Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (13:59): by leave—I would like to stand and congratulate my party for its unified approach to the Australian economy. We are absolutely committed to delivering on jobs and having a better and brighter future, unlike those opposite. The Labor Party has a history, a track record, of destroying the Australia economy and shamelessly pursuing—

The PRESIDENT: It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice.

Senator LINDGREN (Queensland) (14:39): Can the minister inform the Senate whether the government believes that the CFMEU's campaign against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is xenophobic?

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (15:01): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

There is an old saying, but a true saying when it comes to the coalition: the more things change, the more they stay the same. We have had exactly the same rhetoric, the same spin, the same nonsense paraded before this Senate today that we have had for the last two years of dysfunctional, incompetent government from the coalition. Changing the leader made no change. The same rhetoric, the same three-word slogans that the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, was saying would disappear all got a run again today in question time. This is a government that is an absolute rabble. This is a government that has got no concept and no understanding of the economic necessities of this country. This is a government that had an opportunity to stand up and say what it would do to move this economy and this society forward, and what did we get? We got the same old spin—same old, same old from the same old tired, incompetent, dysfunctional government that parades around as a so-called government in this country.

We know they are split up the middle. There is another old saying: if you cannot govern yourself, you cannot govern the country. This lot cannot govern themselves—absolutely no chance. You saw the vote last night, tipping out Prime Minister Abbott, who was the great hero of the coalition, the great hero that brought them to government. It was only last week they were standing up there, one after the other, defending the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and running the same three-word slogans that the former Prime Minister ran every day. They cannot change it. It is in the DNA of this government to attack pensioners, to attack those on welfare, to attack working people in this country—that is what the DNA of this lot is.

They have got no understanding of how ordinary families battle every day to put food on their tables, buy their kids' schoolbooks, buy their kids their school uniforms. This is because predominantly they think about privilege when they think about this society. They think about the big end of town. They think about how they are going to cuddle up to Rupert Murdoch in this country, and they have now got a leader who actually comes from that end of town, who is a rich individual with absolutely no idea what it is like to battle in this country. Why else would he have supported every attack on working people in this country that was in that first budget? Why would he support attacking pensioners, attacking the youth of this country who are battling to get a job? Why did he say that he back every aspect of what was the worst budget this country has ever seen? What he says—I do not often agree with Malcolm Turnbull, but he did say that the government had not been successful in providing the economic leadership that we need. You do not provide economic leadership by attacking the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country. Malcolm Turnbull is backing—sorry, the Prime Minister is backing that in, and that is what he is going to continue to do.

We had Senator Cormann here, in the same robotic splurge of argument that we get every day, trying to defend this position, but Senator Cormann, according to the Prime Minister, was a failure in his position, an absolute failure. The best we can do for this country is get rid of this government, not change the leader. (Time expired)

Senator SMITH (Western Australia) (15:06): We may have had a change in the prime ministership of our country, but we clearly have not had a change in the shallowness, the short-sightedness of Labor senators here. I might just add, Senator Cameron, that I think there was only one person who lost sleep last night in this country, and that was Bill Shorten. That would have been Bill Shorten, because even though the coalition may have had a change of leader, we did not have a change of ambition. Our ambition is to make sure that the Australian Labor Party stays out of government.

It is a bit disappointing that Senator Cameron could not even find the good grace to reflect positively on what were some significant achievements of the coalition government under the stewardship of Tony Abbott. In my contribution this afternoon I might just reflect on what Mr John Howard had to say about Mr Abbott's contribution towards stewarding this nation for two years in difficult times. One of the most notable achievements of Mr Abbott in his period of prime ministership was the way that he dealt convincingly with the issue of border protection. I think it is just worth reminding this chamber and Labor senators what it was that Mr Abbott inherited when he became Prime Minister.

We know that under the previous government 50,000—it is easy to forget the magnitude of the number—asylum seekers arrived on over 800 boats. Policies under the previous Labor government led to 1,100 deaths—not injuries but deaths—and what we saw were a thousand children in detention centres, and John Howard is absolutely right when he reflected on that this afternoon. For all his great stewardship of this country over 11 years, John Howard's concession was that even he had not thought it would be possible to correct that—and, of course, Mr Abbott did. Mr Abbott and the coalition government did that, and Mr Howard went on to say that, in his mind, that was one of the most outstanding achievements of the Abbott led government over the previous two years.

It is true that these are interesting times politically. It is absolutely correct that the electorate has an increasing expectation of parliamentarians, an increasing expectation of the governments it elects. But it is also beholden on each of us to reflect on what some of those other achievements are. I am disappointed in Senator Cameron—and it will be interesting to hear the contributions of other Labor senators this afternoon—not even having the good grace to reflect on what were remarkable achievements that are recognised in the community as being important and sizeable achievements and achievements that have reflected the priorities of ordinary Australian voters and families over the last two years. Those achievements include the abolition of the mining tax, a tax which hit particularly hard in my home state of Western Australia, the abolition of the carbon tax, which has ordinary households an average of about $550 better off because that it has gone. So there has been the abolition of the carbon tax, the abolition of the mining tax, the protection of Australia's borders and—importantly, of course—reducing that significant loss at sea. Then there are the 335,000 new jobs—jobs for ordinary Australians that were created under the tenure of Mr Abbott.

The challenge is actually not on the coalition today. The challenge is on the Australian Labor Party and its senators in this place to think about how they will change. How will they change to make sure that Australia and this parliament get the best possible benefit they can from the new leadership that will be shown by Mr Turnbull. These are important but challenging times for our country, with an ageing population and the increasing industrialisation and development of our Asian neighbours. The world is becoming more competitive and we cannot afford to rest. We must stay vigilant, and I am confident that under the leadership of the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, this country will go from strength to strength. (Time expired)

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory) (15:11): I rise to take note of questions asked by the opposition today, and I will start my comments where Senator Smith finished his. I must say it is a fair stretch, given the last 24 hours, to stand with a straight face and argue that it is the Labor Party that should change—that the Labor Party should change what it is doing in response to the tearing down of a Prime Minister that we just saw played out in real-time on TV over the last 20 or so hours.

Senator Ian Macdonald: You should have been around six years ago. It happened twice.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

Senator GALLAGHER: The Prime Minister started the assault on Tony Abbott yesterday with a very clear attack on the economic leadership of the government as it was. In fact, I think his own language was:

It is clear enough that the Government is not successful in providing the economic leadership that we need.

He went on to say:

We need a style of leadership that explains those challenges and opportunities, explains the challenges and how to seize the opportunities.

This was a clear attack on the economic team of the government, which includes Senator Cormann and the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, in that they had failed to sell the message. But when you look at the message they were trying to sell, anyone would have difficulty with it. Unemployment has increased from 5.7 per cent to 6.3 per cent. For the first time in 20 years over 800,000 Australian are out of work. Confidence is at an all-time low. New taxes and charges are being implemented and people are paying more. The deficit has doubled in the last 12 months. So, not that I stand here in defence of Mr Hockey or Minister Cormann, but it is a pretty tough message to sell because the results of the economic leadership, if you could call it that, have not been great.

But now we have open warfare within the Liberal Party. We have got division and disunity and we saw it on show in question time today with senators slumped in their seats, still looking a bit shell-shocked over what has happened in the last 24 hours. Senator Abetz was doing a good audition to maintain his position as leader in the Senate by holding the team together during these very difficult times. But what we do know is that whilst you can change a leader pretty easily—as it seems—it is a much harder process to deal with the disunity and division that is on show.

Anyone who knows how numbers fall will know that 55-44 is not a ringing endorsement of either Tony Abbott or Malcolm Turnbull. It really sets a challenge ahead for the new Prime Minister as to how he is going to manage what is a deeply divided and dysfunctional team. It will be very difficult for a Liberal like Prime Minister Turnbull, who has made very clear statements in relation to big issues facing this country like climate change; like the republic, an issue close to my heart; and like marriage equality, an issue that many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians care deeply about. They are things he has made very clear statements about, and people will expect him to deliver on those statements; but how can he when he is in charge of a very split team with a lot of conservatives within it who will be very unhappy with any progress made in any of those areas.

