, let alone $100 million. The $50 million is almost the entire annual allocation to these entire programs, let alone individual projects. This is the point that the government has made and which the opposition has accepted in drafting this alternative amendment. Labor supports the majority of the content in principle but we prefer our amendment.

The transparency provision proposed new (4c) is the same as opposition (5). We prefer that amendment and we will vote accordingly. In relation to Greens amendment (6), Labor does not support it but agrees with its intent. However, the amendment appears to duplicate other provisions and is not clearly drafted. Labor has an alternative amendment relating to Infrastructure Australia's assessments or projects which it will support.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:11): As is my practice, I would like to commence by setting out what the government's voting intentions are. I am very pleased to hear that the opposition are opposing the Greens amendments (5) and (6) on sheet 7495. The bad news is that opposition amendments (5) and (7) will also be opposed by the government.

In my summing-up, I think I set out the significance of why we are opposed to that, and Senator Cameron has gone a long way towards setting out very good reasons why Greens amendment (5) should be opposed. The amendments require the minister—in talking about the broad thrust of all of the amendments, (5) and (7) of the opposition's also—to consult with Infrastructure Australia prior to approving a project under the act, including Infrastructure Australia providing an evaluation for projects with a capital expenditure of $100 million or more. The evaluation is to include a cost-benefit analysis of the program.

Interestingly, the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill, recently passed, had a mechanism that would have enabled Infrastructure Australia to provide advice on projects over the $100 million threshold, but the amendments moved by the opposition and the Greens actually delete it. They did not want the minister to have directional powers over Infrastructure Australia. Yet, in order to achieve the outcome that they want here, the opposition and the Greens require the minister to direct Infrastructure Australia to give him information.

We need to be clear—either it is acceptable for the minister to direct Infrastructure Australia or it is not. The amendments that are being proposed here require the minister to direct Infrastructure Australia. Having said that and having spelt out the reasons for our opposition, I confirm again that we will be opposed to each of these Greens amendments as similar as they are to opposition amendments (5) and (7) on sheet 7477.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:13): I had a question regarding this for Senator Johnston. In terms of the cost-benefit analysis and the inclusion of that in the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill—given the importance of the cost-benefit analysis, the commitment to the cost-benefit analysis for projects over $100 million, what really is the problem with including it in this bill? The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill is an overarching bill pulling together funding for transport. I really cannot see the problem of including the cost-benefit analysis in this bill. It really seems to fit here and this is where it belongs.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:14): It is in the Infrastructure Australia Act, where it should be. It was part of an election promise to do that. It is not relevant to what this bill seeks to do, as I attempted to set out in my summing up with respect to the second reading debate.

The ACTING TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Whish-Wilson ): The question is that amendments (5) and (6) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The ACTING TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Whish-Wilson ): Senator Rice, are you interested in moving amendment (7), to schedule 1, item 20?

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:16): There has been some unofficial discussions between the opposition and the Greens, and I am sure that the government would understand: what we were looking at doing was maybe continuing to deal with the program as outlined. But we would have no problem if the chair felt that it would assist the process to deal with this issue now.

The ACTING TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Whish-Wilson ): As the chamber chooses.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:17): I move amendment (7) on sheet 7495:

Schedule 1, item 20, page 9 (line 9), omit "or safety", substitute ", safety, integration or environmental sustainability".

This amendment incorporates into the purposes of what is to be funded whether it is appropriate to approve a project. There is a whole list of criteria currently in the bill, matters to which the minister may have regard in deciding whether it is appropriate to approve a project as an investment project. One of them, in the existing proposed bill, is the extent to which the project would improve the efficiency, security or safety of transport operations. This amendment would change that so that it became 'efficiency, security, safety, integration of environmental sustainability' of transport operations—so, including the terms 'integration' and 'environmental sustainability'.

We think this would bring it into line with what is basically standard practice across the country and would reflect all economic, social and environmental criteria. For example, the Victorian Transport Integration Act has a vision statement that says that the aspiration of Victorians for an integrated and sustainable transport system is that it contributes to an inclusive, prosperous and environmentally responsible state. I think including those things—transport integration, making sure that our transport systems are working effectively together, all supporting each other—is a very important concept when you are talking about what we should be investing in for transport. And environmental sustainability, as part of a trio of looking at environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and social responsibility, really should be there in the purposes for any investment in transport infrastructure.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:19): We are opposed to this amendment—more red tape, more cost, more administrative requirements on government. I take it we are not moving (8), (1) to (4), and (9); we are dealing with just (7) on 7495, in which case: obviously we would want to fully oppose this worthy opposition to support it. But I will leave it to my learned friend across the aisle to understand what that really means in practical terms.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:19): That is the nicest thing you have ever said about me! Labor has had some detailed discussion with the Australian Greens about this amendment. We will not support the amendment. We would prefer to add 'integrated' alone, as we consider that environmental sustainability is already adequately covered in the section and is confusing. So, we would prefer opposition amendment (6) on sheet 7477. We believe that the issues the Greens have raised are adequately covered in opposition amendment (6).

Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:20): I am interested to know how Senator Johnston thinks this would be adding to red tape. I cannot see how having overarching criteria of environmental sustainability and integration could possibly be adding to red tape.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:20): We all know that the words 'environmental sustainability' have a common-usage definition but also a legal definition. When you introduce phrases like that into the day-to-day administration of what should be a simple funding regime, as this bill seeks to do, you really do open a bit of a Pandora's box in terms of administration on the ground and in terms of budgetary positions and compliance issues. These phrases now, rightly or wrongly—and I do not criticise the importance of them—do carry with them some responsibility to get things right. All I am saying is that in this instance this is inappropriate. It makes it more complex to administer. And I do not think that is what we are about.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:21): Again, I would have thought that the responsibility to get things right in terms of where you are putting your transport investment dollars is something that any legislation should be doing. So, I wonder what problems the government has with that responsibility to get things right and making sure that the investment in transport is being spent in the most effective way in terms of economic efficiency, environmental sustainability and social issues.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:22): I am advised that in section 11 of the bill says:

The matters to which the Minister may have regard in deciding whether it is appropriate to approve a project as an Investment Project include, but are not limited to, the following matters:

…   …   …

(c) the results of any assessment of the economic, environmental or social costs or benefits of the project;

The point about that is that by injecting this in where you want to do so, I think you are substantially adding a cost burden to the assessment of these programs.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendment (7) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:23): by leave—I move amendments (5) and (7) together:

(5) Schedule 1, item 14, page 7 (after line 21), after section 4A, insert:

4B Cost benefit analyses to be made public

(1) The Minister must ensure that the following information about a Black Spot Project, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, Investment Project or Transport Development and Innovation Project is made available on the Department's website, if Commonwealth funding is provided for the project:

   (a) a description of the project;

   (b) when the project is to start and is likely to be completed;

(c) in the case of an Investment Project capital expenditure on which is $100 million or more:

      (i) Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the project under subsection 17A(2); and

      (ii) any advice given by Infrastructure Australia in relation to the project as mentioned in paragraph 17A(4)(c).

(2) The information must be published no later than 14 days after the Commonwealth first informs a recipient of the funding that Commonwealth funding will be provided for the project.

(7) Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (lines 4 to 6), omit the item, substitute:

27 Subsections 16(1) and 17(1)

   Omit "a Nation Building Program National", substitute "an Investment".

27A At the end of Division 2 of Part 3

   Add:

17A Consultation with Infrastructure Australia

(1) This section applies to an Investment Project, if capital expenditure on the project is $100 million or more.

(2) Before the Minister approves the provision of Commonwealth funding for the project, the Minister must require Infrastructure Australia to give to the Minister an evaluation of the project so that the Minister can decide whether to approve the project.

(3) Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the project must:

   (a) contain a cost benefit analysis of the project; and

   (b) specify the priority that Infrastructure Australia would give the project in relation to priorities specified in its current Infrastructure Plan; and

(c) set out any other matter that Infrastructure Australia considers relevant to the project.

(4) In determining whether to approve the provision of Commonwealth funding for the project, the Minister must have regard to:

   (a) Infrastructure Priority Lists and Infrastructure Plans developed by Infrastructure Australia under the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to the extent relevant to the project; and

   (b) Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the project under subsection (2); and

(c) any other advice given by Infrastructure Australia that relates to the project.

(5) Subsection (4) does not limit the matters to which the Minister may have regard in determining whether to approve the provision of Commonwealth funding for the project.

27B Subsection 18(1)

   Omit "a Nation Building Program National", substitute "an Investment".

Opposition amendments (5) and (7) go to amend the issue of prior consultation with the experts at Infrastructure Australia. It is about transparency of advice to government. We believe this is an important element that is central to the much-called-for proper governance in project selection. The Land Transport Infrastructure Act is the sole enabling act that governs the terms under which the infrastructure minister can authorise expenditure of Commonwealth funds on road and rail projects. No other act does this—certainly not the Infrastructure Australia Act, which has a different purpose.

The Infrastructure Australia Act establishes a body of experts who provide advice to government on infrastructure policy and projects. Infrastructure Australia looks at energy and water as well. It looks at best practice project procurement, it looks at what the nation lacks and suggests what it needs, and it flags future needs, assesses project value and flags emerging issues in the sector. It primarily has a strategic focus.

We believe this is an appropriate amendment. There is no reason to expect that a government seeking to amend the act will return to this parliament in the next six years. This is the only time the Senate will have a certain chance to ensure that ministers must seek expert advice from Infrastructure Australia before spending on road and rail projects valued at more than $100 million.

Item seven requires the minister to require an evaluation by Infrastructure Australia prior to approving funds for an infrastructure investment project valued at more than $100 million. Such an evaluation needs to include a cost-benefit analysis, Infrastructure Australia's view on project priority and other views Infrastructure Australia considers relevant. Item five provides that if the project is funded the evaluation must be published on the department's website for all taxpayers to see, within 14 days of notice of funding. The amendment is consistent with the Productivity Commission's call for much-improved infrastructure projects selection, assessment and transparency.

These amendments implement explicit coalition election policy. The coalition had policy about these issues—that is, transparency and cost-benefit analyses. We want to ensure that that promise is not broken, that it does not become another broken government promise. It certainly is about ensuring we do not have the pork-barrelling that has been used in the past by the coalition, using scarce taxpayers money.

This aligns with the government's election commitments on infrastructure as elucidated in the coalition's policy to deliver the infrastructure for the 21st century. What it says in the coalition policy is that to ensure more rigorous, transparent assessment of taxpayer-funded projects we will require all infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million to undergo a cost-benefit analysis. Labor's amendment here does nothing more than implement the exact commitment the coalition made to the Australian people at last year's election. We would expect the coalition to abide by that election promise and support these amendments.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:27): This amendment purports to give Infrastructure Australia powers to evaluate specific projects that are not appropriate for inclusion in this bill. This is not the enabling legislation for Infrastructure Australia's functions. The Infrastructure Australia legislation has a section on responsibilities, which Labor and the Greens recently passed. Now they wish to make what appears to the government to be a back-door amendment to Infrastructure Australia's powers and, interestingly, to provide the minister with powers of direction over Infrastructure Australia. The 17A heading is 'Consultation with Infrastructure Australia'. The opposition should acknowledge that the heading should say 'Ministerial Directions over Infrastructure Australia', because that is exactly what this amendment is seeking to achieve. It is terribly unclear, may I say, in furtherance of what I have already said, what matters should be included in this evaluation that the opposition is proposing.

The provision would need to prescribe the matters that must be covered in an evaluation, as those matters are not specified in the Infrastructure Australia Act, for the purposes of the general evaluation function—that is, it needs to be made clear what is the intended relationship with the scheme for evaluations under the Infrastructure Australia Act. This amendment does not even go close to doing anything like that. So it is inappropriate that any provisions purporting to give Infrastructure Australia power should be provided for in this bill, which has a completely different purpose, as I have sought to establish.

The correct place for provisions relating to Infrastructure Australia functions and powers is in its own enabling legislation. The opposition stated that it wishes the government to stand by its election commitment, and has repeated that again this morning, and on Infrastructure Australia assessing proposals of over $100 million. To ensure the government does this, it proposed amendments to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. The government said:

The government will require all Commonwealth-funded projects worth more than $100 million to undergo a cost-benefit analysis by Infrastructure Australia to ensure the best use of available taxpayer monies.

We will require Infrastructure Australia to publish justifications for all its project recommendations.

That is what we promised to the people at the last election, and we stand by that.

It is important that this bill not be further delayed by the undermining tactics of this amendment. The opposition had the opportunity to include these changes and those relating to the heavy vehicle program when in government. The question must be asked: it was just 12 months ago that the opposition had the capacity to make these amendments to this bill, so why did they not do so?

Under the former minister, Infrastructure Australia had no independence and simply prioritised projects based on how developed a business case was and not on whether it had any sustainable merit. The former government did not apply this government's level of transparency to their investments. There is no better example than that there was no cost-benefit analysis done for the NBN, the biggest single infrastructure project in Australia's history. After designing their plans for the NBN on the back of a beer coaster, Labor initially told us that the NBN would cost $43 billion and then revised it up to $44 billion. But the NBN strategic review, released in December last year, showed that the network would actually cost $73 billion.

Let's be very clear: we do not want to hold up money, vital resources and funding from going to local governments any longer. Let's just let this bill do what it clearly sets out to do, and that is to fund the Roads to Recovery program.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:31): I have to respond to some of the issues that Senator Johnston has raised. First of all, let's be clear about the delays to this bill. The government itself delayed this bill coming to the Senate for 155 days. The bill passed the lower house on 24 March and it was not brought here until yesterday. So there was a delay of 155 days that the government itself imposed on this bill. Do not come here pontificating about delays when it sat there for 155 days.

Again I say that the government have made a commitment to the public for accountability and cost-benefit analyses. This is about accountability, cost-benefit analyses and holding the government to their election promise. If you do not support this then you can add this to the vast number of premises that you have trashed since you have come to government.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:33): I thank the senator for his contribution. The first fact that all of those listening to this debate need to understand is that in the House of Representatives the Labor Party opposition voted against the bill. The Labor Party voted not to give vital money for the Roads to Recovery program to local government. They voted against it. The reason this legislation is here is that, when in government, the Labor Party sunsetted the provision of funding to local government. They put the booby-trap in the legislation when they were in power, clearly anticipating they would be where they are now. The fact is that we need to get this funding to local government. Let's get on with it.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:33): Again, I cannot understand where the government are going on this. It is clear that once this bill is passed it does not have to come back here for at least six years. It does not have to come back here again for the next two half-Senates. This is something that is simply holding the government to account for its election promises. It is about accountability. It is not about obstructionism from anyone. We are prepared to accept the bulk of this bill without amendment because it ensures that we have proper land transport infrastructure projects being brought forward. But they can only be brought forward if there is accountability and transparency. That is a promise this government made when it went to the election. That is what this amendment delivers on. It is about accountability. It is about transparency.

We know the history of the coalition in government. We know that they always have to have a leash on National Party projects that are simply not sustainable, that are about pork-barrelling and that deliver nothing but an election boost for the local National Party member. We want infrastructure to be a nationally important issue. Labor in government did more than any other government on infrastructure spending and infrastructure support. We have never had a history of being obstructionist. We are not being obstructionist on this; we simply want your promise kept—the promise that you would be accountable and transparent. That is what this is about, not delay.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:36): We need to underline the fact that we promised and are committed to ensuring scrutiny of projects above $100 million. Infrastructure Australia, under a different legislative framework, is already getting on with the job. To be clear, we will introduce amendments next week—and I am on the record now for good reason—to the Infrastructure Australia Act which will increase the level of transparency, as we said we would. In this context, we said we would get Infrastructure Australia to provide justification for its advice in a transparent, open and visible way—and we will, as we promised.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:36): With the greatest respect, Senator Johnston, this is a con job. We you have just outlined is an absolute con job. This act is where the money is spent and this act is what determines what the projects are. To say that the Infrastructure Australia Act should be changed is wrong. It is not dealing with the issue. This is where the money is spent. This is where you should be accountable. This does not have to come back again for six years, and there will be no arguments about not moving forward on key projects, provided they are accountable, provided a cost-benefit analysis has been done, provided they are transparent. To run what you have just run is a false argument. It is taking people up a blind alley. This is where the action is and this is where we should make the amendments to ensure your accountability. What we as Labor say is that if we do not get it here than we have lost accountability on the coalition. That would be a national disaster.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:38): I simply remind the chamber that these are amendments that the Labor Party did not put into their own legislation. They had the chance to do that. What is being proposed simply stands on the hose of $2.1 billion to local government.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendments (5) and (7), moved by Senator Cameron, be agreed to.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:47): by leave—I move opposition amendment (6) on sheet 7477 as revised:

(6)   Schedule 1, item 20, page 9 (line 8), after “efficiency,”, insert “integration,”.