We know that the budgets that led to the problems facing the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, and the previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott—the cuts, the unfairness of those budgets, the attacks on families, the attacks on workers, the cuts to state and territory run services like health and education—were all decisions taken around the cabinet table. As much as people would like to distance themselves from those decisions now that they have proven to be as unpopular as they are, we know—and I certainly know from putting budgets together—that to finalise a budget you need the agreement of the cabinet, and Prime Minister Turnbull was sitting at that cabinet table. He was not only sitting there but also agreeing to the budget and then going out and implementing it. No matter how hard he tries now—you can change the leader but changing the direction of the government is going to be a much harder job. (Time expired)

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (15:16): The motion before the chamber is that the Senate take note of the answers given to questions asked by members of the Australian Labor Party. That is very difficult to do, because all of the questions were so juvenile, irrelevant and lacking any policy content that it makes it hard to debate on the questions asked.

This is from a party riven by factional enmities and full of, to quote Senator Cameron, lobotomised 'zombies', controlled and answerable to no-one except the criminals who are part of unions like the Health Services Union and the CFMEU. That is who the Australian Labor Party are directed by and answerable to. The CFMEU—thank heavens for the royal commission into trade unions—we know comprises many people who could not be described as anything but criminals. They are represented in this chamber by none other than the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, a former employee of the CFMEU and a person who proved herself to be the worst environment minister we have had for many years, the worst finance minister we have had for many years and now the worst shadow trade minister that the country has ever seen.

This government is the same government that was elected on 13 September 2013 with a number of policies which we have implemented and continue to implement—policies like border protection and stopping people drowning at sea; abolition of the carbon tax; and creation of new jobs. In August alone, 17,000 new jobs were created by this government. The union royal commission has been set up as promised. Again, this government is proceeding with its policy, which it promised before the last election, to retain the definition of marriage for the term of this election and to provide that we will go to the Australian people for a decision on that in the next term of parliament. Those policies stand. That is what we were elected to do and we will continue to do. The new leader, Mr Turnbull, confirmed that last night.

With the Liberal and National parties Australians know what they are getting. They know that when our parties go to the election and promise certain things we will do them, no matter how hard the Labor Party and their allies in the Greens political party will try to put forward some other proposals. We are not like the Labor Party. We do not go to an election promising that there will be no carbon tax and then immediately following the election bring in exactly that. We will continue on the policy we took to the last election, and that will play out in Paris this year. This is a government which keeps its promises. This is a government which has set a path and which will continue on that path. Although the leadership has changed, the policies of the parties remain and the new leader has made that very clear.

By contrast, you have a group of people opposite run by the trade union movement. As I often say here, if the trade union movement were anywhere representative of Australia, it might give the Australian Labor Party some credibility. But I emphasise that, according to Bureau of Statistics figures, the union movement represent 12 per cent of workers in the private sector—that is, 88 per cent of all workers in the private sector choose not to join the union. The way the unions carry on, and the way their representatives in this chamber carry on, you can well understand why most hardworking Australian workers choose not to join a union. It is because they see the unions for the criminals and thugs that the royal commission has exposed them as and for the rabble that you see in this chamber opposite. (Time expired)

Senator KETTER (Queensland) (15:21): In commencing my contribution, I take up a point made by Senator Smith when he called upon the opposition to express some gracious response to the changes in leadership that have occurred overnight. From my own perspective, I commiserate with Mr Abbott over the way he has been treated overnight and I wish him the best in his future endeavours. I also congratulate Mr Turnbull on his election to the leadership of the Liberal Party. For the sake of the people of Australia, I hope that he is able to discharge the duties that he has now been entrusted with. It is incumbent on us to say, however, that whilst we might reflect personally on Mr Abbott's demise, one certainly cannot consider his period in office as Prime Minister as anything other than a disaster for our country. I certainly believe that there has been a lot of economic vandalism perpetrated in that period of time.

With Mr Abbott's statement this morning—I will come to Senator Abetz's responses to my question in due course—I think it is important to note that he spoke about the white-anting that had occurred during his period of leadership, about the febrile media culture that rewarded treachery and about conniving and dishonour. He also made reference to 'the assassin's knife'. So this government has clearly now gone from exhibiting chaos and dysfunction down to a new level of division and chaos which I think does not bode well for our country.

Today I asked Senator Abetz whether the Prime Minister agreed with the coalition's Direct Action Plan or whether it was an 'environmental fig leaf', to use Mr Turnbull's terms, and 'a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale.' In his response, Senator Abetz confirmed that the Prime Minister will be supporting the plan which the government is taking to Paris. I think that confirms that Mr Turnbull is a person who will say anything and do anything in order to obtain political power. I think it is important that the Australian people look at Mr Turnbull's public statements, given he aspires to the top job in the land, in respect of this issue of climate change. He has previously said that he would not lead a party that was not as committed to action on climate change as he is. This is a Liberal politician who has previously expressed in writing, in December 2009, some home truths about the farce that the coalition's policy, or lack of policy, on climate change had descended into. He acknowledged that one cannot cut emissions without a cost. He said:

To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money.

To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money.

Somebody has to pay.

So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott—

I do not want to quote the specific term that Mr Turnbull used, because I fear it is unparliamentary, but he certainly described Mr Abbott's position on this matter in fairly explicit terms.

So we have a Prime Minister who, regrettably, is a person who cannot be taken on his record. He is a person who will say anything and do anything in order to obtain high political office. It should not be forgotten that Mr Turnbull sat around the cabinet table that delivered the toxic first budget of this government. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:30): I, and also on behalf of Senator McEwen and Senator McLucas, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the extraordinary achievements of the Australian Matildas while playing and training under inappropriate work conditions for a world‑class sports team;

(b) applauds the Matildas efforts as leaders and role models for young women and all footballers across Australia;

(c) raises concern that, despite this best ever performance by an Australian football team in reaching the quarter finals at a World Cup, they are paid 1/15th of the men’s team, as part‑time employees with a full‑time commitment, and at a rate below the minimum wage; and

(d) supports strong and fair working conditions for all female Australian athletes.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women) (15:30): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator CASH: Let me be absolutely clear, there is a pay gap that exists between women and men in Australia and it is unacceptable. We acknowledge the huge pay difference between male and female sports people that currently exist. It profoundly affects a woman's life in many different ways, including her long-term economic security and it makes her more vulnerable to poverty and homelessness later in life. It is also reflected in the gender disparity in superannuation, with women retiring with only 65 per cent of the superannuation that men retire on. This means that a woman has to work 15 more years than a man to retire with the same income as a man. Things need to change. The national women's soccer teams, the Matildas, have been a sporting institution since 1978 and have represented Australia with class, integrity and professionalism. The Matildas, along with the Diamonds, the Opals and the Southern Stars, for example, are brilliant role models for our girls and they are leaders in our communities.

In relation to the notice of motion, whilst we do support its intent, we must remember that individual employment arrangements are matters for employers and their employees. Any allegations of illegal work practices should be referred to the Fair Work Ombudsman.

Question agreed to.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (15:32): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) a New South Wales parliamentary inquiry has recommended that rail services and infrastructure that have been removed from the Newcastle heavy rail line be immediately reinstated, and

(ii) the rail line closure would be a public transport disaster for the Hunter region and for New South Wales, with patronage significantly lower since services were stopped at Hamilton in 2014; and

(b) calls on:

(i) the Federal Government to commit to funding public transport infrastructure in New South Wales, and

(ii) the New South Wales Government to reverse its decision to truncate the heavy rail line into Newcastle.