This is a minor amendment to the matters that the minister may have regard to in deciding to approve an investment project. It will add an integration of transport operations as a factor in approving transport infrastructure projects. We acknowledge Senator Rice's role in this amendment and we believe this amendment improves the criteria without complicating it or confusing it. We prefer this to the amendment that the Australian Greens moved on amendment (7).

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:49): by leave—I move amendment (8), amendments (1) to (4) and amendment (9) on sheet 7495 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 17), after paragraph (a) of the definition of approved funding recipient, insert:

   (aa) a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project;

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 26), after paragraph (a) of the definition of approved purposes, insert:

   (aa) a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project;

(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (before line 18), before the definition of Infrastructure Project, insert:

   Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project has the meaning given by section 86A.

(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (after line 16), after paragraph (a) of the definition of project approval instrument, insert:

   (aa) in relation to a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project—the instrument approving the project under subsection 86B(1); and

(8) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 29), after item 38, insert:

38A After Part 7

   Insert:

Part 7A—Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

Division 1—Approval of Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

86A What is a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project?

      A Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project is a project for which an approval by the Minister under subsection 86B(1) is in force.

86B Approval of Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

(1) The Minister may, in writing, approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project if, and only if:

   (a) the Minister is satisfied that the project is eligible for approval (see section 86C); and

   (b) the Minister considers that it is appropriate to approve the project (see section 86D).

(2) An instrument approving a project is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

86C What projects are eligible for approval?

      A project is eligible for approval as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project if the project aims:

   (a) to reduce the number of road accidents involving heavy vehicles, or the number of accidents relating to the loading or unloading of heavy vehicles in livestock transport operations; or

   (b) to increase heavy vehicle productivity;

including by any of the following means:

   (c) targeting driver fatigue;

   (d) improving the provision of heavy vehicle rest areas on key interstate routes;

(e) providing heavy vehicle parking/decoupling areas and facilities in outer urban/regional areas;

   (f) trialling technologies;

(g) improving design and management of roads;

Note: Roads includes bridges associated with roads (see section 4).

(h) facilitating innovation to improve Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects.

86D Is it appropriate to approve a project?

      The matters to which the Minister may have regard in deciding whether it is appropriate to approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project include, but are not limited to, the following matters:

   (a) the results of any assessment of the safety benefits, or the productivity benefits, and the costs of the project;

   (b) the results of any research conducted in relation to the project;

(c) the extent to which persons other than the Commonwealth propose to contribute funding to the project.

86E Submission of particulars of projects

(1) The Minister may invite the submission of particulars of projects for consideration for approval as Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects.

(2) An invitation may be given:

   (a) to such States or authorities of a State as the Minister considers appropriate; and

   (b) by any method that the Minister considers appropriate.

(3) Subject to section 86B, the Minister may approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, whether or not particulars of the project were submitted in response to an invitation.

(4) The Minister is not required to consider a project for approval as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project unless such particulars of the project as the Minister requires have been submitted to the Minister.

86F Matters specified in project approval instrument

(1) The project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project must:

   (a) identify the project; and

   (b) specify the maximum funding amount that the Commonwealth may contribute to the project; and

(c) identify the eligible funding recipient, being a State or authority of a State, to which funding may be paid; and

   (d) if the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into with the eligible funding recipient—contain a statement to that effect.

(2) The project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project may exclude one or more specified purposes from being purposes on which funding may be expended.

86G Requirements with which funding agreements must comply

      If the project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project states that the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into with the approved funding recipient:

   (a) the total amount of funding that the agreement provides for must not exceed the maximum funding amount specified in the project approval instrument; and

   (b) the agreement must comply with any other requirements (for example, requirements relating to the inclusion of conditions) specified in the project approval instrument.

86H Variation or revocation of project approval instrument

(1) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke the project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project.

(2) A variation may be of a matter dealt with in the project approval instrument before the variation, or to include a new matter in the project approval instrument. The instrument as varied must be consistent with section 86F.

Note: For example, the project approval instrument may be varied to change the eligible funding recipient to which funding will be paid, or to specify a purpose that is excluded from the purposes on which funding may be expended.

(3) If there is a funding agreement with the approved funding recipient, the powers given by subsection (1) must be exercised in accordance with any relevant provisions of the funding agreement.

(4) An instrument varying or revoking the project approval instrument is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

Division 2—Provision of Commonwealth funding

86J Commonwealth funding for Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

(1) Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project may be provided to the approved funding recipient:

   (a) in accordance with section 86K; or

   (b) if the project approval instrument for the project states that the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into—in accordance with a funding agreement, entered into with the approved funding recipient, that satisfies the requirements of section 86G.

(2) The payments of funding are to be made out of money appropriated by the Parliament.

86K Approval of provision of Commonwealth funding if no funding agreement

(1) The Minister may, in writing, approve the provision of Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project to the approved funding recipient. The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke the approval.

(2) The funding is to be provided in one or more instalments paid to the approved funding recipient. Subject to subsection (3), the amount and timing of an instalment are as determined by the Minister.

(3) The total amount of funding provided for the project to the approved funding recipient must not exceed the maximum funding amount specified in the project approval instrument.

(4) An instrument:

   (a) approving the provision of Commonwealth funding, or varying or revoking such an approval; or

   (b) determining the amount or timing of an instalment of funding;

is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

Division 3—Conditions that apply to Commonwealth funding

Subdivision A—Sources of conditions

86L Sources of conditions

(1) The conditions that apply to a payment (the funding payment) of Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project (the funded project) to an eligible funding recipient (the funding recipient) are:

   (a) the mandatory conditions (see Subdivision B); and

   (b) either:

      (i) if the funding payment is provided in accordance with section 86K—the conditions (if any) determined under Subdivision C; or

      (ii) if the funding payment is provided in accordance with a funding agreement—the conditions specified in the funding agreement.

(2) A funding agreement may specify a condition by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time.

Subdivision B—The mandatory conditions

86M This Subdivision sets out the mandatory conditions

      The mandatory conditions are as set out in this Subdivision.

86N Funding payment must be expended on the funded project

      The funding payment must be wholly expended on approved purposes in relation to the funded project.

86P Funding recipient must give Minister audited financial statements

      For each financial year in which the funding recipient spends or retains any of the funding payment, the funding recipient must give to the Minister as soon as practicable, and in any event within 6 months, after the end of that year:

   (a) a written statement as to:

      (i) the amount spent by the funding recipient during that year out of the funding payment; and

      (ii) the amount retained by the funding recipient out of the funding payment as at the end of that year; and

(b) a report in writing and signed by the appropriate auditor stating whether, in the auditor's opinion:

      (i) the statement is based on proper accounts and records; and

      (ii) the statement is in agreement with the accounts and records; and

      (iii) the expenditure referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) has been on the funded project.

86Q Funding recipient must allow inspections by authorised persons

      The funding recipient must, at all reasonable times, permit a person authorised by the Minister:

   (a) to inspect any work involved in the carrying out of the funded project; and

   (b) to inspect and make copies of any documents relating to the funded project.

86R Funding recipient must provide information on request

      The funding recipient must, as and when requested by the Minister, provide information relevant to the progress of the funded project.

86S State or State authority must call for public tenders for certain work

(1) If the funding recipient is a State or an authority of a State, the funding recipient must call for public tenders for all work on the funded project, other than:

   (a) work that is maintenance of a road; or

   (b) work that is to be carried out by a public utility; or

(c) work that the Minister has, by a written exemption relating to the project , exempted from this condition because, in the Minister's opinion:

      (i) the work is urgently required because of an emergency; or

      (ii) the work is of such a minor nature that the invitation of tenders for the work would involve undue additional cost; or

      (iii) the work is of a kind for which it is not practicable to prepare adequate tender specifications; or

      (iv) the work is of a kind for which competitive tenders are unlikely to be received; or

      (v) the work will contribute to employment in a region; or

      (vi) the cost of the work is less than an amount determined by the Minister by legislative instrument under subsection (4) for the purposes of this subparagraph.

(2) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke an exemption referred to in paragraph (1)(c).

(3) An instrument granting, varying or revoking an exemption referred to in paragraph (1)(c) is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

(4) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine an amount for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(c)(vi).

86T State or State authority using funding payment to acquire interest in land—obligation if the interest is sold or disposed of

(1) If:

   (a) the funding recipient is a State or an authority of a State; and

   (b) the recipient sells or disposes of an interest in land that was acquired using all or part of the funding payment;

the recipient must, subject to subsection (2), pay to the Commonwealth an amount calculated using the formula:

where:

   acquisition cost means the amount paid by the funding recipient to acquire the interest (but not deducting any other costs associated with that acquisition).

   Commonwealth contribution means so much of the funding payment as was used to meet the acquisition cost.

   consideration or value means the greater of:

   (a) the consideration received by the funding recipient for the sale or disposal (but not deducting any costs associated with that sale or disposal); and

   (b) the market value of the interest at the time of the sale or disposal.

(2) The funding recipient must, as soon as practicable after selling or disposing of an interest in land that was acquired using all or part of the funding payment, notify the Minister of the sale or disposal.

(3) The funding recipient may instead, with the written approval of the Minister, spend an amount equal to the amount worked out under subsection (1) on approved purposes in relation to another Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project.

(4) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke an approval referred to in subsection (3).

(5) If the funding recipient spends an amount in accordance with subsection (3) on another Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, then, for the purposes of the application of this Act in relation to that other project:

   (a) the funding recipient is taken to have received a payment of Commonwealth funding in relation to that other project equal to the amount so spent; and

   (b) the amount so spent is taken to have been paid out of that payment of Commonwealth funding.

(6) An instrument granting, varying or revoking an approval referred to in subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

(7) For the purposes of this section, a reference to acquiring an interest in land using all or part of the funding payment includes a reference to compulsorily acquiring an interest in land and using all or part of the funding payment to pay compensation for the acquisition.

86U Amount repayable on breach of condition

(1) If the Minister notifies the funding recipient in writing that the Minister is satisfied that the funding recipient has failed to fulfil any condition that applies to the funding payment (whether that condition is specified in this Subdivision, in a funding agreement or in a determination under Subdivision C) then the funding recipient must repay to the Commonwealth an amount equal to so much of the funding payment as the Minister specifies in the notice.

(2) The Minister may, by notice in writing, vary or revoke a notice given under subsection (1).

(3) If there is a funding agreement with the funding recipient, the powers given to the Minister by subsections (1) and (2) must be exercised in accordance with any relevant provisions of the funding agreement.

(4) A notice under subsection (1), or an instrument varying or revoking such a notice, is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

Subdivision C—Determination of other conditions if no funding agreement

86V Determination of other conditions if no funding agreement

(1) The Minister may, in writing, determine other conditions that apply to the provision of funding in accordance with section 86K.

(2) The Minister may determine different conditions to apply in different classes of situations.

(3) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke conditions determined under subsection (1).

(4) An instrument determining, varying or revoking conditions is a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, but neither section 42 nor Part 6 of that Act applies to the instrument.

(5) Despite subsection 14(2) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, an instrument determining or varying conditions may make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time.

(9) Schedule 1, item 46, page 13 (lines 16 and 17), omit the item, substitute:

46 Section 94

   Omit "6, 7", substitute "7, 7A".

These are amendments relating to formalisation of the heavy vehicle safety and productivity program. Amendment (8) will elevate this important program and give it the parliamentary approval that it currently lacks. It will ensure that the specific program criteria is oversighted by the parliament, is in legislation and cannot be changed without parliamentary approval. This is an important program that is improving safety, not just for truck drivers but for all road users. The first four of these items add the heavy vehicle safety program to definitions in the act in a manner consistent with the existing program. Item (1) inserts 'heavy vehicle safety program' into the Act's definition of an eligible funding recipient. Item (2) inserts the HVSPP into the Act's definition of approved purposes. Item (3) inserts a definition reference to the HVSPP, and item (4) inserts a reference to the project approval instrument for the HVSPP. Item (8) inserts a new Part 7 (a) to the Act that outlines the essential elements of the HVSPP in a manner consistent with other programs under the Act.

It is important to note that the heavy vehicle amendments moved here are slightly reworked against the amendments moved in the House in March. The opposition listened carefully to the technical points raised by the government in that debate, and we have resolved those points in the amendments moved here today. We trust that the government will acknowledge these changes, rather than raising the same points here, because that would be inaccurate. Specifically, the concerns raised about additional record-keeping being required by funding recipients have been addressed by removing this provision. Conditions of fund payment, auditing and inspection requirements remain as per now with the current requirements reflecting Parts (3) and (6) of the Act, the current source of funding for this program.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:52): I will just respond to Senator Cameron. I take it that by moving amendments (8), (1), (4) and (9) on 7477 the opposition is adopting the Greens amendment? This is very similar to Greens amendments (8), (1), (4) and (9) on 7495. We will be opposing these amendments. They propose a definition for heavy vehicle safety and productivity projects to allow the amendments to support amendment (7) to have effect, as we have dealt with. These amendments provide for heavy vehicle projects. This provision is totally unnecessary and I do believe that the opposition understands that.

It still insists on eight pages of amendments to provide for a separate section on the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, which is a program that is already provided for under legislation. Creating an entirely new section on heavy vehicle projects duplicates existing provisions in parts 3 and 6 of the current act. Parts 3 and 6 are being combined in this bill to reduce red tape, to reduce duplication and to streamline the operation of the act. But it is important to understand the government sees heavy vehicle administration in public policy as a very important responsibility and an important program. It has committed more funding to that program than ever the opposition did when it was in government.

These amendments create cumbersome, burdensome and expensive red tape. The opposition and their allies in the Greens are about creating regulatory burdens and not reducing them. There is not a regulation that they have ever seen that they did not want to like or add into legislation. That is what they are doing here. This group of amendments does not value-add one iota in terms of heavy vehicle safety and productivity. It just creates more process and compliance burdens.

Heavy vehicle safety and productivity projects are already catered for in the current legislation. These provisions place additional reporting obligations on funding recipients, on top of the audit and financial reporting already required. Road accident data is already collected by the bureau of infrastructure and regional development, which is a well-respected research organisation. If these amendments were to be supported, funding recipients will have to do all of this work, effectively repeating the data collection that is already taking place. What is the point of that? If the desire is to make mum-and-dad trucking businesses work longer hours for absolutely no benefit, then this should be supported. Please, do not support it. Please, crossbenchers, do not support these amendments. We do not want to increase the burden, particularly to small and medium enterprises and family businesses.

The opposition talks about being committed to productivity, but here we have evidence that what they want to achieve actually heads in the opposite direction, ensuring project proponents are doing the work that is already being done by government. I have heard claims that unless heavy vehicle projects are given their own section in the act there is no guaranteed funding. The opposition has been predictably and habitually misleading in dealing with this bill, providing crossbenchers with the string of erroneous so-called facts on the bill. The facts are these. This bill is about a very minor amendment to a very successful act; extending—as I have said on several occasions—much-needed funding to the Roads to Recovery program; changing the name of the act; and, reducing red tape. It is very, very simple.

The Greens and the opposition have colluded on these pointless amendments to jam up the operation of the progress of this vital funding. I have no doubt the crossbenchers are somewhat drawn in two different directions, and, as time goes by, they are coming to grips with a multitude of legislation and process. I want them to be very, very careful that what is happening here is understood by them. This bill is simple. It is about funding local government. What is being sought in these particular amendments, with respect to the heavy vehicle program, are entirely pointless and misleading.

To ensure that the program would receive funding under legislation, all Mr Albanese needed to do was to amend the definition of 'road' in this act and that is exactly what he did. In 2008, he introduced the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill to add to the definition of 'road' in section 4. I quote:

(va) a facility off the road used by heavy vehicles in connection with travel on the road (for example, a rest area or weigh station);

So what this amendment seeks to do has been done. Mr Albanese knew that it was not necessary to include it in a full, separate section. It was necessary then and it clearly is not necessary now.