Question agreed to.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (15:33): I, and also on behalf of Senator Lazarus, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the continuing number of domestic violence attacks against women remains unacceptably high, and expresses great sadness at the spate of fatal domestic violence attacks on women in Queensland over the past week, and

(ii) on average, one woman loses her life as a result of intimate partner violence each week in Australia;

(b) re-affirms that domestic violence against women has no place in Australia;

(c) welcomes the Queensland State Government’s announcement that it will establish an ‘Implementation Council for domestic violence reforms’, to be chaired by Dame Quentin Bryce AD CVO, to enhance the ability of Queensland police officers to offer support and respond to complaints of domestic violence to ensure that women affected by domestic violence receive priority assistance;

(d) acknowledges that the Council of Australian Governments agreed to take urgent collective action in April 2015 to reduce the amount of violence perpetrated against women, after having endorsed the 2011 National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022;

(e) urges the Government and state and territory governments to prioritise the issue of domestic violence and act urgently to investigate and implement strategies to support and protect women from the scourge of domestic violence; and

(f) calls on the Government and state and territory governments to urgently work together to:

(i) investigate the establishment of a national domestic violence register to enable the national management and monitoring of domestic violence offenders across all state and territory borders,

(ii) increase criminal penalties for offences committed by perpetrators of domestic violence, including the breach of domestic violence orders by perpetrators of domestic violence, and

(iii) support the concept of a national domestic violence against women summit to bring all governments, stakeholders and support organisations together to develop and implement effective strategies and programs to increase support for women, raise awareness of domestic violence, and eliminate the occurrence of domestic violence against women.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women) (15:33): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator CASH: It is the government's clear position that women and children in Australia should be safe at home, safe on the streets and safe online. I believe everybody in this place can agree that domestic and family violence does not have a place in Australia. After the events in Queensland last week and knowing that there are incidents of violence against women and their children that go unreported, enough is enough. The government has been showing unprecedented leadership on this issue. Addressing domestic and family violence is a national priority and that is why we have elevated the issue to the Council of Australian Governments for discussion in 2015. As a part of this important agenda, COAG have agreed to implement a national domestic violence order scheme and national perpetrator standards, and to address technology-facilitated abuse. State and territories are key in delivering outcomes as is appropriate. The Queensland government, for example, have announced that they are looking to increase penalties for breaking domestic violence orders. As part of the evaluation of the second action plan and the development of the third action plan under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their children, we will be conducting wide-ranging consultations to inform our way forward as a nation.

Question agreed to.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:34): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Harper Review into competition policy called for the introduction of an effects test in relation to the misuse of market power,

(ii) supporters for the introduction of an effects test include the National Farmers’ Federation, and the newly‑formed Independent Business Alliance for Competition made up of the Council of Small Business Australia, the Australian Retailers Association, Fresh Markets Australia, the Australian Newsagents’ Federation, the Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association and the Master Grocers Association, and

(iii) the National Party unanimously passed a motion at its National Conference calling for the introduction of an effects test; and

(b) calls on the Government to bring forward legislation that amends Section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to introduce an effects test so as to better protect farmers and small business owners from anti‑competitive conduct.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: The government's own Harper review recommended an effects test. This effects test is a change to legislation that will help make a more level playing field in terms of competition policy in this country. It is about standing up for small businesses and farmers against potential abuses of market power by big business. This has long been sought after by a number of stakeholders across this country. I note that Minister Barnaby Joyce said to the media yesterday in relation to the change of prime ministers that he wanted the National Party to be taken seriously by the Liberal government. This is an opportunity for the National Party to be taken seriously and to stand up for what they believe in, in this chamber—cross the floor and vote with the Greens and other parties to support an effects test.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (15:35): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator FIFIELD: The Harper review has considered the operation of the misuse of market power provisions as part of a broader examination of the competition framework and put forward the possible changes. The government is carefully considering its response to the competition policy review undertaken by Professor Harper. Among its 56 recommendations, the review made a strong case for amending the current misuse of market power provisions so that it aimed at a corporation with substantial market power from engaging in conduct that substantially lessens competition. The review found that Australia's current misuse of market power provisions had proven unworkable in practice. According to the review, without an effective misuse of market power provision, large powerful companies can undertake particular activities to the detriment of consumers. Harper's proposed reframing of section 46 seeks to address this. A formal government response is expected to be released in the last quarter of this year.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (15:36): I too seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator CANAVAN: I will support this motion because, as Senator Whish-Wilson said, it was something that was passed at the National Party conference on the weekend. Competition law is a very important part of our laws, because they allow and make sure that small businesses have the opportunities to compete and threaten big businesses. Without an effective competition law, big businesses will not be threatened but will be a protected species, and that will not be good for our market economy. The National Party has a strong and proud history of standing up for small business.

We were proud to support the government's root and branch review of the competition policy legislation and, as Senator Whish-Wilson has outlined, one outcome was a suggestion to reform and change section 46 of the act. While there are some issues around those changes, in broad terms the National Party does support these changes and we are happy to vote with Senator Whish-Wilson on this motion.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (15:44): A letter has been received from Senator Moore:

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

The Coalition Government's failure to provide the economic leadership our nation needs.

Is the proposal supported?

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

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

Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales) (15:44): I do think it is worth acknowledging, as other senators have done today, the contribution of the former Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott. He is certainly not someone who I have agreed with on many things—or anything, to be honest. But you have to understand and appreciate that there is a very personal element to these kinds of events. Sometimes in politics we forget that we are dealing with real people and real consequences. Again, while he is not someone who, on a policy level, I would necessarily agree with, I do want to acknowledge that there are people in this place who have contributed their lives to public policy. It may not be public policy that we all share and it may not be public policy that we all agree with, but in doing so those people do it in the way that they believe is best and in the national interest.

When we are talking about the economic path, plan and direction of this government, I think we really have a government with no plan for jobs and no plan for growth, and with no business confidence being built. There is no plan for emerging industry. What we have seen is a government that has been relying on slogans over substance and a complete and utter lack of economic leadership.

These are not simply words and language being used by me; this is the description that was used by the now Prime Minister of Australia about the economic performance of those opposite. The former Prime Minister, John Howard, said of Mr Turnbull a few hours ago:

… he has the capacity to explain economic concepts very clearly and very lucidly, and that, as he indicated yesterday, will be a very important part of the skill-set he brings to his new responsibilities.

What is that a demonstration of? It is a demonstration of the fact that this is a government that has failed on the economic front. But they have misunderstood what they have actually failed on. The problem has not just been how the message has been delivered; the problem is the product. The problem is what they are trying to sell. The problem is what they are trying to perpetrate against the Australian population.

What has been the common theme between these two governments—between this Abbott government and this new Turnbull government? It is that those right at the top have not necessarily changed. Sure, there might be one small change between who the Prime Minister is and who is not. But on all the other key economic positions there still has not been a change. And most damaging of all, we still have the same deputy leader driving the same economic policy—the same deputy leader who is now onto her fourth leader.

I appreciate that these are difficult things for people to participate in. I appreciate that these are not easy times. And I appreciate that people come to it with different perspectives. What I have never appreciated in politics is rank acts of disloyalty. And I will leave the judgement of disloyalty on that front for others to make.

But this is about their failure in the economy, on how this has been treated and on the role that the deputy leader and foreign minister—and a key member of cabinet—has had in these economic decisions. This morning I said that if the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party ever ran for the leadership there is a song that I think would be her campaign song. I said it would be Destiny's Child's Survivor—a song I know that you are very familiar with, Mr President.

But that sparked some other interest. Some other people put their own views forward. Rob Walter told me that I was wrong, that in fact it would be a song by the group called Survivor—Eye of the Tiger. Robert Gunner told me that in fact it would be MC Hammer's Can't Touch This. Tanya Plibersek, from the other place—the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party—chimed in and told me it would be Gloria Gaynor's, I Will Survive. Jordan Jansen told me it would be the Bee Gees' Stayin' Alive. Teo, all, as I affectionately refer to as 'Teo from Oz', as it is his Twitter handle, told me it would be Britney Spears', Oops, I Did It Again.

But then there was Samantha Ajardi, who brilliantly—and I think she was right on this—said that it would be Bob Marley's I Shot the Sheriff. Let's be clear here:

I shot the sheriff

But I didn't shoot no deputy.

The problem is with all these references is that they are kind of from the seventies, eighties and early nineties. I just do not think they are really relevant to the debate we are having as a nation now. But I will tell you who is relevant: Taylor Swift. And in Taylor Swift's poetic, beautiful and—I think—touching song, Blank Space, which really is a modern soliloquy on the Liberal Party, she says—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator DASTYARI: I am quoting a poet here. I notice that other senators are laughing; I just do not think they are treating this with the respect that it deserves:

Magic, madness, heaven, sin

Saw you there and I thought oh my god

Look at that face, you look like my next mistake

…   …   …

New money, suit and tie

I can read you like a magazine

Ain't it funny rumors fly

And I know you heard about me

…   …   …

So it's gonna be forever

Or it's gonna go down in flames

You can tell me when it's over

If the high was worth the pain

What we have here is a government in crisis, a government in dysfunction and a government that has completely fallen apart. What have they done? What is the decision they have made? They are prepared to throw anything or anyone overboard simply to protect their own political hides. But, frankly, they think the problem has been in the delivery of the message. The problem is in the message itself.