The government is committed to a number of other programs that are not provided separate legislation or status in the legislation. If the heavy vehicle program were to be included, then, for consistency, and to ensure no doubt about the status of those other programs, we would probably also need to include them in the legislation. That is the incongruous nature of these misconceived amendments. This could potentially add up to 40 pages of unnecessary process to the bill. The government is committed to reducing red tape, not creating it. These other programs include the Bridges Renewal Programme, the managed motorways program, the regional roads program and the national highways program. Not one of these is named in the legislation.

Simply naming a program in legislation does not guarantee its funding. Funding is appropriated by a parliament through the budget process. In this case, we are absolutely committed to funding projects under the heavy vehicle program and money was appropriated for that program by the parliament in July. If the opposition amendments were to be agreed to, funding to this program would be held up because the guidelines under which applicants are applying would be inconsistent with the legislation. Applications for the fourth round close on 28 August—that is, today.

Changing the status of this funding round will create uncertainty for the applicants as well as waste time and money for those applicants, for local and state governments and for our hardworking officers inside the federal government. Having said that, I hope I have established, particularly with the crossbenchers, that these amendments are completely counterproductive to common sense and to achieving what the bill achieves—that is, the funding of local governments for the Roads to Recovery program.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:00): I have to say that every time I hear the government talk about removal of red tape the warning signs go up. For this government the removal of red tape is to remove protections—remove protections for working people and remove checks and balances on the operation of businesses that need to be checked and balanced. Red tape to this government is simply about removing a role for government and letting the market rip. That is the removal of red tape for this government.

This will not make the bill cumbersome. It will not make it burdensome. The paperwork issue was addressed. What we have here is Senator Johnston basically reading the same speech that was made in the lower house, the same speech that was made in the other place, even though section 86R has been removed.

Senator Johnston: We're consistent.

Senator CAMERON: No, Senator Johnston, it is not about consistency; it is about sloppiness, because you have not dealt with this issue. The issue of 86R has been removed. This is about ensuring that we elevate this important program and give it parliamentary approval. It is about ensuring that we have oversight. It is about improving safety not just for the truck drivers but for all road users. If you want to abandon the safety of truck drivers and the safety of road users on the ideological agenda of this government to remove red tape and to remove protections then that will be a very detrimental situation.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:02): The Greens will be supporting the opposition's amendments, although we feel that our amendments, which were a slight variation on them, had better wording. But, given that the opposition's amendments are being considered first, we will be supporting them. Elevating the importance of heavy vehicle productivity, particularly heavy vehicle safety, is critical and really deserves to be in this bill in order to give it the emphasis that it requires.

I do have a general question to Senator Johnston, which I probably should have asked earlier. It is of relevance to funding for heavy vehicle projects, as it is of relevance to funding for other road projects. I refer to a comment that Senator Lambie was reported as saying on radio yesterday morning—that, in the negotiations with the government over this bill, she had secured an extra $200 million for roads in the west of her state as part of supporting this bill. I want to ask Senator Johnston whether that in fact was the case.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (11:03): I confirm that the government is looking at all manner of representations and proposals from senators and members, but with respect to this legislation we have made no commitments whatsoever.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:03): Senator Johnston, you say you have made no commitments. Have you been engaged in any discussions with PUP in relation to a $200 million investment in roads in Tasmania? Have you given any hope that $200 million would be invested in Tasmania to buy votes on this bill?

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (11:04): No, I have not.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Marshall ): The question is that the amendments on sheet 7477 revised standing in the name of Senator Cameron be agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am advised that the Australian Greens do not intend to pursue their amendments.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (11:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:12): We support this motion. We support Roads to Recovery and we support infrastructure development. We have not been obstructive on this bill at all; we have been constructive. We hope that the government meets the commitment that it gave to the Australian public about accountability and transparency and stops using the argument of red tape to diminish the proper role for government in the economy.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (11:13): I thank Senator Cameron for his assistance in the passing of this important legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (11:14): Labor stands for the protection of our oceans, we stand for the rights of recreational fishers and we stand for business certainty. Labor has a strong track record of respecting our oceans and all its users and we have a strong track record of basing our decisions on the science. In 2012, a private company sought to introduce a massive supertrawler vessel to Australian waters. The Labor government acted to provide certainty and to ensure the science was in place to support decisions on ocean use. We introduced tough new measures that required proper scientific assessments to be made by an expert panel. That was the responsible thing to do.

Almost two years later, however, our oceans are vulnerable again. The tough powers that Labor introduced have now lapsed. The Abbott government has had almost 12 months in office to do something to address this gap in our laws. They have had time to boost our ocean defences against the threat of new supertrawler vessels. Instead they have done nothing. This private senator's bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014, has been in the Senate for months and they have not even taken the hint to get on with protecting our oceans. This legislation today does that work for them.

We all remember that, when Labor introduced the tough sanctions against the supertrawler in 2012, the Liberals and Nationals voted against the then government's measures. Thirty-three members of the House of Representatives and the Senate spoke against Labor's measures to stop the supertrawler—all of them Liberals or National Party members. Deep down the Liberals and the Nationals have always supported removing the vital protections of our oceans—that it is in their DNA is unquestionable. As Hobart's Mercury reported on 9 September 2012:

Tasmanian Liberal senator Richard Colbeck told the crowd he supported the super trawler.

That is why this government has not acted to bring back strict protections against supertrawlers. They have been hoping that any new vessel would appear unobtrusively from over the horizon and quietly start fishing in Australian waters without any scientific checks or balances.

Over the last 12 months, the Abbott government has been breaking promises, hurting low- and middle-income earners and being incompetent to boot. The Australian people got their first whiff of the twisted priorities of this government with the announcement of the reintroduction of—would you believe it—knights and dames. That pure farce has now turned into budget pain. All the while, the Labor Party has been working in the national interest. We have been standing up for jobs, we have been supporting a plan for Australia's future and we are standing up for the environment and our oceans.

The Prime Minister is now desperately trying to rewrite history. Despite 33 members of the coalition speaking against Labor's plan to stop the supertrawler, the Prime Minister has tried to spin it—saying that he supported the ban all along. He is the weathervane of Australian politics. Before the election, he voted to let the supertrawler enter Australian waters unchecked. After the election, he has changed his position, just as before the election he hid the worst of his budget cuts and his plans to destroy Australian jobs. Before the election, the Prime Minister voted to keep the supertrawler here. After the election he said:

It was banned with the support of members on this side of the House. It was banned; it will stay banned.

It is worth saying that again. The Prime Minister said:

It was banned with the support of members on this side of the House.

That is what the Prime Minister said—categorically. It is in Hansard: a blatant mistruth, a clearly incorrect statement to the House from the Prime Minister.

The government has had months to act and they have done nothing. Only Labor is concerned with our oceans and the users of our oceans. This bill addresses serious concerns about the science and it addresses serious community concerns. If the Prime Minister, the agriculture minister or the parliamentary secretary were serious about protecting our oceans, they would have acted already. I am not precious; they could have picked up my bill and claimed it as their own and got a real win for Australia's oceans. Instead they have done nothing. If you reflect on that, it really makes you wonder whether or not they just like to sit on their hands and do nothing.

The bill I have introduced will restore the tough powers to the Minister for the Environment to act where new types of fishing operations seek to work in Australian waters and where uncertainty exists about their conduct. The environment minister, in consultation with the fisheries minister, will again be able to declare particular methods of fishing and require a scientific assessment to be undertaken for up to two years. That is the sensible way to progress when new fishing methods are proposed. An expert panel will be constituted and will be able to consider the impacts of any new venture that is declared. This will provide the community, recreational fishers and businesses alike with certainty before these declared ventures operate in Australian waters. There will be a proper process whereby the expert panel can call for submissions, look at the scientific evidence and ensure there is proper consultation with all parties and stakeholders in the debate.

It is very important to ensure certainty for all stakeholders, even those who want to introduce the supertrawler. This legislation will establish certainty of process, certainty of consultation, certainty about the expert panel's findings and certainty about the science. This legislation will enable the community to feel assured that they have a clear understanding of what is occurring—because it is surprises that hurt people. Mind you, this government is an expert at surprises that hurt people. So it is not unsurprising to me to find that a government such as this has ignored the science. It has ignored the opportunity to look at how it can fix this issue and, instead, has sat on its hands and let it lapse. But, ultimately, what I think is more galling about all of this is that the Prime Minister stands up and says, 'It has always been banned; it will continue to be banned', yet that was not what he did when he was called to account. When the vote was had in this place, those opposite supported the supertrawler. They opposed our legislation back then and they continue to fudge where their position is.

This bill will give the coalition a clear opportunity to put their position and explain to the parliament where they sit on this matter. It is very important that the people in Tasmania, the people on the east coast of Australia and those along the South Australian bight understand what the process is for a supertrawler should it come over the horizon again. I think this government breeds uncertainty, because it wants to be able to deal with such a situation when it occurs rather than have a clear process in place. This legislation focuses on addressing uncertainty related to so-called `supertrawler' fishing vessels. Why? Because business requires certainty, the community requires certainty and stakeholders and third parties also require certainty in this debate. People should have the ability to have a say.

In short, this legislation will allow the government of the day to stop new supertrawlers before they come to Australia, just as Labor did when in office. The amendments give the government of the day the power to declare a particular type of fishing activity which has not been used in Australia previously and where some uncertainty exists around it to ensure proper and thorough expert scientific work is conducted. This has been the case in the past when the government moved to declare the activities that were proposed for the supertrawler known as the FV Margiris or, oddly, temporarily, the FV Abel Tasman.

This bill will remove a 12-month sunset provision, bringing the new chapter 5B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act back into effect. By removing division 4 of part 15B, the environment minister's powers to respond to new commercial fishing operations will be restored, as it currently is subject to the sunset clause that is in effect at present. It is sunsetted now. The bill will bring that provision back. This means that there is currently no power under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for the government to act to declare fishing activities, including supertrawlers. The bill restores the powers still on the statue books—namely the powers to enable the minister for environment (with the agreement of the Commonwealth fisheries minister) to make an interim declaration that a fishing activity is a prohibited 'declared commercial fishing activity' while an expert panel assesses the potential environmental impacts of the activity; to enable the minister for environment (with the agreement of the Commonwealth fisheries minister) to make a final declaration for a period no longer than 24 months, that a fishing activity is a prohibited 'declared commercial fishing activity'; to provide for the establishment of an expert panel in the case of the making of a final declaration and specify the terms of reference of the panel and its reporting date, with a requirement that a copy of the panel report be made publicly available—because on this side of the chamber we support transparency, openness and accountability; to provide for appropriate procedural fairness protections for 'declaration affected persons'; and to create civil penalty and offence provisions for engaging in a declared commercial fishing activity.

These measures are required to address the risk of new and future supertrawlers or other new methods of commercial activity that have not previously been used in Australia. It is a precautionary approach. It will better allow community and environmental groups, together with business, to work with a scientific expert panel to assess the true impacts of new and large-scale fishing operations.

I would add as a note to these amendments that, if passed, it would be prudent for the government to take other actions to improve the management of new and proposed fishing activities. The Department of the Environment and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority should establish protocols to better communicate between these two agencies in the operation of the act. It would be a sensible reform and would be able to be done at the agency level. I am surprised that they have not already undertaken that work. Perhaps we will hear from the coalition that they have already started to do that work—but I would be surprised if they had. This is a coalition that does not act easily or seek easy solutions.

I understand, of course, there is a view that it would be preferable to just ban supertrawlers outright based on their class of vessel. I do not hold this view. The approach I have proposed is a logical, sensible, science based approach that treats each applicant on its merits and on the science. To do otherwise would be anti business and anti science. For that reason, I suspect the Greens party may take a stricter view than I have taken, but I will wait to hear their view on this. Under this bill, where the science goes so too do the decisions of the agencies.

Australia has some of the best managed fisheries in the world. There is, however, a gap in the system in considering the powers of the environment and fisheries ministers to consider new commercial fishing vessels before they arrive and begin to fish. Given the government has failed to act, it is sensible for these powers to be restored. Labor is standing up for the oceans, recreational fishers and local businesses. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (11:29): I rise to put on the record the government's opposition to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill, proposed by Labor, and the Greens amendments to the bill. Australia boasts a globally benchmarked and recognised fishing industry where policies have been based on scientific research and not the whims of political interest groups. The bill before us does little to stop or ban supertrawlers from applying to operate in Australian fisheries. We believe we need a long-term, more permanent solution to ensure that our fishing industry is sustainable for years to come and that we do not follow the path taken by other nations which has led to unviable, unsustainable fishing industries. The legislation covers only two years, and we want a long-term solution.

What we are seeing from the Labor Party and the Greens is proof of yet another dysfunctional Labor policy that undermines the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Australia's fishing industry is not to be laughed at—it is a significant contributor to communities and to economic growth, and it is an industry we perform very well in. It extends up to 200 nautical miles out to sea, and Australia's commercial fishing and aquaculture industry is worth over $2 billion annually and employs around 11,600 people—7,300 through direct employment and 4,300 through indirect employment. It is a vital natural resource and one we are committed to maintaining. It is a natural resource that needs to be managed appropriately so it can be enjoyed and used in a sustainable manner. That is what this government is committed to doing.

As Simone Weil said, 'attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained only by someone who is detached.' It is this detachment that we believe ensures AFMA is the best body to help us come to terms with the reality of our fishing industry. Consulting with detached independent experts provides us with this sense of reality. We are waiting to consult the expert panel appointed to assess the impacts of the activities covered by the first declaration, and it is due to finalise its report by 22 October 2014. Rather than waiting for that report to come before us to inform further action, if it is required, we are once again hurtling towards ill-informed legislation seeking to fix a problem that does not exist. To inform its assessment the expert panel met with stakeholders in Hobart on 2 May 2014. A panel for the second declaration is yet to be appointed.

We are not being pressured by interest groups like GetUp! to stop supertrawlers—we are looking to a viable and long-term option that has been scientifically proven and assessed. Unlike those opposite, who seek to use scientists for their political gain, we are committed to applying true scientific principles to our decision making in this area, as indeed we do in all areas of environmental interest, so we can keep our fisheries management systems world-class and ensure that fishing can be sustained. Let us face it, most of us are not vegans; most of us are not vegetarians. I would much prefer to go into Coles and Woolworths and IGA, and indeed ALDI on occasion, and purchase seafood which is the product of Australia. When I see 'Product of Australia', I know that seafood is harvested from our oceans in a sustainable manner. When I see 'Product of Vietnam' or 'Product of Thailand' or 'Product of Indonesia' on the seafood that I might be choosing to feed my family and friends, I cannot be confident that that product is being harvested in a sustainable manner that will ensure that generations to come can eat this very healthy food source. So we are not being pressured by interest groups like GetUp!.

The government works closely with AFMA to monitor how fisheries are managed. It is because we have confidence in AFMA that our fishing industry ranks as one of the best in the world—we are committed to getting it right and we are committed to using science to inform our policy decisions. These are the expert scientists, with extensive experience and PhDs in environmental science and management. It is an authority that has developed fishery management arrangements to meet government policies and to ensure fisheries are sustainable—not like in other nations, where the regulators just go and do what they are told to do by the government, this is a live dialogue between government and AFMA about what is the best way to proceed in order to meet government policy objectives for fisheries. AFMA is charged with implementing fisheries management arrangements, monitoring the compliance of commercial fishing, setting research priorities and arranging research related to AFMA managed fisheries. It deters noncompliance in domestic fisheries and deters illegal foreign fishing. It registers commercial fishing entitlements and licenses fishers, develops management policies and regulations and provides technical input to government policies. Aside from Senator Scullion, now that Senator Boswell is no longer with us there is very little fishing expertise in either this chamber or the other chamber. That is why we need to take the advice of bodies like AFMA.

All these points are highlighted in AFMA's extensive and efficient management policies. The management plans that are in place in almost all of our Commonwealth managed fisheries go through a lengthy process of approval. There is a public consultation process in place, a determination by the AFMA commission and, finally, an approval by the fisheries minister. This management plan directly outlines the borders and location of a fishery, what season it can be used, the method of fishing, the level of extraction, bycatch mitigation methods and even the gear that can be used on boats. The process of managing a fishery is extensive, very detailed and often costly. However, we do not doubt its worth, as it is based on sound scientific reasoning and all costs are recovered because of our productive fishing industry.