I noticed in question time today that Senator Ronaldson had a bit of a Freudian slip. I think he was trying to say that he was really worried about 'xenophobia', but he actually said he was worried about the 'xenophonic' attitudes of the Australian public. That is a new word. It means when there are one or more Nick Xenophons in the same place at the same time. I know that something, certainly at the South Australian level, has really frightened the Liberal Party. But, frankly, this is a government that is in crisis and is out of control. (Time expired)

Senator BACK: I thank Senator Moore—she is a gift that just keeps giving. I saw this today:

The Coalition Government’s failure to provide the economic leadership our nation needs.

My first message to Senator Moore, of course, is about the absolute disdain with which Senator Dastyari treated this question. Before he leaves the chamber, if Senator Dastyari wants to talk about deputy leaders and foreign ministers he need go no further than Ms Gillard, because one thing all of the leaders of our party know is that the deputy, Ms Bishop, was never there with a knife in her hand—do not worry about shooting sheriffs, it is that knife in the back—with every single solitary leader of this side or the other side looking to see whether the deputy was going to put the knife straight in. It is not the opportunity today to speak about public sector people in New York, but I will speak to Senator Dastyari and I will share with him the information that came to me from senior officials in our mission at the UN, and they will compare the performance of Ms Bishop with that of Messrs Rudd and Bob Carr—you would not have raised that comparison, Senator Dastyari.

I am delighted to speak about the performance of our government because it enables me to start with what the last crowd in government, the Labor Party, did. Of course they had inherited no net debt; they had a $20 billion surplus and they had $45 billion in the bank. There is an old saying in Western Australia: 'If you want to lose a surplus, vote in a Labor government.' And do not think that over six years they did not perform. The people of Canning will remember this on Saturday. What did they do with the $20 billion surplus in six years? They turned it into a $220 billion deficit. What did they do with the no net debt? They raced it towards $670 billion of debt. People in the gallery need to know that this country is borrowing $1 billion a month to pay the interest—not to repay the debt. Do colleagues know how much that is? It is two new primary schools a day. It is a new teaching hospital. The new teaching hospital in Perth, the children's hospital, is worth two months of interest on the debt. That is what this mob left us with. When Senator Moore invites me to comment on the failure of the economic leadership of our government, I say to her, 'Thank you very, very much.' Even in their last year Labor produced 11 estimates in 2013-14, eight of which they said were going to produce a surplus. We know the results of that. In government, just by way of comparison, the coalition's MYEFO estimate in 2014-15 was a $47 billion deficit. The budget estimate was $49.9 billion. What did it come down at? It came down at $48.5 billion. How close, how accurate—how excellent is that economic management?

Let me turn to the economic performance of this government. Already in two years the budget is $68 billion bigger. We have spent $50 billion repairing the budget. Is that economic failure? In two years there have been 313,000 new jobs, 440 a day, and half of them are for women. Compare that with the last three years of Labor—not 440 new jobs a day but 44—10 per cent of the coalition's performance. Some economic failure! It gets even better. In the eight months of this year, there have been 167,000 new jobs. That is 700 new jobs a day, seven days a week—outperforming the US, the UK, Canada and every other G7 country. Job advertisements are 16 per cent up from when we took over from Labor; retail sales are nine per cent higher; exports are 11½ per cent higher. Do I need to keep going on about the economic failure of the coalition government? I intend to. I intend to bury this issue. Dwelling starts have increased—and we know what new residential dwellings do. They create jobs in the construction industry. You would not believe it, would you? Residential dwelling starts are now 23 per cent higher than when we came into government two years ago—33½ thousand new dwellings. Multiply that by four, and that is the number of people in new homes—better than the absolute high point under the Labor government. One million construction workers are benefiting from this, a lot of them in the seat of Canning. Bankruptcies are at a 20-year low—15 per cent lower. Those opposite do not like this because they have to sit and listen to it—it is the fact. Investment in the services sector rose by 12 per cent last financial year, and the story gets even better. Last week Dun and Bradstreet said:

… we're seeing robust levels of optimism against all sectors in the Australian business community.

It is a shame for Labor in opposition to have to suffer this when we inherited what we did from them. In 2014 a record 223,000 new companies registered. Iron ore exports out Port Hedland were at a record level last month—34 million times, better than a million times a day.

What has the Labor Party done to assist us in this whole process? We remember the $5 billion of budget savings that Labor themselves announced prior to the last election that they were going to bring in with our support. What happened to that when it came into this chamber? They opposed it—they stood on the hose. That is what we are seeing with the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Gough Whitlam was their great hero, and fortunately for Gough he lived long enough to find a Prime Minister worse than himself, in Ms Gillard, but when he went to China, the first opposition leader, he was lauded by the opposition side. This is an interesting story; Senator Bullock might know it but apparently when Gough met Mao Tse-tung he was introduced as the Leader of the Opposition and Mao reportedly turned to a translator and said 'What's opposition?'. Whitlam should quite rightly be accorded credit for his work in establishing the relationship with China, and yet we see today in this place and in the other place, with poor leadership from Mr Shorten and Senator Wong, this opposition standing in the way of hundreds of thousands of opportunities. We will lose $600 million if we do not ratify this agreement by the end of this year, and another $600 million three weeks later. This is what the Labor Party is doing.

Senator Moore refers to economic leadership for our nation. Let me go through that topic in a little more detail. This is how the coalition government is delivering more jobs, stronger growth and a better economy in Australia at a time when, around the world, Asia and Europe are absolutely suffering. Yet see what Australia is doing: $5.5 billion in the last budget in the new Growing Jobs and Small Business package, which is already kick-starting economic growth, better outcomes and employment in the engine room of our economy. The Labor Party do not know about the engine room of the economy called small business; they think it is all either government employment or big business, who they can try to dominate. It is small business, where we have that $5.5 billion.

Again, in the small business sector, we see $3.25 billion in tax cuts for small business and $1.75 billion in accelerated depreciation measures, encouraging small business to start up and expand. Do you know what they do when they start up and expand? Senator Ruston knows—they employ people. And if those employees work well they get permanent employment and so the whole thing grows.

The next thing we want to look at is $6.8 billion in jobactive, the new employment services system, helping people get jobs which they will be able to sustain over time. Then we have a record $50 billion for infrastructure. Senator Dastyari was courteous to give some accolades to Mr Abbott. Certainly he will be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister, because he has invested that $50 billion in infrastructure for the 21st century.

I conclude my contribution with the three free trade agreements that Labor could not get anywhere near. Since 2007, when New Zealand negotiated a free trade agreement with China, their trade has gone up by a factor of five. It has quintupled. In that time, ours has doubled. If anybody wants to know the value of the free trade agreement with China to this country's economy, it is two against five. That is where the potential lies. The other side had better get on board.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:01): I rise to speak on the coalition's failure to provide the economic leadership that our nation needs. Certainly there is no greater proof of that than the last two years. On behalf of the Greens, may I say that we are thrilled to see the back of the former Prime Minister. I am personally thrilled to see the back of the nastiness, the small-mindedness, and the lack of vision and long-term planning. The new leadership is an opportunity for the coalition to reset. I hope that we will see some policy change. Australia is crying out for policy change. It would be incredibly depressing if we saw no policy change but just a different talking head. This is a real test for the government and for the new leader.

If there is to be genuine economic progress, clearly the biggest challenge, which the entire globe is facing, is how we tackle climate change. Of course it is an enormous environmental issue. Of course it is an enormous social and justice issue; but it is also an economic issue. It is the biggest economic issue of our time. There were some encouraging words said by the now Prime Minister yesterday. But then, when he was pressed on whether there would be any policy changes on climate change, I was very disheartened to hear the now Prime Minister say that he endorsed the climate policies of the former Abbott regime. Not only that, his deputy then chimed in and said they endorsed the targets that have been announced to take to Paris.

What a missed opportunity! I urge the government to reconsider. There is a genuine opportunity to create prosperity while we tackle this enormous threat to our very way of life, not to mention the life-support systems and the things that we hold dear. This is an enormous opportunity. The job creation potential in clean energy is so exciting. We saw that under the Renewable Energy Target Scheme, if it had not been slashed—sadly, both the parties ganged up to do that—there would have been $14½ billion of investment in large-scale renewables by 2020. How absolutely exciting. That is the future, and it could have been ours. Instead, we saw the target slashed from 41,000 to 33,000 gigawatt hours. That represented a loss of 6,000 future jobs.

It is very interesting to hear the focus on economic prosperity, because we know that until last night we have heard the lies, frankly, of big fossil fuel companies trotted out in this place like gospel—particularly in Queensland, where I am from. The initial promise by Adani, the Indian coal company, was that they would generate 10,000 jobs from their Carmichael coalmine. Under scrutiny they back-pedalled enormously and said, 'Actually, it is only 1,464—sorry, we got carried away there.' Yet we have still seen members of the frontbench in this place trot out that discredited and incorrect jobs figure.

Opening up coalmines in the Galilee Basin, including that Adani mine, is absolutely the wrong way to go. We should not be tipping $5 billion into a slush fund for fossil fuel infrastructure, which Adani is now seeking to access. We should not be going down that path. If we do not tackle global warming, then we see a real threat to the Great Barrier Reef and to our agricultural sectors. While we are in this economics frame, those two are enormous employers and enormous generators of prosperity. The reef employs more than 60,000 people and brings in more than $6 billion every year to our bottom line. If we look after that beautiful place, which is an absolute paradise and truly magical, we can bring that prosperity and those jobs in every year. That could be a sustainable prospect for us in Queensland and for the nation.

Likewise, if we safeguard our agricultural sector, help them transition to more sustainable farming methods, as they already wish to do and some are already doing, and genuinely tackle the impact that global warming will have on food production, rather than pockmarking farms with coal seam gas wells or turning them into enormous open-cut coalmines, we can safeguard those jobs as well.

We really need to start getting some long-term perspective onto these questions of where our future economic prosperity lies. We know it is not in last-century thinking. It is not in the big mines and the big old infrastructure items. It is in the exciting new areas of clean energy, innovation, science, and research and development of technology, and in our services sector and ecotourism. These are the green and prosperous economies of the future, which we know will provide employment and sustained income to our bottom line.

I hope we see moves in that direction. I think the Australian community is desperate to see a move in that direction. That is why it was very disappointing to hear the Prime Minister last night already ruling out changing the climate change policies of the Abbott government. He has no doubt had to bring an awful lot of climate sceptics along with him in order to ascend to the leadership, but I urge the Prime Minister to seriously base his policies on science. I urge all members in this place to restore the centrality of science to decision making, particularly as it pertains to climate change—which is intricately linked to our economic prosperity—and to realise that the momentum is on globally.

The transition towards a low-carbon economy is not some fringe, crazy notion as the leader of government business in the Senate would have us believe every time he howls us down when the Greens ask a question about climate change. It is actually fringe to not be making that transition. Look at the rest of the world. That transition is on; it is happening. And every day Australia is getting further and further behind—when we have some of the best clean energy resources in the world. We have some of the world's best sunshine, yet we have a government that is hamstringing the CEFC from investing in rooftop solar—or in wind, for that matter, because a bunch of people are awfully concerned about the health impacts of wind, of which there are none, and forget about the health impacts of coalmining, which are well known and actually documented by real scientists. I hope we see a diminution of the influence of the fossil fuels sector on both of the big parties. I am an eternal optimist. It remains to be seen whether anything will change. It needs to change. We cannot just have the same old, tired, failed policies with a slightly better salesperson at the helm.

Senator LINES (Western Australia) (16:08): Today is Mr Turnbull's first day as Prime Minister. It has been marked by the release of a NATSEM-Anglicare report that serves to demonstrate that the Liberal Party has yet again promoted another out-of-touch leader. This research for Anglicare Australia focuses on the changes in living standards for a broad range of family types in Australia up to 2014. It is almost like two worlds colliding. They could not be more different and they could not be more stark. One of the first points the report makes is that the gap between the rich—that is, Mr Turnbull—and the poor, those on low incomes and benefits, has only grown under his predecessor and shows no signs of slowing down. Our egalitarian culture and our fair go for all are now well and truly under attack by this LNP government.

The NATSEM/Anglicare report states very clearly that life will get harder for those on low incomes. For hundreds of thousands of Australians, their decline in living standards is a direct result of the proposed cuts to pensions and family tax benefits supported 100 per cent by Mr Turnbull. For wage earners it is the very low growth in wages supported by Mr Turnbull and his government. The report predicts flat growth over the next 10 years, along with a very low GDP. Income growth is slow, and last year members of the then Abbott government applauded that. But of course that affects what people have to spend. Whereas in the past wages growth has been about four to five per cent, it is now around two to three per cent. This is only marginally above inflation—not enough to enable individuals, couples or families to get ahead.

Earlier this year, in an arrogant attack on his own Public Service, Senator Abetz accused public servants of living in a 'pay rise paradise' and wrongly claimed that the Public Service had received wage increases far above those in the private sector. His economic leadership—or, rather, no economic leadership—failed to acknowledge that the ABS statistics, the real truth, and not Abbott's 'never let the truth get in the way of a story' rhetoric shows clearly that there is not very much difference between the public and private sectors on wage increases. In the decade between 2004 and 2014, private sector total wage growth was 42.5 per cent. In the same period the broader public sector wage growth was 45.9 per cent—hardly the pay rise paradise that Senator Abetz was trying to invent. The LNP government has failed its Public Service. There has been a high 'no' vote on the unfair Abetz enterprise bargaining deal, and levels of industrial action not seen in many years are now happening right across the public sector.

The LNP government, no matter who the leader is, has failed to provide any economic leadership. It has record unemployment and very high youth unemployment, particularly in the seat of Canning, where youth unemployment is at an alarming 14.6 per cent, with no plan to change that. Since the coalition government's first budget was handed down in May 2014, economic growth has slowed. The annual growth rate has declined from three per cent in the March quarter of 2014 to two per cent in the June quarter of 2015. Australian incomes are down right across the board, not just in the public sector. Living standards have fallen, and Australians' disposable income is down 1.8 per cent in real terms. Consumer confidence is down. Again, that has gone down since the coalition came into government. That is based on the Westpac-Melbourne Institute index. Wages growth has slumped. Apparently the LNP government thinks it is a good thing that wages growth has slumped. But of course it is not a good thing, because there is less money in the economy. Unemployment is up at record levels. It never had a six in front of it when Labor were in government, not even at the height of the global financial crisis. What a disgrace. Unemployment is well and truly up. Those opposite will talk about the jobs they have created. But what are those jobs? They are part time, casual and low paid, mainly occupied by women. That means those people need continued support from a government that is hell-bent on making sure that that support is not there—that wants to pull the rug away from families and from single parents struggling to survive under its harsh budget.

What is Mr Turnbull's response to that? We know he backed in both budgets of the LNP government. He backed them in 100 per cent. Today he has backed in the old-fashioned view of marriage equality to waste millions of taxpayers' dollars holding a vote that is not necessary, and he is sticking to an old-fashioned, outdated climate change policy. The coalition have well and truly bungled the economy, and it will not change under the leadership of Mr Turnbull.

All over this nation Australians have been hurt by the failed economic leadership of this government—formerly the Abbott government and now the Turnbull government. What is Mr Turnbull's approach? He just seems to think he needs to communicate better. The voters of Canning and, indeed, all voters across the country deserve better than that. But Mr Turnbull will not change. He will continue to back in, as he has done in the past, the harsh, unfair policies of the LNP government. The people of Canning know that—and, thankfully, they get to vote this Saturday.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (16:15): The voters of Canning and, indeed, all Australians understand the failure of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government to provide the economic leadership our nation needed six years ago. The voters in Canning—where I campaigned with Mr Randall during his very first attempt at the seat, which he was successful at—and, indeed, all Australians should look at the Australian economy.

Let's have a look at shipbuilding. The Labor government was in power for six years and did not do one thing to establish any forward trajectory for building the new ships that the Australian Navy desperately need. Let's look at the manufacturing industry. All of the problems of the Holden, Toyota and Ford motor vehicle companies occurred in the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. The problems for those motor car companies did not start the day Labor lost the election; they were a result of inaction by the Labor Party, and Senator Carr in particular, over the previous six years.

Let's go to agriculture and look at the Labor government's record there. The Labor Party are never supporters of agricultural industries. There was Senator Ludwig's decision to stop the live cattle export trade and the destruction that that brought to a once vibrant industry. That cost jobs, homes and properties. Let's have a look at financial management. Under the last year of the Howard government there was $60 billion in the nation's piggy bank in credit. At the end of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, there was nothing left of the $60 billion of credit, only a debt approaching $700 billion that was costing Australia $1 million a day in interest to foreign lenders.

Let's have a look at tourism. Under Labor there was no interest in the Barrier Reef and in supporting the tourism jobs there. All they did was tax and scare away any investment in the tourism industry. In the trade area, which is so essential to Australia's future, the Labor government tried and tried for six years. I do not think they could have tried very hard, because they achieved absolutely zero, zilch, nothing. In the two years of the coalition government there have been three trade agreements with our biggest trading partners—Japan, Korea and China. That is a wonderful effort that will create jobs.