We are aware of the concern amongst a range of groups, including the rec fishers, about the potential impact of supertrawlers on Australia's marine environment, protected species and local fish stocks, but we are confident that the regulatory framework we have in place—and indeed our commitment to getting it right as a result of looking further into this issue—will result in a policy outcome that gets the balance right. It is possible to examine the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, where operators are only allowed a limited amount of trips and must hold a relevant fishing concession which provides them access to an area in which to fish, a method by which they are allowed to fish, a boat permit and a relevant quota holding for that species. These processes are essential, because the SESSF has an estimated value of production of over $62 million, and we do not want see those viable operators being unable to do what they do well—which is to catch good fish in a way that ensures ongoing sustainability so that we can put it on the table.

The coalition is dedicated to listening to the expert in the AFMA about the best ways to protect our valuable natural resources. In 2007 Minister Abetz, as Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, enacted the Commonwealth harvest strategy, which fisheries like the SESSF must adhere to. The coalition government provided the AFMA with the independence to specify control rules for fishing activity and to monitor and assess the processes involved. The harvest strategy that each fishery must use is based on output controls. This means that we rely on how many fish can be caught sustainably in the area. We rely on the scientific evidence, like the extensive harvest strategies put before us by the fishing industry and the expert scientists, which ensure the best management approach and continued sustainability of Australia's great natural resources.

Despite what the ALP and Greens may say, we want to ensure the sustainability of this industry. We want particular species to be protected and there to be limits on the amount of fish that can be caught. I look to the bycatch reduction policies that are already in place. It is thanks to the coalition that in 2005 the AFMA were put in charge of managing the environmental impacts of fishing, including protected species, and minimising the incentives for discarding certain fish by ensuring that it is factored into the setting of total allowable catch levels. That is something that we did. If you listened to the ALP and Greens, you would think that we wanted a Newfoundlandesque approach to fishing in this nation so that there would be no more cod and Hobart would suddenly be singing the songs that St John's were singing during the 1950s and 1960s as that particular fishing resource was decimated by unsustainable practice. That is not what we want, and that is why for a long period of time various coalition governments have been committed to enacting policies for sustainable fishing practice.

Similarly, we also ensured the AFMA were put in charge of enhancing the monitoring of fishing activity through increased use of vessel monitoring systems, daily reporting, onboard cameras and improved observer coverage. This policy covers fisheries managed by the Commonwealth and represents a significant commitment by the then government and industry to ensure fisheries were managed on an ecologically sustainable basis. We want to ensure that high-risk fish are managed and able to be protected. Abycatch and discard program that the AFMA oversees ensures that all threatened, endangered and protected species are part of an ecological risk assessment which involves heavy consultation with the industry and experts. Even the use of bycatch reduction devices provides high-risk fish with the opportunity to escape in high trawling waters—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator McKENZIE: Really! The coalition and AFMA are determined to protect this industry. It was a complete lack of strong policies such as these that led to the overfishing in Newfoundland, where 40,000 people lost their jobs. That province in Canada has struggled to find an economic basis for their people. So if you think that you have a drain going on in Tasmania, Senator, have a look at Newfoundland and see the migration that occurred once that once-proud industry fished itself out.

We are committed to ensuring that we get the balance right. I believe we have done that. We are looking after the long term of our fishing industry, and protecting high-risk fish is a major priority. AFMA provides us with long-term strategies for effective fishing. The total allowable catch is determined by a commission established by AFMA. The commission consults those with commercial and recreational fishing knowledge, relevant states and bodies, representatives from the environmental and recreational sector and, most importantly, scientists. Every minute detail of our fishing industry is considered with wide consultation to make the best and most informed decisions possible for the betterment of our fishing industry. The AFMA is an independent body that we as the Commonwealth have confidence in. We allow the employees, who all have lengthy industry experience or environmental science qualifications, to monitor how fishing zones are operating. This ensures that fish are protected and we are provided with a transparent and independent system that has been left to the experts.

What the Labor Party is proposing undermines our fishing system, which is the envy of the world. The sunset clause that Senator Ludwig is presenting detracts all ability from the environment minister to declare any further fishing activities and ensures that he or she must listen to an expert panel. What they fail to recognise is that we already listen to an expert panel of scientists with the best experience to implement these policies. They are proposing to undermine the AFMA and listen to interest groups which have no fishing experience, which do not understand the interplay between industry and the ocean and who are not interested in a sustainable fishing industry. They do not care, and they do not want it to happen.

What they are actually interested in—a little like other groups that the Greens and some in the Labor Party choose to support—are things like the Aussie Farms website. The founder of that particular website has made public his desire to shut down industries that employ hundreds of thousands of Australians who contribute an incredible amount—over 12 per cent—to our GDP. They want those industries closed down. So, we can hide behind this veneer of seeking expert advice and carry on, but the actual intent is to shut industries down that employ Tasmanians, that are actually based on scientific principles and sustainable management practices, that actually provide one of the best food sources to Australians and indeed the world—high in all the good things, low in all the bad things: our fish.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator McKENZIE: But no: Senator Whish-Wilson would prefer that we have fish available locally that is sourced from Thailand, that is sourced from Vietnam, that is sourced from Indonesia, that is sourced from an array of fishing practices around the world, that is unsustainable.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator McKENZIE: Guess what, Senator Whish-Wilson? Fish do not understand the boundaries.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Order! Senator Whish-Wilson, please.

Senator McKENZIE: Thank you for your protection, Chair. So, what we on this side actually want to see is Tasmanians—and indeed fishing families and the industry right around Australia—having a sustainable future and on the mainland, in our supermarkets, access to a sustainable, ecologically sound food source, as opposed to getting it from somewhere else, because, guess what? We are not giving up eating fish.

But I have completely digressed from my contribution. I shall now return. This sunset clause that Senator Ludwig is presenting removes all ability from the environment minister to declare any further fishing activities and ensures that he or she must listen to the expert panel, which we already have—through the AFMA, through the extensive consultation that has been the hallmark of this government in its policy development process and that I am confident continues through our action of government.

The dysfunctional mess that the coalition is trying to clean up can be demonstrated by a colleague of Senator Nash and mine who has since left this place and gone on to what we would call other things in the other place—Barnaby Joyce. He talks about particularly the Greens but also some in the Labor Party being seduced by these activist groups—that it was like the 'X Factor of politics', that it was like 'dial-a-decision', when he talked about another time that the Greens and the ALP were captured by activist groups, and that was the live cattle decision:

It was like the X Factor of politics. It was like Dial-a-Decision and what we have there has been completely and utterly replicated in what we have here. It is Dial-a-Decision, Twitter politics, Facebook friend politics. But it is also a total and utter insanity.

We had been promised, just a month earlier, by Senator Ludwig that such a brand of politics would not affect him:

As Minister for Fisheries, I will not allow the emotive politics of the Greens political party to run fisheries management policy in this country. We will ensure that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is independent, that it makes independent decisions based on the science through its expert commissioners and on the facts that are presented to them. They will continue to make decisions based on sound judgement to ensure that fisheries are sustainable and meet all the ecological requirements.

What we have before us today is proof of yet another Labor Party dysfunction. I do not understand why we cannot leave this to the experts, to the minister who relies on that advice. Let's end the dysfunctional politics of the Labor-Greens alliance, ensure that knee-jerk reactions are ignored and that interest groups do not have a greater influence than experts. What we are proposing is sound reasoning, detached from emotion.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (11:49): What has become very clear here today and for those millions of rec fishermen across this country and people who care about the ocean is that we are back at zero on supertrawlers. Absolutely nothing has changed. The coalition is happy for supertrawlers to come back to Australian waters. The Labor Party have introduced this bill—a bill that does not stop supertrawlers, does not ban supertrawlers. The bill was introduced by the previous minister, who presided over the arrival of the supertrawler and all the fuss that led to the moratorium. And by the way, Senator McKenzie, all the research work you quoted that has been done came about only because of the Greens and the conservation and rec fishing 'special interests', as you call them, in this country.

We have a long way to go. The Borthwick review came about because of this farce around the supertrawler, and it has not proceeded. This sunset clause was supposed to be in place until the work could be done. You have the hypocrisy, Senator McKenzie, to stand here and lecture me and the Greens about science. You have the hypocrisy to lecture us about not listening to the science.

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Well, let's talk about the dredging in the Great Barrier Reef. Let's talk about your party full of climate change deniers. Ninety-nine per cent of scientists around the world—

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

Senator WHISH-WILSON: tell us that we need to take action on global warming. Yet Senator McKenzie's party full of climate change deniers has the audacity, the nerve to lecture the Greens about not listening to scientists. We are the only party that wants to protect the environment in this country. We are the only party that wants to protect the environment.

This bill, if it is passed, will give the environment minister discretion as to whether they will allow supertrawlers to come into this country. This is an environment minister who has allowed dredging in the Great Barrier Reef, who has backflipped and broken promises on the Renewable Energy Target, on a price on carbon, and on his No. 1 darling issue: whaling in the Southern Ocean. Every year Minister Hunt—the same person who will have discretion if this bill gets up—berated and grandstanded against Peter Garrett, around his lack of action on whaling. But what happened when he became the environment minister? He rolled over and had his tummy tickled by the rest of his party room. He did nothing to prevent whaling in the Southern Ocean this summer. So, what is to say that he is going to prevent the arrival of a supertrawler and take action? And, by the way, if he does not, that would be just one of many broken promises from the coalition. I have the quote here from the Prime Minister saying that supertrawlers would be banned, but what Senator McKenzie outlined here today sounded nothing like the coalition were prepared to ban supertrawlers in these waters.

Let us get back to the Labor Party. I sat in this chamber and I debated that more work needed to be done on the science around the Small Pelagic Fishery and the very fishy business of the arrival of this boat, the Margiris, whose name was later changed to Abel Tasman—a very fishy business. It was done through campaigning in Tasmania and around the country—and there is absolutely no doubt that the recreational fishing community in this country and the Greens are not common bedfellows, but we were on this campaign, because the number one issue we both felt needed to be addressed was the issue of local depletion. It was the fact that a supertrawler can sit out to sea for long periods of time, follow large schools of small pelagic fish and deplete areas of fish. As far as I know from asking questions at recent estimates, there still has not been a definition of what constitutes local depletion. The Greens have been very clear in our policy on supertrawlers. We do want to see them banned. Two years ago we proposed an amendment that would have banned supertrawlers, with the onus of proof being on the proponents of new supertrawlers to prove that they would not damage the ocean. We want to see a ban on these boats put in place—

Senator Brandis: Reverse onus of proof!

Senator WHISH-WILSON: —as do millions of Australians, Senator Brandis, through you, Chair. This issue has touched a never like no other environmental issue in recent history in this country. Today it has become very clear, through Senator McKenzie, that the coalition are prepared to let supertrawlers come back into Australian waters.

This bill, if it is passed, gives discretion back to the environment minister. It does not ban supertrawlers, and nor does it stop them. We need to be very clear about that. The reason I raise this issue is that I have seen a number of emails, media releases and even pamphlets mailed in my home state of Tasmania, saying that Labor is banning supertrawlers. Let us be very clear about that—it is not. In fact, based on what Senator Ludwig said earlier, it is doing almost exactly what it did two years ago, when the supertrawler arrived—it is saying, 'We will leave it to the experts. We will leave it to AFMA. We will leave it to the science.' The problem was that scientific work was not done. Even the resource assessment group, the RAG, at AFMA agreed that not enough scientific work had been done. It was not about the quality of the science that had been done. It was the fact that this fishery, which is highly sensitive to ecosystems, had not been studied for 12 years. That work is being done now, thanks to the Greens, thanks to recreational fishers and thanks to the conservation movement. We pushed and pushed to get that work done. Now, we have the two old parties in this chamber claiming that they have got this work done, and that somehow this is a victory. It is not. The work has not been finished, there is still considerable uncertainty in the science to this point. There is still a very real chance that these large fishing vessels, which have depleted oceans all around the world—no-one disputes that—are going to come back to Australian waters, because we will have an environment minister and a government in charge of policy who brought the supertrawler here in the first place and are very happy to look after their mates by bringing new trawlers to Australian waters, boats that Australians do not want. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (11:56): I present Report No. 10 of 2014 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 10 of 2014

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 7.19 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a) the provisions of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 October 2014 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Customs Amendment Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 September 2014 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(c) the Guardian for Unaccompanied Children Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 February 2015 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Industry Code Penalties) Bill 2014

International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2014

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2014

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Measures) Bill 2014

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 4) Bill 2014.

The committee recommends accordingly.

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment (Continuing Roads to Recovery) Bill 2014

Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Amendment Bill 2014

Mining Subsidies Legislation Amendment (Raising Revenue) Bill 2014

Motor Vehicle Standards (Cheaper Transport) Bill 2014

Save Our Sharks Bill 2014.

(David Bushby)

Chair

28 August 2014

APPENDIX 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

There is not sufficient justification for increasing ASADA powers

The Coalition opposed the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013 and the reasons cited are still valid

Increased intelligence gathering and investigative powers may be opposed by athletes

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Australian Sports Commission

ASADA

Olympic and national sporting federations and organisations

Athletes affected by the proposed Bill

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Possible hearing date(s):

October 2014

Possible reporting date:

November 2014

(signed)

Senator Siewert

APPENDIX 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Customs Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To examine in greater detail specific provisions of the Bill

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Australian Customs and Border protection Service

Maritime Union of Australia

Shipping Australia

Carnival Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee

Possible reporting date:

30 October 2014

(signed)

Senator McEwen

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Guardian for Unaccompanied Children Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The need for an independent statutory body to advocate in the best interest of Unaccompanied minors international obligations to children in Australia's care

The need to address the conflict of interest which currently exists with the Minister of the day being these children's guardian and the person who is responsible for their detention.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Amnesty International Australia

Human Rights Law Centre of Australia

Australian Churches for Refugees

Refugee Council of Australia

Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

10-14th November

Possible reporting date:

5th February 2015

(signed)

Senator Siewert

Senator BUSHBY: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:00): At the request of Senator Wright, I move:

That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 28 August 2014, from 3.50 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (12:00): At the request of Senator Macdonald, I move:

That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 28 August 2014, from 3.45 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (12:15): I present additional information received by committees relating to estimates.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (12:16): I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the message.

Leave granted.

Senator FIFIELD: I move:

That the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House of Representatives.

Question agreed to.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (12:16): On behalf of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator McKenzie, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2014, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (12:17): I am in continuation from yesterday evening. I finished yesterday evening by making the point that the contributions made by other senators were, in fact, extraneous to the particular regulation that we were considering. Indeed, I think I used the analogy of the Empire State Building for Senator Cameron's contribution, indicating that for every story or scenario there was a major flaw. That, regrettably, was the case yesterday and, of course, it remains the case today. For every story and for every cameo, his argument was majorly flawed—be it death; be it the caring responsibilities; be it injury as a result of a crime. All those issues are more than appropriately canvassed in this regulation, and it will be the professionals of the Department of Human Services that will be making the determinations, not the job service providers, as incorrectly asserted by the honourable senator.

I finished off last night by saying that I would then make the rest of my contribution on the positive side as to what the regulation actually does—not what had been asserted previously. I indicate to the Senate that what the instrument does do is give decision makers in Centrelink—and I stress Centrelink—and on appeals tribunals much clearer guidance on what the government thinks is reasonable for them to take into account when deciding whether or not a job seeker had a reasonable excuse for failing to meet their mutual-obligation requirements. For example, the sudden serious illness or hospitalisation of the job seeker's child or partner, the recent death of an immediate family member or the job seeker being recently subjected to criminal or domestic violence would all clearly be exceptional circumstances beyond the job seeker's control. To assert otherwise is to assert that the people in the Department of Human Services would take an absolutely unprofessional and unreasonable approach to these potentially real-life situations.

The instrument also makes it clear that paid work, attending a job interview, medical incapacity or unforeseeable and unavoidable caring responsibilities are all grounds for finding that a job seeker had a reasonable excuse. These are not necessarily exceptional circumstances, but so long as the job seeker gives prior notice, where it is possible for them to do so, they provide a reasonable excuse for the job seeker for not meeting their requirements. It is similar to the circumstance of being in actual employment: if you are sick one morning and you cannot go to work, the reasonable thing to do is to communicate with the relevant person at the workplace and indicate that to them, if at all possible, in advance. Similarly, we say to welfare recipients that in the event you cannot attend an appointment you are required to attend, because of sickness—like someone in the workforce—you simply make contact in advance and say: 'Regrettably, I am ill today' or 'On the way the car broke down and so I can't make it'. You make immediate contact, rather than giving that advice well after the event. The requirement to give prior notice, when possible, is also reasonable, I would suggest.