I heard the previous speaker talk about climate change. Remember that Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of all global emissions. What did the Labor Party do? It shut down jobs in manufacturing and mining and exported jobs overseas so Australia could reduce its emissions of carbon by five per cent—five per cent of 1.2 per cent! Gee, that is going to save the world from climate change, isn't it? It was an absolutely ridiculous, ludicrous and nonsensical hoax on the Australian people. A number of jobs that used to be held by Australians were exported overseas in that crazy period of the carbon tax and the mining tax.

Mining, one of the most important job creators, particularly up in the north of Australia, was discouraged by the Labor Party with a mining tax! That tax just sent investment out of Australia to South Africa, South America and even some places that would make you wonder why anyone would dare to go to there. But the mining companies found it safer investing in Africa and South America than in Australia. Why? It was because of the Labor government's retrospective, unexplained and unheralded attacks on mining. That is the Labor government's record of economic leadership.

I will go through those things again to show what good economic leadership can do, starting with shipbuilding. What did the Abbott government do about shipbuilding? We announced contracts for Australian workers. That happened after six years of nothing by Labor. In manufacturing, we got rid of the carbon tax. We brought some sense to the renewable energy target so that Australians can feel confident that their jobs will be there tomorrow, particularly in the cement and aluminium industries, which, had Labor stayed in power, would have continued to be exported overseas because of Labor's crazy policies.

I have mentioned what Labor did with agriculture. By contrast, the coalition government has put out an agriculture white paper on the heels of a white paper on northern Australian development which encourage and support agriculture and show all Australians, but particularly farmers, that we are their friends and that we want to help. The Labor Party and their allies in the Greens would have had you believe that the Barrier Reef was ruined. I regret to say, Senator Waters, in a most un-Australian way, toured the world telling everybody not to go to the Barrier Reef because it was destroyed and damaged, a complete pack of lies—

Senator Waters: Acting Deputy President O'Neill, I raise a point of order. Just to clarify: it was actually government ministers that toured the world. I did not tour the world. I can do my job from Queensland to protect the reef.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Clearly, there is not a point of order. I always get these frivolous points of order when I expose to those who might be listening to this debate the absolute hypocrisy of the Greens political party and the way that they—and Senator Waters in particular—set out to destroy the Barrier Reef and Queensland's wonderful tourism industry. As Senator Waters or anyone would know if they ever bothered to go to the Barrier Reef, it is still one of the seven natural wonders of the world. It is something that should be talked up not talked down as Senator Waters and her mates in the Greens political party do.

In trade, Labor could do nothing. I have mentioned that the coalition has three new trade agreements—two confirmed and a third one with China on exactly the same terms and conditions as to employment as others. Suddenly, the Labor Party are opposed to that. Senator Wong, as shadow trade minister, should hang her head in shame. This is an absolute disgrace, and I cannot help thinking that it is the Labor Party returning to their old White Australia roots. Remember the old White Australia policy promoted by the Labor Party? If you did not have white skin, you could not get a job in Australia. Now it seems to me—

Senator Moore: What did the Liberal Party do about it?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That was the Labor Party policy, wasn't it?

Senator Moore: What did the Liberal Party do about it?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Was it the Labor Party policy? Who introduced that? Was it Arthur Calwell who made some comments about that? I will debate that with you—

Senator Moore interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): Senator Macdonald, I ask you to make your remarks through the chair please. And Senator—

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I would appreciate if you could protect me from these vicious interjections by Senator Moore trying to shout me down in exposing the truth that the White Australia policy was Labor's. In fact, it was Mr Menzies who got rid of that vile policy. The way the Labor Party are going on in this xenophobic way with the China free trade agreement, you would think that some in the party want to return to the 'good old' White Australia policy days. You would almost think that, for some reason, they are anti-Asian or anti-Chinese. There is no fact in their argument. Clearly, the China free trade agreement will create jobs for Australians and wealth for Australians.

All through the coalition government, the approach is to good financial management that does not leave Australia like Greece. Australia has to pay off the debts that it runs up, but the Labor Party have no plan for that. We will do that. At the same time, we will continue to create new jobs, like the 17,000 jobs alone that were created just in August of this year. We will continue to encourage exports, encourage productivity in Australia and get Australia moving. One of the ways that we will do that, of course, is to bring a crooked union movement to account, and the royal commission is doing that. The Abbott and Turnbull governments have everything to be proud of in their economic management, unlike the Labor Party.

Senator BULLOCK (Western Australia) (16:26): The mission of the Australian Labor Party is to defend and advance economic opportunity for the working people of this country and for their families. This is the economic leadership that our nation needs.

Today, Australia is entering a new period of leadership under a new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and we are entitled to ask what this leadership holds for working people. There are some important indicators of the substance of this leadership—rather than merely the style—which are worthy of drawing to the attention of the Australian people. Firstly, we have the perspective of our Treasurer, Mr Hockey, which he offered just yesterday. Before commenting on the outrageous disloyalty of some, he said, and I quote,

Mr Turnbull made a number of claims about economic leadership that are completely unfounded. He has never said to me or to the cabinet that we are heading in the wrong economic direction.

So there it is from the Treasurer himself. Mr Turnbull has consistently endorsed the economic direction set out by Mr Hockey. He has endorsed the cuts to health. He has endorsed the cuts to education. He has endorsed the cuts to the ABC and SBS. He has endorsed all of the government's broken promises—the cuts to the dementia and severe behaviours supplement, the increased tax on petrol, the $100,000 university degrees and the attempts to further impoverish pensioners by cutting their indexation arrangements. All of the horrendous measures proposed by Mr Hockey in the government's 2014 budget, along with all of those measures which have been carried over into the 2015 budget, bear the Turnbull stamp of approval.

So that is Mr Turnbull's past and his present, but what of his future? What is the guiding philosophy which will set the tone of his impending leadership of the nation? Helpfully, Mr Turnbull set out his philosophy in his victory speech last night, when he said words that will, hopefully, haunt him throughout the remaining few months of his purloined prime ministership. He said:

It will be a thoroughly Liberal Government committed to freedom, the individual and the market.

This is the Turnbull philosophy: a world of individuals freely striving alone against market forces, a world of individuals needing to be agile and to be more and more competitive to survive the buffeting of market forces, and a Darwinian world of self-interest and self-service in which only the fittest survive.

Mr Turnbull understands self-interest. As former Liberal Premier of Victoria Mr Kennett said yesterday of Mr Turnbull's challenge: 'It's about self-interest. It's not about community.' There, in a nutshell, is the difference between the economic leadership offered by the elitist Mr Turnbull and that which will be provided by a Shorten Labor government. Labor does not see a dog-eat-dog world of individuals in which the fittest survive. Labor sees the individual as a member of a family, as a member of the community and as a member of society. Labor seeks opportunities for people, for families and for society. Labor's vision is a big, broad, generous vision: leadership to take us forward as a society, not to advance one at the expense of another; economic leadership for the nation, not just for the few, the privileged, the winners—the people who believe that $100 million entitles you to the prime ministership.

Labor supports free trade while protecting Australian jobs. Labor wants to open the doors of educational opportunity, providing affordable training for the jobs of the future. Labor stands for fair taxation, recognising capacity to pay, not regressive arrangements favouring the rich, like increasing the GST to fund tax cuts for the wealthy while failing to close loopholes offering tax avoidance opportunities to multinational corporations. Labor stands for a fair day's pay with appropriate penalty rates for work at unsociable hours and for the right of unions to negotiate collectively for their members. Labor stands for a healthcare system accessible through Medicare, not through your credit card. Labor is prepared to meet the challenges of protecting our environment, not shy away from it. Labor stands for a modern communication system, not one cobbled together with copper wires. Labor stands for the many, not for the few; for the family, for society, not for the individual and the unrestrained market. Labor provides economic leadership for the whole nation, not just for Point Piper. As has been observed elsewhere, when choosing a model for leadership, 'We're all in this together' trumps 'You're on your own'. In closing, I trust the Australian community will come to respond to Mr Turnbull in the same way that Mr Kennett did yesterday when he said, 'I will never, ever, ever vote for Malcolm Turnbull', and then added, to avoid doubt, 'Ever.'