It is important to note—and this is the one point that rounds all this off—that the legislative instrument is not exhaustive. It is clear in the primary legislation that this regulation is only a guide and cannot limit the matters that the decision maker is able to take into account in determining whether or not a job seeker had a reasonable excuse. In those circumstances, having cleared that up—and I will be kind this afternoon and say that they were inadvertent misrepresentations of the regulation yesterday—and having now explained what the regulation actually will do, as opposed to all the false assertions made about it, I commend the regulation to the Senate and encourage honourable senators to vote against the disallowance.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:23): I have listened carefully to what Senator Abetz has said and he has not convinced me and he will certainly not convince the charities in this country who will face the full burden of this regulation and various other bills. What Senator Abetz has tried to do is to focus in isolation on the regulation. By doing that, he ignores other aspects of the social security legislation that come together to make it really tough on Australians who are unemployed and amongst some of the most disadvantaged people in this country.

In fact, what this is about doing is punishing job seekers. It is setting up this dole bludger argument, which is based on the government's ideology, and the government's argument that if you cannot get a job, you really should not participate in society. It is the antithesis of everything the experts in this area tell you. Simply focusing on penalties and simply focusing on penal provisions against some of our poorest Australian citizens is just outrageous.

The Social Security (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination is the legislative instrument the minister must make to determine a non-exhaustive list of matters that decision makers must consider in applying the persistent noncompliance test under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill and the determination are inextricably linked. For Senator Abetz to try to argue it differently is disingenuous and misleading. But that is what we expect from this government. It is a government of broken promises, a government brought to power, based on lies, and a government that seems determined to punish the poorest people in this country.

See, the government wants the determination viewed in isolation. That is because, on the face of it, it seems innocuous—but it is not. When viewed in the big picture of employment service reforms that the government is trying to make, its dangers become clear. The government's package of reforms in this area is designed to disenfranchise and punish the unemployed of Australia. It includes the following measures—and you have to take this determination into account with all of these issues. Firstly, the determination that sets out what a decision maker must take into account in determining whether someone has a reasonable excuse for noncompliance under the Social Security Act; next is the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill, which seeks to amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, in relation to the imposition of eight-week penalties on job seekers who are receiving a participation requirement for the serious failures; next is the Exposure Draft of the Employment Services 2015-2020 purchasing arrangements, which is the Job Services Australia tender document, which sets out the government's intentions in relation to the Job Services Australia program from 1 July 2015; next is the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill, which seeks to strengthen the compliance arrangements for job seekers in receipt of activity-tested income support arrangements; and, the changes to Newstart for job seekers aged under 30 that will see them off income support for a continuing six-month cycle until they either get a job or turn 30.

All of these bills have to be read together to understand what this regulation and determination that the government has brought in really means. You have to look at what all of these acts do. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill was introduced by the coalition on Wednesday, 4 June 2014. The bill seeks to amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. Under current job seeker compliance provisions contained in the act, job seekers in receipt of participation payment—defined as Newstart and defined for some people as youth allowance, parenting payments and special benefits—may incur an eight-week non-payment period penalty for serious failures consisting either of refusal of suitable work or persistent noncompliance with their participation obligations.

Currently, the act provides that such non-payment penalties may be waived if the job seeker begins to comply with a serious failure requirement—currently Work for the Dole, job search training or undertaking more intensive searches. These are the issues that have to be dealt with. The non-payment may also currently be waived if the job seeker does not have the capacity to comply with any such serious failure requirement and would be in serious financial hardship if the non-payment were not ended. What we have here is a government that want the unemployed, who are on $36 a day at the moment, to suffer a further penalty. As if having to live on $36 a day is not problem enough for some of our most disadvantaged Australians; the government wants to penalise them even more. It is because they have this dole bludger mentality, this ideology that if you do not have a job you are some kind of inferior Australian. They do not understand these issues. They do not understand the difficulty some Australians have in getting a job. They just don't get it. They want to penalise people on $36 a day, take all support away from them and leave them destitute and reliant on charity.

There are a number of concerning aspects of the legislation, which has to be read in conjunction with the determination. Job seekers will be unable to re-engage during the eight-week non-payment period. Once you have been penalised, that is it—you have lost your payment. You cannot come and say, 'Look, I really want to get on top of this problem I have,' or, 'I've got on top of my problem and I want to re-engage.' You are gone for eight weeks, with absolutely no payments. No evaluations have been done on whether these changes are likely to be successful. The majority of people affected by the changes will have a vulnerability indicator already noted on their Centrelink records, meaning that they are disadvantaged in some way, including whether they have a mental illness or psychiatric problems, are homeless, have recently been discharged from prison, have had a recent traumatic relationship breakdown or have suffered from cognitive or neurological impairment. Indigenous job seekers are also over-represented amongst those who will be penalised. These are the people who need more help in our community, not penal provisions—not forced onto charity, not abandoned by the government. They should be supported and assisted.

The Social Security (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1) sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters which decision makers must consider in determining whether or not a reasonable excuse exists in relation to a job seeker's serious failure under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, being either refusal of suitable work or persistent noncompliance, before imposing a nine-week non-payment period. The proposed determination changes what constitutes a reasonable excuse for the purpose of the legislation. What is concerning is the discretion acknowledged to exist in determining whether circumstances directly prevent a job seeker from complying with requirements. The concept of 'directly prevent' is a new requirement introduced by the government and obviously narrows the discretion of the decision maker in deciding whether or not an excuse is reasonable. Also concerning is the removal of factors which currently must be taken into account when deciding whether a person has a reasonable excuse. These are: that the person did not have access to safe, secure and adequate housing, or was using emergency accommodation or a refuge; the literacy and language skills of the person; an illness, impairment or condition of the person that requires treatment, including an illness that is episodic or unpredictable in nature; a cognitive or neurological impairment of the person; a psychiatric or psychological impairment or mental illness of the person; a drug or alcohol dependency of the person; unforeseen family or caring responsibilities of the person; that the person was subjected to criminal violence (including domestic violence and sexual assault); that the person was adversely affected by the death of an immediate family member or close relative; and, the person's recent imprisonment or release from imprisonment.

The government has argued that some of the above factors will still be considered in determining 'reasonable excuse'. However, on the government's proposal, job seekers would have to prove that the circumstances directly prevented them from meeting the requirement and that they gave prior notice, under the requirements of section 42UA of the act. The secretary will no longer be required to take the above factors into consideration when deciding whether a job seeker has a reasonable excuse. The department is going to be handing responsibility for the decision making as to whether or not a serious failure has occurred and whether or not there was a reasonable excuse for it from Centrelink to Job Services Australia and to their provider staff. The major concern with this is that the JSA staff may not be aware that they have a wide discretion in making a decision as the delegate of the secretary and might instead be led to believe that they can only consider the factors listed under 'reasonable excuse' in the government's new determination.

The minister's own Exposure draft for employment services 2015-2020 purchasing arrangements states on page 41:

The Employment Provider will also determine whether the Job Seeker had a reasonable excuse for non-attendance at their initial appointment in accordance with legislation and guidelines.

This clearly demonstrates that what the minister was arguing is false, that what the minister was arguing is not correct. The providers themselves who have looked at this package of legislation—not just the determination—have expressed concern in relation to these changes, including that it will change the dynamic of the relationship between job seeker and provider, with the provider becoming—to use one of the PM's famous terms—the baddie. They do not want that, but that is what this package of legislation does and that is why we must disallow this determination.

Jobs Australia has further concerns. One of their key considerations is the fact that the department will be handing responsibility for decision making from Centrelink staff to Job Services Australia provider staff. What level of guidance and support will be provided no-one yet knows, but one concern arising from that is that the JSA staff may not be made aware that they have wide discretion in making a decision as delegates of the secretary. They might instead be led to believe that they can only consider the factors listed in the determination.

Who knows what the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill will seek to do. It is part of an attack package on the most vulnerable Australians. Obviously, the government thinks that the harsh measures so far have not gone far enough.

The proposed Newstart changes demonise young job seekers. They punish job seekers for not being able to find work rather than focusing on job creation so that there are actually jobs out there for people. The changes force them to live on fresh air for a continuing six-month cycle. The government wants them to find it so hard that they do not bother with income support. This is a cost-cutting approach using the most vulnerable people in this country. Not only will job seekers have to fall back on parents and families, if they have parents and families; they will have to fall back on charity.

This determination is one aspect of big picture of this government's action today in this area. I emphasise that you cannot deal with the determination in isolation from the other aspects of the government's social security attack measures. It is all about punishing and further disadvantaging vulnerable people who are already doing it tough. Yesterday when I was outlining the issues associated with this determination, I went to the statement of compatibility with human rights. One of the key bills that this determination will integrate with is the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014. What did the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights say about it? It said this:

Based on the information and analysis provided the committee does not consider that the statement of compatibility adequately demonstrates that the proposed amendments are needed for the purpose of meeting a pressing and substantial concern, that there is a rational connection between the measure and the identified objective and that the measure is a reasonable and proportionate one for the achievement of that objective.

That was scrutiny of the parliament. The joint human rights committee have said that the bill is not reasonable and it is not proportionate.

When you are looking at this determination, you have to take into account the other aspects of the draconian legislation against the poor and needy in this country. I do not understand for a minute how this could happen or how people could treat their fellow Australians in this manner. When you take all of those bills and this determination together, we are penalising people who are surviving on $36 a day. You must look at the whole package that is in place so that you understand the implications of the determination. This is a horrible set of measures against the poor, the underprivileged and the weakest people in our community. It simply shows that this government is completely out of touch. It is completely out of touch with the needs of the unemployed in the country, it is completely out of touch with the availability of work for the unemployed in this country, it is completely out of touch with the challenges that the unemployed face and it simply ignores the already tough set of measures that are there to ensure compliance.

No-one wants people to rort the system, but this is not designed to stop people rorting the system; this is an ideological attack on the poorest people in the country. It is an ideological attack because the coalition do not have a clue what it is like to be unemployed or have one of your family unemployed. They do not know what it is like to battle to put food on the table on $36 a day. They think you need to impose more penalties on the poorest people in this country. We should not support this determination. By supporting this determination, you are basically saying the package of bills is okay. The package of bills is not okay. We need a decent society and we need a package of bills that looks after the poorest and does not penalise them.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Cameron be agreed to.

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (12:50): In speaking to the second reading of the Corporations Amendment (Simple Corporate Bonds and Other Measures) Bill 2014, I indicate that Labor will be supporting this bill and that Labor supports the establishment of a retail corporate bond market in Australia. A well-performing and efficient retail corporate bond market will provide an alternative source of funding for Australian companies and increase competitive pressure on lending rates to businesses. This bond market is a significant source of funds for many Australian financial and non-financial corporations. Correspondingly, this financing activity provides investment opportunities for Australians and non-residents. Indeed, the establishment of a deep and liquid retail corporate bond market in Australia was a key priority for the former Labor government and was subject to some significant and ongoing work over a number of years.

On 26 September 2008, the Minister for Financial Services, Mr Bowen, established the Australian Financial Centre Forum, the AFCF, to progress the government's initiative to position Australia as a leading financial services centre in the region. Mr Mark Johnson was the chairman of this partnership of government and industry, which also comprised six senior financial sector representatives, a Treasury task force and a reference group. The AFCF looked at a broad range of policy settings including, but not limited to, financial sector regulation; taxation; improving Australia's skill and talent pool through education and immigration policies; and promotion of Australia's financial services industry.

The final report, known colloquially as the Johnson report and formally as the Australia as a financial centre: building on our strengths report was handed down in November 2009 and included examination of the lack of liquidity and diversity in Australia's corporate bond market. It also discussed why this lack of liquidity was a significant weakness in the overall assessment of Australia's financial system. At the retail level, it was considered that one action the government could take to overcome this weakness was to introduce regulatory changes that could assist with developing the market.

In December 2010, as part of its Competitive and Sustainable Banking System initiative, the former Labor government signalled it would be introducing changes to facilitate the development of a deeper and more liquid corporate bond market in Australia. These changes included launching the trading of Commonwealth government securities on financial markets to be accessible to retail investors and reducing the regulatory burden associated with issuing corporate bonds to retail investors, including streamlining disclosure requirements and prospectus liability regulations.

The bill that is before the Senate today seeks to reduce the regulatory burden of companies offering relatively simple, or so-called 'vanilla', corporate bonds to retail investors, while at the same time ensuring that appropriate standards of consumer protection are maintained. The bill increases offerings of corporate bonds to retail investors in Australia by streamlining the disclosure regime for issuers; changing the civil liability regime in respect to retail corporate bonds; and clarifying the application of the requirement to take 'reasonable steps' in respect of misleading and deceptive statements and omissions in disclosure documents relating to retail corporate bonds.

This bill follows the passage of the former Labor government's legislation to facilitate retail trading in Commonwealth government securities, CGS, in 2012. Having an active retail market in Commonwealth government securities is an important step in establishing a wider retail corporate bonds market by providing a visible pricing benchmark for retail investors in corporate bonds. This bill will deliver on the former Labor government's commitment to reduce regulatory burdens and barriers for offers of corporate bonds to retail investors.

The bill contains three major elements. First, under current arrangements, the issuance of corporate bonds to retail investors requires the provision of a full prospectus. Under the changes in this bill, the issuance of certain corporate bonds to retail investors will require the provision of a two-part simple corporate bond prospectus. Second, under current arrangements, simple retail corporate bonds, like other bonds, can be traded directly but are not able to be traded as depository interests. Under this bill, simple corporate bonds will be able to be traded using simple retail corporate bonds depository interests. Third, under current arrangements, directors and proposed directors of a body making an offer have liability for any misstatement in, or omission from, the disclosure document whether or not that director was involved in a contravention of subsection 728(1). This bill makes changes so that directors and proposed directors of a body making an offer have liability for any misstatement in, or omission from, the disclosure document only where they are involved in a contravention of subsection 728(1).

Labor had introduced the Corporations Amendment (Simple Corporate Bonds and Other Measures) Bill 2013 which lapsed. Schedule 1 of that bill is virtually identical to the bill we are debating today. There is one minor change between schedule 1 of Labor's 2013 bill, which lapsed, and proposed section 713A paragraph 22 of the new bill. The old bill specified that securities must be for a fixed term of not more than 10 years. This has been changed to a fixed term of not more than 15 years in the new bill.

The measures in this new bill are another major initiative that the former Labor government was delivering on in its long-term commitment to encourage the development of a deep and liquid bond market in Australia. The measures provide companies with another source of fundraising and signal that it is their time to contribute to the development of Australia's corporate bond market.

We often hear much rhetoric from those on the opposite side of the chamber about red tape and regulation. Here is an example of good measures of the former Labor government to reduce red tape and the regulatory burden. We are pleased that the new government has continued the good work of Labor in office and, with that, Labor will be supporting this bill.

Senator MASON (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) (12:58): This bill is further evidence of the government's commitment to reduce regulatory burdens and unnecessary costs on business. The reforms in this bill will boost the development of Australia's retail corporate bond market by reducing costs for bond issuers and giving company directors more certainty. I thank Senator Singh for her eloquent contribution and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Smith ) (12:59): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator MASON (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) (12:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (13:00): I will not take long with this second reading contribution on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Classification Tools and Other Measures) Bill because we are dealing with non-controversial business and there has been significant discussion of this bill in the House. However, I can indicate that Labor is supporting the bill and we welcome the government's progressing the matter. The former Labor government did all the work to enable the bill and to formulate the approach taken in its provisions. It was Labor that asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to undertake a review of Australia's classification and censorship system—remarkably, the first such review in 20 years.

It was also the former Labor government that took the recommendations of that report to the Standing Council on Law and Justice in April 2013, and it was Labor that secured the agreement of state and territory ministers, which has now borne fruit here with this bill. So, we welcome the fact that the government is proceeding with the bill and I indicate Labor's hearty support.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (13:01): I chaired the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry that looked at the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Classification Tools and Other Measures) Bill in some detail, and I want to thank those who made submissions and those who appeared before us to give evidence. I also want to thank the committee secretariat for again doing a wonderful job in coordinating and bringing together the thoughts of the committee and its recommendations.