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:31): The really lucky thing for Jeff Kennett, who is 'never, ever, ever, ever going to the vote for Malcolm Turnbull', is that unless he moves into the seat of Wentworth he is never going to have to.

It seems somewhat ironic that the matter of public importance that has been put on the Notice Paper by the Labor Party today is in relation to economic management. There is a certain irony in us being lectured by the Labor Party about economic leadership. I listened to Senator Bullock's contribution with great interest. I have a lot of respect for Senator Bullock's opinions and views on many things, and much of what he said I thought probably made an awful lot of sense. The only problem was that when his side were in government I do not think they delivered many of the things that Senator Bullock has just aspired for the Labor Party; they do not hold true. So while it was a fabulous ideological speech, I am not necessarily sure there was any substance in the delivery of it whatsoever. To be lectured by the Labor Party, a party that promised surplus after surplus after surplus after surplus and recorded nothing but deficit after deficit after debt after debt after deficit, does strike me as being rather extraordinary. It seems that the minute the coalition were elected to parliament and the Labor Party were removed to the opposition benches, they immediately forgot everything that they had done and have spent this whole time criticising us for things that we have done, even though much of the activity in the economic space during their watch had been nothing short of complete and utter abject disaster.

Many of the behaviours and actions of those opposite, following the election of the coalition government, were somewhat more mischievous than just sitting there throwing bricks at us. They actually stood in the way of approximately $5 billion worth of their own budget savings, savings that they had already put on the record prior to the election that they were intending to implement in order to deal with the issues of the debt and deficit, problems that I think the entire Australian public would be in no doubt whatsoever about—that is, that we have a problem with debt and deficit. To then come into this place and deny the incoming coalition government the opportunity to realise the savings that they had already put on the public record prior to the election was quite extraordinary.

Another thing I found extraordinary is the situation we have at the moment with ChAFTA. There is absolutely no doubt, as I said this morning and as I have probably said a thousand times since I arrived in this place, that Australia is an exporting nation. We are never going to get rich selling to ourselves, because we do not have the population or the capacity to sustain a population that will allow us to continue to sell to ourselves. So the most important thing that we can do in an economic management sense is to make sure that we develop our export markets so that Australian businesses can prosper in their manufacturing, in their production, and can sell overseas, because unless businesses in Australia are prosperous, there will be no jobs.

I acknowledge that the most important thing that we can do in Australia is to make sure that every Australian has a job. Most particularly it would be nice to think that every Australian could have a job that they liked, a job that was going to give them the economic prosperity, the lifestyle and the standard of living that all of us aspire to have. That is the bottom line, but we cannot deliver that unless we give the prosperity and the economic ability for growth and prosperity to businesses. To be standing in the way of the China free trade agreement, our largest trading partner in the world, is an absolute disgrace. To then come into this place today and criticise us about economic leadership—the economic leadership shown by those opposite was some of the worst that this country has ever seen. I probably would not trust the Labor Party to run a chook raffle when it came to economic management.

The track record of this government has been very good. There is certainly no doubt, and I do not think anybody in this place, no matter who they are, would not agree that we can always do better in the economic space, but what I would ask those opposite is to please allow us the opportunity to do better in this economic space. Allow us to implement the policies that we went to the Australian public with in 2013. Allow us to be able to give businesses incentives so that they can create the jobs and so that those jobs can go to the people who we all agree are the reason we actually govern this country. The coalition government has got a good track record. I agree we could have a better track record. I can say, for one, that I am very keen to work with this government to make sure that we increase the economic prosperity of this country.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (16:36): We have heard a lot from the latest Prime Minister during the last 24 hours about economic leadership, but we have not heard a lot about what that phrase actually means. Australians are familiar with the opposite of economic leadership, of course, because that is what we have suffered for the last two years. Economic leadership is not a treasurer who spooks markets by releasing a press release every time he has had a thought bubble because he is not prepared to work up proper policy proposals. Economic leadership is not a prime minister or indeed a former prime minister who is so disengaged from the economy that he thinks a grocery code of conduct is an acceptable response to the challenge of the European debt crisis earlier this year. Economic leadership is not a communications minister, or a former communications minister, who claims to be interested in the opportunities presented by technology but who guts the NBN to ensure that Australian businesses have to face the challenges of the future using the technologies of the past. Economic leadership is not a small business minister who leaves the business community in a state of suspense about whether anti-competitive changes to competition law will or will not be enacted. Economic leadership is not a social services minister who lets youth unemployment climb to 19.1 per cent—the highest rate in 16 years—and then decides that the proper policy response is to punish young people by forcing them to live on nothing while they apply for the Newstart allowance. Economic leadership is not a government that is asleep at the helm whilst 781,000 Australians are out of work—a 13-year high—when GDP growth has contracted to just two per cent, when the budget deficit doubled in the last 12 months, and when consumer sentiment has slumped 15 per cent since the coalition came to office.

What does economic leadership look like? The government has a responsibility to create policy settings that enable businesses to grow and to create prosperity for the nation. But it needs to do this in a responsible and evidence-driven way that is clear and is communicated to all. That is the only way to avoid the capital strike that some commentators say is confronting our economy. That is a bare minimum of competent governance. But economic leadership requires much, much more.

The business community is not a single entity. It has marquee companies that benefit from existing regulations, and technological disrupters who want to change the status quo. It has price makers and price takers. It has importers and exporters. Economic leadership is about balancing those competing interests in a way that is fair. It is about investing in research and development so that we can provide Australian businesses and workers with the tools they need to be competitive in the future. Can we expect this from a man who supported $100,000 university degrees? Can we expect it from a man who was happy with the coalition government ripping millions of dollars from higher education and from science and research?

The economy consists of more than just business, as Senator Bullock has pointed out. It includes us as employees and as consumers. Economic leadership requires the benefits of growth and the fruits of prosperity to be distributed fairly. Can we expect this from a man who unhesitatingly endorsed a GP tax and cuts to hospitals and schools?

Economic leadership may require decisions that cut across your political interests. It may require you to raise taxes on highly profitable companies that have the clout to run media campaigns. It may require you to cut benefits to wealthy people in your electorate. Can we expect this from a man whose own colleagues accuse him of having put himself first throughout his career? Can we expect principled decisions from a man who declared former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's climate policies to be 'bull', and now shows no inclination to change them once in power?

When the latest Prime Minister is called upon to show economic leadership, the loudest voices in his ears are going to be the voices of those who have the most to lose—the men who have a silver spoon firmly in their mouths. The question is: can we trust this man to make decisions for all Australians? Can we trust him to show economic leadership? History says no.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): Are there any other senators wishing to speak in the MPI debate this afternoon? There being no other speakers, I declare the time for discussion expired.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) (16:44): On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, Mr Robb, I table the 2015 ministerial investment statement.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (19:20): I wish tonight to talk about the Australian flag. On 3 September 114 years ago, a bit of cloth—a blue flag, our flag—11 metres long and five and a half metres wide was raised for the first time from the main dome of the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne, then the home of our Commonwealth parliament. Whether on the battlefield or sporting grounds or diplomatic posts or schools or homes—just like mine on the Sunshine Coast—right across this country, the Australian flag, that blue flag of stars and crosses, has come to symbolise our young Federation and the values for which we stand.

The origins of our flag are rather unique. In April 1901, the Prime Minister, Sir Edmund Barton, announced that a competition would be held to design a federal Australian flag. Over 32,000 entries were received with five near-identical entries being awarded equal first place and sharing in the prize of 200 pounds. On 3 September 1901, at approximately half past two, the Prime Minister announced the winning design and that bit of cloth, that blue flag was raised.

The Commonwealth star—originally six pointed—represented the six colonies that united to become the Commonwealth. The seventh point was added in December 1908 to represent all of the federal territories, which when combined with the states constituted the nation.

The five-star Southern Cross, an ancient and constant presence in our night sky, represents our place in the world; and the Union Jack, comprising the crosses of St George, St Andrew and St Patrick, serves to represent the principles and ideals inherited from the United Kingdom on which our nation was founded: parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech and the liberty of the individual.

This flag, our flag, was flown for the first time at the Olympic Games in St Louis in 1904, where there was only one Australian competing. In 1908, all military establishments were ordered to fly the flag. On Christmas Day 1912, Frank Wild, a member of Sir Douglas Mawson's Australasian Antarctic Expedition, raised the flag to take possession of Queen Mary Land, which is now part of the Australian Antarctic Territory.