Generally there was consensus that the National Classification Scheme is in need of reform, and various stakeholders welcomed the bill. There were a number of issues raised which are set out in the report. I urge the Attorney-General and his department to carefully consider some of the issues raised. I do congratulate Senator Brandis for bringing this bill forward—as I say, there was a general belief that amendments and reform were necessary, and I am pleased that Senator Brandis has acted on that. I would refer Senator Brandis and his department to the recommendations of the committee. The first recommendation is that the bill be passed, which I know the Attorney will take note of, and the second recommendation states:

The committee recommends that the government ensures that the Bill's implementation and supporting material are clear and understood by stakeholders, in particular information regarding the approval and trial of classification tools, and the appeals process

People did ask us about those issues during the hearing. There was clearly a need for a little extra explanation or clarification, and I hope that the department in implementing this bill will take notice of that recommendation. This is not a party partisan bill—I think all parties to the hearing were happy to recommend the bill's passing but we do ask that the government take some account of the issues raised in the committee's report.

Senator MASON (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) (13:03): I thank Senator Collins and Senator Macdonald for their contributions to the debate. I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Classification Tools and Other Measures) Bill 2014 and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Smith ) (13:04): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator MASON (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) (13:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (13:05): Labor will support the Meteorology Amendment (Online Advertising) Bill, which gives effect to decisions taken under the previous Labor government. The Bureau of Meteorology is an Australian institution, providing valuable information on weather and weather patterns all the year round, as well as vital updates on information during extreme weather events—something we all very much value. It helps us make decisions like whether to take an umbrella as we leave the house, right through to when we plant crops and when to move out of the path of a devastating cyclone. Its services help families and individuals right through to emergency services.

The bureau is also vital to our economy—some 3.4 per cent of Australia's GDP is climate sensitive, covering almost every economic sector. The aviation industry alone is heavily reliant on the bureau's services. There are around 1.7 million passenger movements every single week, and every single service is reliant on accurate weather forecasting services. We do know there is always room for improvement, and the review of the bureau's extreme weather and seasonal forecasting capacity—known as the Munro review—was undertaken in response to extreme weather events in the 2010-11 summer. Senators will recall the events of the 2010-11 summer—there was severe flooding, there were several intense tropical cyclones and there were bushfires in Western Australia. Again in the summer of 2012-13 we had heatwaves and Tropical Cyclone Oswald

The bureau's services also worked on providing potential tsunami warnings as a result of earthquakes across the Pacific.

During these times of intense activity, the bureau's capacity was stretched and tested. These capacity issues are still likely to be tested by climate change as it increases the severity of extreme weather events. The then Labor government's initial response was quick. Funding was provided to retain international meteorologists and recruit and train graduate meteorologists. The Munro review also recommended that advertising be considered as an option for raising revenue, so Labor acted on the recommendation by announcing a 12-month trial in 2012-13 and advertising became a permanent feature of the bureau website in the 2013 budget.

The Bureau of Meteorology had over 500 million visits in 2013. It is one of the most visited websites in Australia. From these half a billion visits, almost three billion pages of information were downloaded. Allowing the bureau to place paid advertising on its website, with the right safeguards, will allow it to cover some of the costs of its operations. I think it is also worth remembering that the bureau would not be the first national forecasting service to carry paid advertising. It is already done in Canada, the UK, New Zealand, France and Denmark. We are not entering uncharted territory at all here. It is already done in other countries and it has been trialled here in Australia. This bill formalises the ability of the Bureau of Meteorology to place paid advertising and ensures that guidelines are in place so that advertising is appropriate. Labor is a strong supporter of the bureau and supports measures that increase its capacity to serve the Australian people and the Australian economy. We believe this bill serves this end and therefore Labor will be supporting this bill.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (13:09): I will speak briefly on the Meteorology Amendment (Online Advertising) Bill 2014. As Senator Singh has acknowledged, the bureau is one of the most widely respected and visited sources in the country, whether you are checking the app on your mobile phone or the website to see if you need an umbrella or not on that day. Indeed, you might not be aware that they are the source for the TV news every night. From that ordinary sense all the way through to the fact that the bureau does critically important research on longer term climate impacts on Australia, I think it is important to note at the outset that this is a widely respected and trusted institution.

I am aware from my work in a slightly different context over the years with SBS of the idea that publicly funded, available, trusted broadcasting services be compelled to take advertising—which is something that, fortunately, has not crossed over to the ABC yet, although we know that that is being discussed behind closed doors. At least in the context of SBS, forcing the Special Broadcasting Service to take advertising was simply an excuse, once it had been worked out roughly how much the agency would be able to raise, to withdraw public funding and to make it more difficult for the SBS to carry out its deeply important role. What I see occurring with the extension and normalisation of advertising that will be carried on the Bureau of Meteorology's site, is creeping commercialisation allowing government to gradually abandon and withdraw responsibility for funding a service that all Australians, whether they know it or not, deeply depend on from the day-to-day mundane all the way through to the critically important enabling research and modelling on what our climate is doing. In forcing an entity like the bureau to run advertising on its web presence—which, as Senator Singh has acknowledged, has a lot of eyeballs, presence and reach—although it obviously boosts the fortunes of the bureau, we will find the Australian government removing a dollar for every dollar that is raised in advertising.

In the meantime, we have commercialised something that should have remained free from those influences. As was noted at SBS—and it would be interesting to consider how the bureau might respond—the SBS changes its programming, ethic and the way it thinks about its role if it is effectively chasing eyeballs. When you begin to advertise, effectively your audience and viewership becomes a commodity that you sell to advertisers. It is a very different way of thinking than when your customer is the people of Australia, who rely on you for reliable weather services and climate research. I do not think the case has been made at all.

This has been listed as non-controversial legislation. I would like to put on record on behalf of the Australian Greens that for us it is procedurally non-controversial in that we do not intend to call a division, because we understand the government and the opposition have called in favour, but I think this prospect is one of controversy. We should not simply let through to the keeper the idea that government can withdraw responsibility for a service like this, pulling funding from the BOM, while encouraging it to become some kind of commercial broadcaster on behalf of advertisers. I know the context of SBS is somewhat different, that SBS is a broadcaster and broadcasters sometimes carry advertising. This is a profoundly important public service.

What happens next? Will we have the health department advertising pharmaceutical products? I do not mean that in a glib or a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. Is that where this is heading? I think it is a very dangerous path for us to be going down. On the one hand is the fact that it means the government can reduce its responsibility for funding something that is very important; on the other hand, is the way that these kinds of commercial imperatives—which are entirely appropriate for private companies as opposed to government essential services—can warp the priorities of the agency itself. That is what I think we should be extremely careful of here.

The Greens are quite disappointed to see the bipartisan cross-party support on behalf of Labor and the coalition for normalising something that I think we should apply some critical thinking to in order to see how much further down this curve the government proposes to go. I guess Senator Mason is going to rise to speak on this bill, on behalf of the government. I would be interested to hear from you, Senator Mason, on your behalf, whether this is something we are likely to see for other government online presences. Are they—

Senator Mason interjecting—

Senator LUDLAM: Well, you have some advisers in the box next to you. I understand that you are in a representative capacity here, that this is not your portfolio. But I would be interested to know: today the Bureau of Meteorology, yesterday SBS—who is it going to be tomorrow, and where is this going to take us? I am recording now that the Greens will not be calling a division, but we do oppose this bill and we think some critical thinking should be applied to the whole concept.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (13:15): I do support the Meteorology Amendment (Online Advertising) Bill 2014. As Senator Ludlam mentioned, the Bureau of Meteorology has a very, very valuable product—a product that is much in demand. I have always had the view that some of the great work the bureau does should be converted into a cash return to the taxpayer for the enormous amount of money the taxpayer has put into the bureau over a period of very many years. So, I certainly support the bill. I once had the privilege of being the minister in charge of the bureau, and I remember that even back in those days we were always trying to find ways that we could sell the wonderful product that the bureau produces to save the taxpayer the complete 100 per cent investment in the bureau, which does become more difficult to fund each and every year.

The bureau has a wonderful reputation, and I well recall my happy years interacting very closely with the bureau. I remember some wonderful people there, including Mr Bill Kininmonth. Talking about Mr Bill Kininmonth just reminds me—slightly off the subject, but certainly relating to the bureau—that I saw a letter in one of the papers the other day from Mr Kininmonth about a recent controversy with the bureau. As I said, I have a very high regard for the bureau, but there is a scientist who has recently been doing some work on what is called the harmonisation of temperature readings. Unfortunately, I am not terribly well prepared for this speech, and I do not even have the name of the scientist who raised some concerns about the bureau's harmonisation of temperature. As I always say—and Senator Ludlam will well agree—I am no expert in this field and in fact am just an ordinary member of the public reading reports.

But, as I understand it, there are a couple of places in Australia where the same temperature recording instruments have been used for decades and decades. One of them was Amberley in Queensland. These recordings show that the temperature is actually dropping, not increasing. There is not global warming in these couple of instances. Rather, those instruments—the same ones that have always been there—are showing that the temperature is falling. As I understand it, this scientist has done a lot of research and she has actually worked out that the bureau was not prepared to accept this one reading from Amberley and another place that was mentioned—I have forgotten what it is—but did what they call harmonising, which means that they take that temperature reading and harmonise it with other recordings around the area. And in this case, according to this researcher, it was not even near the area, near Amberley. This scientist raised the question of why the Bureau of Meteorology—someone as respectable and responsible as that—would be engaged in this harmonisation when, as I understand it, they did not need to, because it was the same instrument that was used. I understand from these reports that harmonisation is for where you have one sort of measuring device but then change it. And because there can be changes in devices you sometimes get different readings, which they then harmonise. But why you would harmonise when it was the same recording instrument is the question that has arisen.

I understand that the bureau has refuted that publicly and has given an explanation, but I noticed quite a number of letters to the editor that share my concern about the fact that there needs to be ongoing debate on the cause of climate change—the human induced carbon emissions that so many talk about. As one of the letters—or perhaps even this research—said, it is very clear that with peer reviewed research it is the peer reviewers who, like the initial researcher, are getting grants from governments time in, time out. And dare I say, without defaming them, that they have another interest, in making sure that this global warming debate is there. It always concerns me that if you are like this independent researcher, having a different view, or like Professor Bob Carter, having a different view, then you are pilloried. I am surprised that the Greens have not catcalled as they usually do when I mention any scientist who does not conform with the standard IPCC view on life of man induced global warming.

Senator Cameron: Why would you?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Well, there you go; there is Senator Cameron: if you do not like what the scientist says, you pillory them. It is only if the scientist has your view on life that you think they are good. That really does disturb me, and it has been raised a bit here—that there is this view—

Senator Cameron: Mr Acting Deputy President, a point of order: I cannot let that go unchallenged. I made no comments about the scientists. People just cannot make things up as Senator Macdonald is doing through his whole speech. It is an absolute joke. That is why no-one really worries about him anymore—even his own party!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Smith ): Thank you, Senator Cameron. There is no point of order.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I always know I am getting close to the truth, near the mark, when Senator Cameron makes that sort of point of order.

Senator Cameron: I just couldn't help myself!

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Senator Cameron would do well to not embark upon this thing. Just because people do not agree with you, Senator Cameron, it does not mean that they are to be discarded or pilloried, as happens in the climate change debate. That is the concern. I suspect this independent researcher—and I apologise to her for not having her name, but I think it is Dr Marohasy—will be suffering an attack from her own class of scientist for the views she has so courageously published. I am not for a moment suggesting she is right. As I always say in these debates, as an amateur I really cannot get into the debate. But I read with interest that there are qualified scientists and researchers with equally good qualifications and learning who do not follow the IPCC view on man-induced global warming. It always makes me very well aware that in spite of what the Greens and the Labor Party and other politically correct groups say, the debate is far from over. There is no universal understanding of what I call the Greens view or the IPCC view. I raise it in the context of the bureau, and again repeat my highest admiration for the bureau. But I do mention bureau scientists of the past who have different views, but who, when they raised them, were disregarded, as Senator Cameron tries to disregard me. It does not worry me, and I am sure it will not worry this rather courageous researcher who has put her work out to the public in the last seven days, I think it is.

It is good that it is there so the debate can go on. Unfortunately, because I am chairing another committee, these days I do not get the opportunity to go to the Senate environment committee, where I could ask the bureau these questions, which is a shame. But I would like to engage with the bureau as to why they have harmonised data where there did not seem there would be a case for harmonisation. As I said, I have read that the bureau gives a different view, but this very courageous scientist has clearly got support from other scientists and researchers. I say to the bureau: do not get tied up in the political argument that has been promoted by the former government. I can well understand why the bureau was very much in favour of that line under the former government, because I know that if anyone in the bureau had had a different view to the Gillard/Rudd government, they would have been sacked on the spot or pushed out, and I can understand that. But I say to the bureau now that they are under the control of a government that does allow free speech, that does encourage diversity of view. Senator Cameron reminds me that I am one of those who sometimes do have a diverse view on different things than my own party and my own government do—unlike the Labor Party, who are not allowed to do that. But we have a government that does allow a difference of opinion, and I say to the bureau for what it is worth, and out of respect for them from the time when I worked closely with them: do not get drawn into the politics of these things. Be careful with your research and your reputation. I would urge the bureau to seriously consider some of the work that has been put forward by this very courageous independent scientist-researcher that I refer to. Unlike Senator Ludlam, I do think this is a good idea for the bureau that the online advertising be enabled to give the bureau additional resources. I certainly support the bill.

Senator MASON (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) (13:26): The Bureau of Meteorology is, as honourable senators have suggested, one of Australia's most popular websites, with in excess of 471 million visits a year. It is a website trusted by all Australians. This bill amends the Meteorology Act 1955, and will ensure that the bureau can act with surety in the decisions made in relation to advertising on its website, without compromising its standards or compromising its services.

Senator Ludlam made a very interesting contribution this afternoon, and I think it is fair to say that it is impossible to generalise across all of the instrumentalities of government the degree to which advertising will be permitted, or indeed encouraged. It is often the case that what initially seems controversial or perhaps unusual quickly becomes ordinary and uncontroversial—perhaps that is the case with advertising on SBS. I am confident that Senator Ludlam will cast an eagle eye over developments in this space. I thank him, Senator Singh and Senator Macdonald for their eloquent contributions, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator MASON (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) (13:28): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (13:28): I rise to oppose the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014. This is another example of how unfair this government is—how unfair it is to those who are the most vulnerable in society. How incompetent this government is. If the government had the least bit of competence or understanding about the real issues to try and deal with unemployment, they would not be going down this path.

It shows how arrogant this government is that it would allow its ideology to dominate any common-sense approach to dealing with unemployed Australians. Remember: these are our most vulnerable Australians. Thirty-six dollars a day they are surviving on—I would not call it 'living'; they are surviving on $36 a day. Yet this government wants to treat the unemployed as dole bludgers: 'They should not be there; they should be out in gainful employment'! This is the ideology of a coalition who are really so far removed from the reality of unemployment that they cannot make basic legislative frameworks that understand the needs of the unemployed in this country. All they want to do is to implement penal provisions. We have seen already today that this Senate has looked askance at the penal provisions that this government wants to put in place. What we did earlier today was to disallow a regulation that was part of the framework of attacks on unemployed Australians in this country.

You see, the problem for the coalition is that Minister Andrews, who has carriage of this for the coalition, just does not seem to understand the complexities of dealing with unemployment in Australia. If you deal with unemployment on the basis of saying to companies like Toyota and General Motors: 'We don't want you; we don't need you; we're not going to co-invest; you can go away,' and they go away, what basis is that for having any understanding of the real issues on jobs?

As I have said many times, I just cannot understand why the South Australian senators do not do what other coalition South Australian senators have done in the past and actually stand up for their state and stand up for jobs. I have never seen such a weak-kneed, lily-livered, jelly-backed approach from coalition senators in my life. We have had all these debates about jobs in South Australia. We have had all these debates about how we maintain an industry based on manufacturing in South Australia. And I do not think I have heard a contribution from the South Australian senators. I was not a great fan of some of the previous coalition senators, but I will tell you: they would have been in there arguing for jobs. They would have been arguing for their state. They would not have been wanting to turn South Australia into a pale imitation of the United States, with all the social and economic problems that we see there.

This bill that is before us now I think demonstrates the lack of politicians in the coalition's ranks that are prepared to stand up for jobs, because all they seem to want to do is to run this ideological line, this American Tea Party line, that what you do is you punish those who cannot get a job—punish those who cannot get a job! And, as with the Republican Party in the United States, I think we are rapidly seeing the Australian public recognise this—the same as the United States public recognise that you cannot trust the Republicans in the United States with jobs and you cannot trust them to make decent, fair policies.

We have the Tea Party fanatics in the coalition. We know they are there; we have seen them in action. And this bill is about saying, 'We don't care about the unemployed; we can fix unemployment by forcing people into a job.' How do you force people into jobs if the jobs are not there? How do you force people into jobs if the government has got absolutely no idea about how to develop a jobs policy in this country?

It would be less embarrassing for the South Australian senators if they actually stood up against their own party and said: 'You've got it wrong on jobs; you've got it wrong on fairness; you've got it wrong on equity. We should take the words of Brian Loughnane and not be so ideological, otherwise we are doomed.' The South Australians have got an opportunity to actually do something about unemployment, and I would hope that, when this bill goes to a vote, the South Australian senators actually get a backbone—that they stop being jelly-backs; that they actually stand up for their state and say, 'We will not simply penalise South Australians who are going to face the problems with this bill more than those in most other states.' South Australian senators have an opportunity to actually stand up for their state and vote against this bill, on the basis that it does nothing for jobs and it does nothing for South Australians who are looking for jobs. It is about an ideological obsession of the coalition's. It is wrong in policy, it is wrong in equity and it has no basis in social fairness at all.

So I will be watching carefully those jelly-backed, lily-livered South Australian senators when it comes to this issue, and coalition senators from other states, like the Tasmanian senators who are going to impose this draconian legislation on Tasmanians as well. Because where are the highest areas of unemployment? South Australia and Tasmania. That is not to say we do not have unemployment problems elsewhere; we certainly do. But there is an opportunity now for those who are not Tea Party extremists in South Australia, for those who want to look after South Australians and, by extension, all those in this country who are doing it tough—those people surviving on $36 a day, who do not know where the next meal is coming from, who, under this package of legislative changes that the coalition want to bring in, will be facing six months with no income. How about creating an underclass in this country! That is what the coalition are doing.

I suppose, if you were a Tea Party supporter, you would not care about that. You would not really worry as long as the market is operating effectively, as long as your business is allowed to operate how it likes. Exploit workers if you want. Get any of those externalities out of the way of business—so, no union involvement, no collective bargaining, no decency, no underpinning of a decent social safety net for Australians.

That is the position that this coalition proposes. Was anyone aware of this before the last election? Of course we were not. The Australian public were lied to; they were lied to by the coalition. They lied about their welfare policies. They lied about their jobs policies. They lied about their environmental policies. They lied about every policy of substance. They said there would be no cutbacks to pensions, and there are. They said there would be no increases in taxes, and there are.

This is a government based on ideology. It is about ideology; it is not about the national interest. For the coalition, when it comes to ideology versus the national interest, the national interest comes a long way second—because where is it in the national interest to say to our fellow Australians, 'You will not be allowed to have any income for six months?'

Senator O'Sullivan: We'll fix the budget.

Senator CAMERON: Where is it? I heard the comment that it is 'because we'll fix the budget'.

Senator O'Sullivan: Correct.

Senator CAMERON: You do not fix the budget by starving Australians. You do not fix the budget by making Australians survive without any income for six months. I just do not understand.

I think there are some people of goodwill in the coalition; there are some people of goodwill. I just wonder whether they will look at this legislation and take the same view as the experts in unemployment, the people who study this for a living, the academics who look at this and say, 'This is crazy; these penal provisions do not work.' Will they support the reality of this academic analysis? Will they support St Vincent de Paul, The Smith Family, the welfare rights groups? Or will they simply say, 'You get people back to work by starving them into a job'? I hope that is not the case, but I am afraid we have not seen much sign that the coalition can be trusted, that they will deal with anyone fairly and that they will not take an ideological approach to what they are doing.

At the estimates hearings, I asked questions of the Department of Human Services. I live out in the lower Blue Mountains, near Penrith. There are many unemployed people in Penrith. There are many families doing it tough not only in Penrith but in the western suburbs generally. Where are the bulk of the unemployed in my state of New South Wales? They are in the outer suburbs and they are in rural and regional Australia. And what does this bill do for the residents of Western Sydney and the residents of rural and regional Australia who happen to be unemployed? It says to them, 'Unless you "earn or learn"'—another slogan, another ideological beat-up—'you will have no income for six months.' Where is there a place for this type of ideology in a modern economy? Where is there any place for this in a society that has some compassion and caring for our fellow Australians?

There is no compassion and no caring from this rabble of a government over there—no compassion and no caring from this mob over there. They do not care about the unemployed. As long as the people who sit in their Bentleys handing over the brown paper bags of money in the front seat of the Bentley to Liberal politicians get looked after, they do not care about anybody else. They do not care about anybody else. And the National Party?

Government senators interjecting—

Senator CAMERON: Give us a break! The National Party have got electorates where there is massive unemployment, massive youth unemployment. But what do the doormats of the coalition do? They sit quietly and do nothing. They allow the coalition to rip away at the hospital system in rural and regional Australia. They allow them to rip away at the education system in rural and regional Australia. No wonder the National Party are described as doormats. When I first came here I said, 'No, the National Party can't be doormats!' But I was here a couple of days and I knew the National Party were the doormats of the coalition—the absolute doormats! But under that doormat you now find the South Australian senators. They are even worse than a doormat. Lift that doormat up and out scuttle the South Australian senators! It is pretty awful, I have got to tell you. But National Party senators, do not feel too bad. Senator Edwards will scuttle out from under that doormat and you will know that he is even more jelly-backed than you lot in the National Party!

We can joke about it all we like, but this is a very serious issue. All of the welfare groups that have looked at this piece of legislation have said it is unfair, it is not acceptable, it is going to make the poorest people in this country pay a price.

Senator Seselja interjecting—

Senator CAMERON: Senator Seselja is yap, yap, yapping away in the background. Senator Seselja will not stand up for public servants in Canberra. He has absolutely no capacity to look after any of his electorate. Senator Seselja, when they scuttle out from under the doormat, I will bet you are one of them!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Order! Senator Cameron, address your remarks through the chair.

Senator CAMERON: I apologise. Through you, Acting Deputy President, Senator Seselja will be scuttling out from under the doormat and he will say to the public servants, 'Oh, I'm sorry, I can't do anything for you.' Of course he cannot do anything for them—you have got to have a backbone before you can do something for your electorate! You have got to have a bit of courage, a bit of commitment. Stand up. Do not try to climb up the greasy pole, Senator Seselja. Stand up for your electorate. Stand up for the poorest in this country. You actually chaired this Senate inquiry—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, address your remarks to the chair.

Senator CAMERON: Senator Seselja was the chair of this inquiry for some of the period. So you have got to say that Senator Seselja has got absolutely no compassion for the unemployed, absolutely no understanding of the needs of the unemployed. People came to that Senate inquiry and said, 'Senator Seselja, you've got it wrong.' They were looking around for Senator Seselja and they could not find him because he was under the doormat! They made submissions to Senator Seselja but they could not find him, they did not know where he was. He was under the National Party doormat and he was screwing unemployed Australians. (Time expired)

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:49): The Greens wall be opposing the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill. We believe this is yet another of the government's ideological attacks on those seeking to find work. Of course, the regulation that we have just disallowed—we had the discussion on it earlier today and last night—was part of that attack on job seekers. As St Vincent de Paul Society Chief Executive Officer John Falzon said to the inquiry, there are so many reasons why people find themselves on the pathway to despair instead of the pathway to employment. This is clearly what the government does not understand. They think people do not find a job because they do not want to find a job. They do not understand that it is not because they cannot find work. They think it is because they make that choice. They think people make a lifestyle choice. Well, they don't.

This government is not interested in addressing the many barriers that people who rely on income support experience when trying to find work. Instead, the government chooses to punish and humiliate these people, seemingly at every turn in their lives. This unrelenting punishment and demonisation of people trying to find work, in itself, provides another barrier for people who are trying to find work, another disincentive to work. Virtually everybody, except the department, who made a submission to the inquiry into this bill did not support it. Ms O'Halloran, who is the President of the National Welfare Rights Network, said:

Our network opposes the introduction of the bill before you, fundamentally on the ground that we question the purpose of the bill—whether it is actually to punish people or to help people into paid work. We would think that we would all be united in the view that helping a person who is unemployed into paid work would be the goal and we do not believe that this bill will achieve that goal. In fact, we think it will be counterproductive. That is based on our casework experience, real life lived caseload experience, with the heavy penalty system introduced in 2006 and the many changes to that system since that time.

Of course, this is winding back the promises that the Rudd government made to the absolutely horrendous Welfare to Work regime that the Howard government brought in.

Last night Senator Abetz tried to conflate the two discussions about the regulation we disallowed today and this particular bill. He accused me of referring to this bill rather than the regulation. He obviously had not read his own government's explanatory memorandum on the regulation as opposed to this particular bill. Although, I will say that the explanation of the regulation had a very similar statement of compatibility with human rights. The one that I am addressing is, of course, about this particular bill and, coincidently, it uses the same flawed argument about compatibility with human rights. It notes:

The Bill engages the right to work, the right to social security, and the right to an adequate standard of living.

It uses the same sort of ridiculous excuse for demonising and punishing people because they had a right to work. The Human Rights Committee noted the measures of the bill that remove and limit the ability to waive the non-payment period for refusal of suitable work or persistent noncompliance, and it does say, 'may limit' the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to equality and non-discrimination'. The Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that, notwithstanding the assurances in the explanatory memorandum, it remains:

… unclear how limiting the availability of a waiver on the ground of a jobseeker’s severe financial hardship, or because a jobseeker agrees to undertake more intensive activities, such as Work for the Dole, would achieve the stated objective of the measures.

The Human Rights Committee considered that:

… the characterisation of the bill—

in the explanatory memorandum—

as promoting the right to work by providing 'a stronger incentive to accept an offer of suitable work', is not an accurate assessment of the limitation on human rights …

The committee suggested that the bill also has the potential, disproportionately or unintentionally, to impact negatively upon particular groups resulting in the engagement or limitation of the rights to equality and non-discrimination. This is from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and they have found that there are significant issues. I also note that the Community Affairs Committee reported on this legislation just this week, but the minister had not responded to that particular point.

This bill does have an impact on job seekers. It has a negative impact on job seekers. A decision to take away all of someone's income support is very serious and can have catastrophic impacts on people's lives. This is another part of a calculated, cruel attack on job seekers and those on income support. It is harsh and, of course, as many of the government's other measures will do, it impacts disproportionately and heavily on the most vulnerable people in our community. But, of course, the government know that because this is part of the approach they are taking through the budget. It is quite obvious that their approach is to demonise, to punish and to be harsh on the most vulnerable in our community.

The government have this flawed thinking that, if you take harsh approach and push and push the most vulnerable, those that are trying to find work, they will suddenly see the light and think that a job is a good idea. There are hundreds and thousands of people anxiously looking for work. There are only just under 150,000 available jobs currently. So, no matter how much you push and punish people, take away their rights and seek to have stronger penalties, you will not be able to encourage people into jobs that just are not there. This will simply make life harder.

As the people who are at the coalface of working with the most disadvantaged and pick up the pieces as a result of the government's flawed policy approach say, as Ms O'Halloran said: 'It is counterproductive.' As Dr Mestan said as part of the Community Affairs Committee inquiry:

Worse than ineffectual, the policy is likely to be counterproductive because, once a person is sanctioned, they have no incentive to meet requirements, whereas in the current regime, where payments are recommenced upon compliance, there is a strong incentive for a sanctioned person to quickly meet requirements.

Part of the concern that the Greens have is that the longer people are disconnected with the system the harder it is for them to re-engage. Surely that is what we want. We actually want people who make a mistake to be able to re-engage with the system and to be able to then continue with their participation plans, which they will have worked out. Dr Mestan said:

… the main aim does not seem to be to get people into employment. I feel it can be counterproductive. It could prevent people from getting employment, because they will be sanctioned even if they try to re-engage in intensive activities.

This bill discourages people from re-entering the system quickly, which we know is much better and will lead to much more positive outcomes. This bill is unnecessary, particularly if the government were looking at a more incentives based approach and if it were genuinely addressing the barriers that people are facing to employment. They just are not. This bill assumes that everybody can get a job if they just look hard enough, if they just try that little bit harder. People are trying to find work, but, as I said, the jobs are not available for those people. So, the government are punishing people simply for not being able to find a job. Stronger penalties for people that cannot find work will not help people engage with the system if there are no jobs to be found.

Part of the problem that we have with this bill is the cumulative effects of all the changes that are coming under both the budget and other measures that the government are bringing in. We are desperately concerned that the most vulnerable Australians already face many barriers to employment, and remember that they are living in poverty. They are living on Newstart. If you are under 25 you are living on Youth Allowance. You live on less than $36 a day on Newstart. If you are living on Youth Allowance you are living on less than that. Here you have a group of extremely vulnerable Australians who are living on less than $36 a day. They are trying to meet all their requirements and they are trying to exist in poverty. Poverty itself is a barrier to employment. These people are the ones that we are talking about who will be subject to these stronger penalties because they potentially may make a misstep. This bill takes away the ability for the penalties to be waived. We do not think that is good policy.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It being 2 pm, Senator Siewert, the debate is interrupted for question time.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) (15:36): I present three government responses to committee reports as listed at item 15 on today’s Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee Report Effectiveness of the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy

June 2014

List of acronyms

ACARA - Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority

APIP - Accessible Portable Item Protocol

COAG - Council of Australian Governments

NAP - National Assessment Program

NAPLAN - National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy

PISA - Programme for International Student Assessment

SCSEEC - Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood

WCAG - Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

The Australian Government Department of Education welcomes the Report on the Inquiry into the Effectiveness of the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy. A response to each recommendation in the report is provided below. The Department has sought the views and input of ACARA in preparing these responses.

Recommendation 1: The committee recommends the quick turnaround of test results should receive the highest priority in the design of NAPLAN Online with achievable and measurable targets built in to the system.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to delivering National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) test results faster, as this will enable schools and parents to quickly access the diagnostic elements of the test, and develop appropriate intervention strategies to support and extend students' literacy and numeracy capabilities.

Current situation

All education ministers have agreed in principle that the return of individual student results for diagnostic purposes is beneficial to improve student learning and the faster the results return to teachers the better.

The Australian Government is working cooperatively with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), and the states and territories to achieve faster turnaround of NAPLAN test results to students, teachers and parents.

The Australian Government believes it is important that the use of NAPLAN item level data should be used to inform teacher classroom practice and that states and territories actively develop assessment literacy skills amongst their teachers.

Since September 2013, negotiations about the release of individual student results and the individual student reports to parents have been held with all stakeholders. The Australian Government encourages all states and territories to reduce the time it takes to return individual student reports to parents.

ACARA is scheduled to release National Summary Information (preliminary results), previously known as the NAPLAN Summary Report, in a web-based format on 18 August 2014. This information will provide preliminary national, state and territory level results four weeks ahead of the time that the Summary Report was released in 2013. In addition, the majority of states and territories will deliver results back to schools and parents sooner. It is expected that in 2015 turnaround times will continue to be reduced.

NAPLAN online

A key element of the rationale for delivering NAPLAN testing online is that there will be a significant reduction in the time taken to provide feedback to schools, students and parents. Faster turnaround of results is a key goal in the planning and design of NAPLAN online.

It is intended that the design and process mapping for the online delivery of NAPLAN maximises the use of technology to automate existing processes that will reduce the time taken. Over time this will provide more information on student performance leading to richer reporting on student performance.

Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that when designing adaptive testing for NAPLAN Online the needs of students with disability are taken into account.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to ensuring that the needs of all students, including those with disability, continue to be taken into account in the design of NAPLAN testing online. Student assessments should be designed to cover a broad range of abilities that enables the strengths and weaknesses of students to be measured. For NAPLAN testing, disability is defined as per the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

At the individual student level, NAPLAN provides a measure of literacy and numeracy skills relative to his or her peers. This measure can then be used to monitor student progress, enable longitudinal tracking of student achievement, and inform strategies for improving literacy and numeracy achievements. To achieve this, tests must yield comparable data, so that students' results can be compared and placed on a scale relative to each other. For a test to yield comparable data, tests must be standardised, and students must as far as possible undergo the same test experience.

In the case of students with disability, this may entail adjustments to the standard way a test is delivered and undertaken. Adjustments are intended to enable access to the tests on an equivalent basis to students without disability, so that the adjusted test measures the student's literacy or numeracy performance, rather than measuring the impact of the student's disability or disabilities on their test experience (which an unadjusted test would show).

The current NAPLAN testing regime achieves the above through the National Protocols for Test Administration 2014 (the Protocols) and in particular the Adjustments for Students with a Disabilitysection, consistent with the Disability Standards for Education 2005, which set out the rights of students with disability and the obligations of school authorities in relation to education under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

The Protocols (available atwww.nap.edu.au) allow for:

a range of permitted adjustment types (each supported by evidence bases that isolate the effect of the adjustment and demonstrate the effectiveness of the adjustment)

to be applied singly or in combination

on a case by case basis dependent on individual student needs

as determined by the school together with the relevant Test Administration Authority, the parent/carer and the student

exemption of students with significant intellectual and/or functional disabilities, who are unable to access the tests within the guidelines for adjustments

Examples of the application of these adjustments can be found in a set of 'scenarios' published on the National Assessment Program (NAP) website www.nap.edu.au.

NAPLAN online

The needs of students with disability will be taken into account in the design of adaptive testing and the test development and delivery systems. To this end, ACARA is working closely with stakeholders, expert advisers and service delivery partners, as well as its working, advisory, and reference groups that support the test development process.

Adjustments for students with disability in the online environment will be guided by the Protocols adapted for the online context. As far as possible, online assessment for each student with accessibility requirements will replicate the arrangements currently in place for that student in daily classroom assessment activities.

Research commissioned in 2013 (which included a review of online accessibility options in use for online assessment in other jurisdictions) is informing work in this area. Further research on the adaptation of the accessibility aspects of the Protocols to the online environment is planned.

Technical specifications

In addition to the measures outlined above, there are specific business requirements which will need to be met in the design of the NAPLAN online test authoring and test delivery systems:

ACARA has specified compliance with all legislative requirements as well as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, WCAG2.0 Level AA, in the business requirements for the NAPLAN online component of the test delivery system under development.

In addition, the systems will meet the Accessible Portable Item Protocol (APIP) Standard—a data model for standardising the interchange file format for digital test items, which provides a test delivery interface with all the information and resources required to make a test and an item accessible for students with a variety of disabilities and special needs.

Test items will be developed in accordance with item specifications, which will include accessibility and usability requirements (including provision of adjusted or alternate content where an online interaction is by its nature inaccessible to a particular user group, for example because it is graphically-based, as determined by APIP).

Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that when designing adaptive testing for NAPLAN Online the needs of students from a non-English speaking background are taken into account.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to ensuring that the needs of all students are taken into account for in the design of NAPLAN testing online, including those with non-English speaking background.

NAPLAN is designed as a standardised assessment - all students across Australia sit the same tests for their year level. The tests are designed in such a way that the questions, administration conditions, scoring procedures and analysis are consistent for all students. This allows for a comparable understanding of performance across the country.

The tests identify whether all students have the literacy and numeracy skills that provide the critical foundation for their learning. While it is recognised that all students do not have the same cultural and language background, competency in Australian English is essential for all students to allow them to participate fully in Australian society. This is particularly important for students from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island heritages who may not speak English as their first, second or third language, as well as migrant and refugee students.

As NAPLAN literacy assessments are tests of student ability in standard Australian English, specific adjustments are not made for students with a non-English speaking background. The literacy demands of the numeracy tests should not, however, exclude a student with a non-English speaking background from accessing the numeracy tests.

Test development

NAPLAN tests are developed collaboratively by the states and territories, and the Australian Government and the non-government sectors. The development of NAPLAN test items is extensively quality assured through highly specific and rigorously applied processes, continuous quality control and auditing. ACARA has in place a rigorous test development process and uses expert panels to develop and review test items.

As part of the test development process, all proposed test items undergo quality assurance that takes cultural background into account. In preparing the assessments, test developers must ensure NAPLAN tests are not culturally biased against any student group, including students from a non-English speaking background. The development process involves ACARA working with specialist item writers under contract, and supported by expert review and recommendations from officials from all states and territories, including assessment and curriculum specialists. This process ensures that no questions in the NAPLAN tests require direct personal knowledge of a topic outside the curriculum for respective year levels.

NAPLAN tests are standardised and serve a national comparability purpose. The test development process is designed to ensure that test content is aligned to the curriculum expectations of each state and territory, with testing to be based on the Australian Curriculum from 2016. The development process includes having each state and territory review all proposed test items for cultural and language appropriateness.

The consideration of students from non-English speaking and diverse cultural backgrounds will continue in the development of NAPLAN test items in an online environment.

Recommendation 4: The committee recommends that ACARA closely monitor the use of NAPLAN results to ensure results are published to assist the Government to deliver extra, targeted funding to schools and students who need more support, rather than the development of league tables.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

ACARA's strategic directions are set by ACARA's Charter, (available at http://www.acara.edu.au/about_us/about_us.html), determined by the Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC). Amongst other matters, the Charter vests responsibility with ACARA for:

collecting national data (including on individual schools) for the purpose of accountability and reporting, research and analysis, and resource allocation as directed by SCSEEC

analysing data, as required by education ministers and their departments, to support system management and policy.

ACARA undertakes a role in monitoring how NAPLAN results are used in the public domain.

The Australian Government supports the fair and responsible publication of NAPLAN results, and does not support the development of league tables. A key purpose of NAPLAN is to provide information for all Australian governments to underpin school improvement and target funding where it is most needed in Australian schools.The My Schoolwebsite (www.myschool.edu.au) allows users to compare schools with statistically similar groups of students, providing contextual information to support fairer and more meaningful comparisons. If the performance information is separated from the contextual information, meaning and fairness are diminished.

Under the Australian Government's Students First policy, school autonomy and the Independent Public Schools initiative will enable principals to have more support and freedom to make decisions for the benefit of their school. It is intended that this policy will provide capacity for principals to apply funding to support those students who need help to improve their literacy and numeracy skills. This reform reflects international evidence that in seeking to improve schools, the autonomy of the principal to make informed decisions supports student outcomes.

The Australian Greens Recommendation 1: The Australian Greens recommend that, if publication of individual school results on the My School site continues, the Government remove the functionality that enables ranking and comparisons of individual school results.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government does not agree with this recommendation.

The Australian Government supports the fair and responsible publication of NAPLAN results. A key purpose of NAPLAN is to provide information for all Australian governments to target funding where it is most needed in Australian schools.

My School is a unique online tool that promotes transparency in education by providing parents, schools, governments and the wider community with high quality, nationally comparable data on the performance and progress of Australian schools.

The My School website was purposely designed to minimise the construction of crude league tables which create unfair and indefensible comparisons of Australian schools.

While the My School website allows users to compare statistically similar schools, it provides contextual information to support fairer and more meaningful comparisons of schools than publication of performance information without providing information about key factors that impact the performance of schools. The My School website does not include rankings of schools.

The Australian Greens Recommendation 2: The Australian Greens recommend that in the event that functionality for the ranking and comparisons of individual school results is removed from the My School website but improper and detrimental use of NAPLAN data continues (such as the creation of league tables) the Government remove the school-level data, in accordance with their prior policy position.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government does not agree with this recommendation.

As outlined in the response to the Australian Greens Recommendation 1, the Australian Government does not support the development of simplistic league tables. The My School website was purposely designed to minimise the construction of crude league tables which create unfair and indefensible comparisons of Australian schools.

The Australian Greens Recommendation 3: The Australian Greens recommend that the Government clarify the purpose of NAPLAN testing, particularly with regard to its use as a diagnostic assessment, and adapt the structure and any publication of the data to align with the stated purpose.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government does not agree with this recommendation.

The purpose of NAPLAN is clearly articulated. As the largest and most significant program within the NAP, NAPLAN provides data on student learning in literacy and numeracy and these data are used to inform the development of strategies to improve literacy and numeracy skills of students in all schools across Australia.

NAPLAN results provide a baseline for monitoring student and school progress, enables longitudinal tracking of student achievement, and can be used to inform strategies for improving the literacy and numeracy achievements of students.

NAPLAN testing allows Australian governments to identify whether all students have the literacy and numeracy skills and knowledge which provide the critical foundation for other learning and for their productive and rewarding participation in school and the community. NAPLAN results provide reliable, comparable information on how students, schools and school systems are performing against national standards, including national minimum standards in each of the assessed areas.

The following NAPLAN results are published to support this purpose.

National, state and territory NAPLAN results are published in a preliminary and National Report each year.

Schools receive comprehensive data packages on NAPLAN results, and states and territories have developed programs for data analysis to support teachers in using and interpreting NAPLAN data to improve student outcomes.

Parents/carers receive an individual student report on NAPLAN results which enable them to see how their child is progressing against national standards, including the national average and middle 60 per cent of students for the year level.

Information on NAPLAN results at the school level is published on the My School website, which is updated each year.

The Australian Greens Recommendation 4: The Australian Greens recommend that the Government provide further support and training for teachers and schools to analyse the NAPLAN data and devise individual educational programs to assist students to ensure the resources used to run the tests and create the data are not wasted.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Teacher professional development is the responsibility of state and territory governments.

The Australian Government's submission to this Inquiry outlined the support and training available for teachers in jurisdictions to analyse and use NAPLAN data to support those students. All states and territories have developed programs for data analysis to support teachers in using and interpreting NAPLAN data to improve student outcomes. For example, see page 16 of the Department's submission to the Inquiry (Submission 69 Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations).

NAPLAN results are an important resource for teachers to be able to target their teaching practice to the needs of their students. The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers require teachers to be able to assess, provide feedback and report on student learning. For the Graduate standard, this includes an expectation that teachers can 'demonstrate the capacity to interpret student assessment data to evaluate student learning and modify teaching practice.' (Standard 5)

The national approach to the Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs in Australia: Standards and Procedures require universities to demonstrate how they will be preparing their students to meet the Graduate teacher standard. The data produced by NAPLAN tests are rich and detailed and can be of great value in informing teaching practice and student learning. Analysis of the data down to the level of each test question (item), for each student, can help teachers identify the gaps in learning of particular students. It can also highlight areas where classroom strategies are succeeding or may need adjustment.

As part of their ongoing teacher professional development, increasing the assessment literacy capabilities of teachers is fast becoming an essential 21st century skill for teachers. This means that teachers need training and support in ways to interpret and analyse data to inform and change their practice, if needed in extending the achievement of all students. As well as improving the outcomes of lower achieving students, it can be applied to supporting and extending higher achieving students.

The Australian Greens Recommendation 5: The Australian Greens recommend that the Government consult with schools to determine the best time of year to hold the annual tests in light of discussions around the purpose of the testing.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government does not agree with this recommendation.

The timing of NAPLAN tests was agreed by education ministers in July 2006. Moving the tests to May allowed diagnostic information to be provided to teachers and parents earlier in the year than had previously been the case with state and territory literacy and numeracy tests. This assists with planning needed interventions sooner and using assessment to improve teaching and learning.

The Australian Greens Recommendation 6: The Australian Greens recommend that NAPLAN Online uses the advantages of the medium to test a broader scope of knowledge within literacy and numeracy, more accurately reflect classroom learning styles and incorporate questions which encourage lateral and creative thinking from students.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

Work is underway to determine the scope and scale of the test delivery system features when NAPLAN goes online and this is being undertaken in consultation with state and territory governments and the non-government school sector. Further research on the development and use of technically enhanced items, including multimedia stimulus material, is being conducted by ACARA with the intention of including these item types as part of the NAPLAN full-cohort testing program over time.

Evidence shows that tailored test design, which comprises multi-stage branching tests, provides better alignment of tests to the ability of each student. Tailored test design 'branches' students through test pathways depending on their ability level, ensuring that high performing students are adequately challenged and that low achieving students are given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge. For the latter group of students, the test design significantly enhances the testing context and student engagement. The increased number of items in this test design also provides an opportunity to broaden and enhance the coverage of the Australian Curriculum in NAPLAN testing.

Other assessments

All Australian governments support additional assessments that focus on lateral and creative thinking through instruments such as the Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA), which in 2015 will incorporate collaborative problem solving in its test design.

The NAP sample assessments are currently under review and the longer-term future directions of the program post-2015 are being developed by ACARA for consideration by education ministers.

The Australian Greens Recommendation 7: The Australian Greens recommend that ACARA actively consults with teachers and academics experienced in teaching students from language backgrounds other than English to scrutinise the tests for cultural assumptions and inappropriate content and styles of questioning.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government notes this recommendation. As this recommendation overlaps Committee Recommendation 3, please refer to that response.

Government Response

February 2014 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security

Review of the listing of Jabhat al-Nusra and the re-listing of six terrorist organisations

Review of the re-listing of Al-Qa ' ida in the Arabian Peninsula

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation.

Recommendation 2:

The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation.

Recommendation 3:

The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list al-Qa'ida as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation.

Recommendation 4:

The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Abu Sayyaf Group as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation.

Recommendation 5:

The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list al-Qa'ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation.

Recommendation 6:

The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Jamiat ul-Ansar as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation.

Recommendation 7:

The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Jemaah Islamiyah as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation.

Recommendation 8:

The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation.

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works report:

Public works on Christmas Island October 2011

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake an assessment of water flows to determine what happens to treated wastewater that leaves the Christmas Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the potential risks to the freshwater supply.

Supported. Water Corporation, Western Australia, which operates and manages the water and wastewater infrastructure on Christmas Island, had completed a geotechnical survey and prepared a Catchment Management Strategy for Christmas Island. Based on the findings of the geotechnical survey, Water Corporation considers that the discharge from the Wastewater Treatment Plant is not posing any risks to the freshwater water supply on the island.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake an assessment of the Christmas Island water supply to determine whether any water supply areas are affected by contaminants from the Island ' s landfill site.

Supported. The landfill is considered a risk to the water source as it is situated in the greater catchment area. Water Corporation has put in place catchment management strategies to manage the risk, including frequent sampling, monitoring, inspections, operational strategies and ongoing communications with the Shire of Christmas Island as they are responsible for waste management on the island. Water Corporation monitors the groundwater surrounding the landfill and undertakes analysis for hydrocarbons, pesticides, metals and bacterial contaminants. At this stage the landfill has not had any measurable impact on the quality of the drinking water on Christmas Island.

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has provided funding of $1.2 million to the Shire of Christmas Island for development of a waste management strategy and implementation of capital works to the Christmas Island Waste Management Facility. The first stage of the project, which involved an assessment of existing waste disposal and management strategies on the Island, and an analysis of the options available for total solid waste management, was completed in 2013.

Recommendation 3

The Committee Recommends that that the Australian Government examine alternatives

for disposal of solid waste from the Christmas Island Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Supported. Water Corporation presented its report Christmas and Cocos Islands Biosolids Strategy 2031 as part of its 2012-13 annual report. The preferred sludge management option for Christmas Island is composting. Composting will be implemented gradually over the next ten years.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection review existing medical facilities and services at the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre (North-west Point), with a view to ensuring that all detainees have full access to all medical services in an appropriate and suitable medical centre environment.

Noted. The Australian Government considers that all detainees at the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) have access to appropriate medical services which are delivered in suitable medical facilities.

The Government notes that in June 2013 the Health Services Provider at Christmas Island IDC received accreditation against the Royal Australian College of General Practitioner Standards for Health Services in Australian Immigration Detention Centres. Among other matters, the accreditation process included consideration of the clinic facilities.

In addition, during 2013-14 the Government allocated further resources to improve the medical facilities and to increase the range of health services available at Christmas Island IDC. This includes enhancements to pathology and imaging services, use of telemedicine facilities and expanded use of visiting specialists. These measures will further reduce the amount of time Irregular Maritime Arrivals spend in Australia before their rapid onward transfer to an Offshore Processing Centre in Nauru or Papua New Guinea

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government design and construct a fit-for ­purpose medical centre for the Construction Camp Alternative Place of Detention on Christmas Island, which will include (but not be limited to):