In theatres of war—in Europe, the Pacific, the jungles of Papua New Guinea and Vietnam, East Timor, Afghanistan, the Middle East and in many other places—the Australian flag has been flown as a beacon of the freedoms and liberties for which countless brave Australian men and women have fought. I believe that all serving Australian Defence Force personnel should be gifted an Australian flag to honour their service to their nation. It disappointed me, when I was recently in the Middle East, meeting with serving personnel of the Australian Defence Force, to find out that they had had to buy their own flags to take over with them. I call upon the government to make sure that all who serve in the Australian Defence Force are given a flag, rather than being forced to go on the internet and pay money for one, and I will be writing to the new Prime Minister to ask him to make this one of the first acts of his government.

The Flags Act was personally signed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in February 1954. And I digress to congratulate—along with my good friend Senator Smith here—Her Majesty on becoming the longest reigning monarch in British and Australian history. Her Majesty has served Australia and the rest of the Commonwealth nations with grace and dignity for over 63½ years, a reassuring figure in what is sometimes an uncertain world. The Flags Act 1953 was amended to require that a referendum of all Australians be held in order to change the flag.

Australian National Flag Day, on 3 September, is an occasion on which to reflect on this national symbol and the values it represents, and organisations such as the Australian National Flag Association do great work in building community understanding of the flag and its history. I am an ardent supporter of free speech—the right of people to be quite rude about each other. However, I do find it reprehensible when hooligans and troublemakers who have no respect for Australian values, of for the sacrifices of those who fought for those values, burn, damage or otherwise desecrate our flag. It is my belief that burning or damaging with criminal intent the Australian flag should be an offence, and I note that my colleague George Christensen in the other place intends to introduce a bill to amend the Flags Act— (Time expired)

Senator PERIS (Northern Territory) (19:25): I rise tonight to mourn the passing of a great Territory man, radio presenter Pete Davies, who passed away recently after a long battle with cancer. Pete has gone from us in body but he is still with us in spirit. We are still coming to terms with not having his distinct voice and passion on our airwaves every day. He is sorely missed in the Top End of our country and further afield. My deepest condolences go to Pete's family: his wife, Vicki; their two sons, Shannon and Brodie; and Shannon's wife, Courtney, and their children.

Pete was in our homes, our cars and trucks, our boats and our workplaces in the mornings and throughout the week over months and years as a radio presenter on Mix 104.9 and in particular, in more recent years, at the helm of his current affairs program, 360.

Pete was a champion of social justice. He was passionate about working to assist people who suffered from depression, also called 'the black dog', which he also battled through the years. His work with beyondblue and advocacy work around mental health was heartfelt, consistent and important. I have no doubt he saved lives through his advocacy and his companionship, whether it was over the airwaves, at the pub or out fishing. Pete's wife, Vicki, asked me to include this verse on her behalf tonight:

While on this ride called 'life', you have to take the good with the bad, smile when you're sad, love what you've got and remember what you had. Always forgive, but not forget. Learn from your mistakes, but never regret. People change. Things go wrong. Just remember, the ride goes on.

Pete's tag line was 'Pete Davies and 360—he may not agree with you but he will always let you have your say', and he did, regardless of whether it was on the radio or in the street. It was a tag line for his democratic resolve for his Territory listeners, and he was very much loved for his ability to ask the questions that he knew his listeners wanted answered.

Pete was a champion of the building of the Palmerston hospital right from the start, both as a radio presenter and as an alderman on the Palmerston City Council. Probably more than any other Territorian, he kept the hospital on the agenda and kept us Territory politicians accountable. It would be a fitting tribute—and I really like this suggestion from Territory Labor leader Michael Gunner—that we name the Palmerston hospital, when it is eventually built, in memory of Pete: the Pete Davies Memorial Hospital.

Pete very much enjoyed giving daily updates on the weather and sea conditions on our 'great northern pond', our beautiful Darwin Harbour. He loved fishing. My friend and former federal member for Solomon Damian Hale was a great mate of Pete's and had this to say about him:

Pete Davies was a true Territorian up front and honest. Regardless of whether you agreed with Pete or not, you couldn't help but admire his passion and love for the Northern Territory and willingness to represent the best interests of those who didn't have a voice.

He took them all to task, Prime Ministers and Ministers, Departmental Heads or leaders from the Private sector, he treated them with fairness and let them have their say.

Pete had a sharp intellect and a quick wit on air however away from the cut and thrust of morning radio he was a gentleman and a true friend to many people.

I worked with him when I was a Member of Parliament, to put issues effecting the Territory front and centre in the minds of his listeners, we enjoyed a beer together and a good laugh.

I miss Pete Davies, a great friend and Territorian who loved his wife Vicky, his boys and the Territory lifestyle. Rest in Peace Pete Davies.

There will be a public memorial service for Pete at the Fannie Bay turf club at 1 pm this Friday. As I am committed to a Senate committee hearing on Friday, I will not be able to attend and I send my sincere apologies to Vicki and the rest of Pete's family. I know it will be very well attended because Pete was well loved by everyone. I will always remember Pete by his own words. 'If you don't make any noise, then you don't get heard,' he used to say. Pete, you were heard, mate, and you gave Territorians a chance to be heard as well.

Pete gave so much to Territorians, and there have been many moving and heartfelt tributes. So I want to finish by giving Territorians a voice in this place this evening, in the same way that Pete gave them a voice on our airwaves every single day: good on you, Pete; we miss you, mate. May you rest in peace.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:29): I rise tonight to talk about the marine environment.

Not long after the Abbott government came to power, they got rid of Australia's world-leading marine reserves and sanctuaries by getting rid of the management plans for those reserves, which effectively meant they were just lines on the map. They have subsequently been carrying out a review so they can make a decision supposedly by the end of this year about the future of what was clearly a world-leading system of marine protected areas—marine reserves and sanctuaries—around this country. In doing that, they were listening to the big end of town and some people in the recreational fishing sector and in the recreational fishing industry. What they did not do was listen to other stakeholders when they made that decision to get rid of our marine reserves.

So it is with pleasure tonight that I seek leave to table a statement on sanctuaries from the Australian dive industry. I understand that I have the agreement of the parties in the chamber to table that statement.

Senator Colbeck: I haven't seen it.

Senator SIEWERT: This statement outlines some very significant—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Lines ): Senator Siewert, just a moment. The government is saying they have not seen the statement.

Senator SIEWERT: Yes, they have. Senator Bushby has seen it. I gave it to him at lunchtime. He has actually just been in the whips meeting.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps you can check back through your whips. Please continue, Senator Siewert.

Senator COLBECK: I don't know anything about it, and it's my portfolio.

Senator SIEWERT: Senator Colbeck, I assure you I have undertaken the process correctly.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please continue.

Senator SIEWERT: This statement from the Australian dive industry says—and I will not quote it all but I will quote a little bit of it:

As owners and operators of dive and snorkel businesses across Australia, we have significant concerns about any loss of protection for unique underwater environments through the Abbott Government’s current review of Australia’s network of marine parks and sanctuaries.

It goes on at some length detailing their concerns. At the end it says:

We call on all Members of Federal Parliament to support the health and growth potential of the Australian dive and snorkel industry by retaining and improving Australia’s world-leading network of marine sanctuaries where the industry and science suggests and commencing their operation as soon as possible.

The government have trashed our marine protected areas for the time being; but you would think that, even if they were not interested in protecting marine biodiversity, they would champion a more fiscally responsible approach. But the government have neglected to look at the significant impact that the dive and snorkel industry brings to the Australian economy in the form of tourism. That industry relies on a good system of marine sanctuaries. Protecting marine biodiversity is what this industry depends on.

The Centre for Conservation Geography has estimated that the industry—an industry that is directly threatened if our marine biodiversity is threatened—could be worth as much as $4.2 billion. Bear in mind that Australia has unique marine biodiversity. If you are not interested in protecting the marine environment, how about looking at what that marine environment does for our economy? The government clearly has not looked at that. They clearly did not engage the dive industry in their process of decision making when they got rid of the marine protected areas, reserves and sanctuaries by getting rid of the marine plans.

I share the concerns of the dive industry. I commend this statement to the chamber and I urge the Turnbull government to get a move on with the review and put our world-leading series of marine sanctuaries back in place so that we can be assured that our unique marine biodiversity is protected in perpetuity and that industries that rely on marine protection, like the Australian dive industry, actually have a chance. Not only do we want our marine species and unique environments to continue to exist, we also want these sorts of industries that rely on them to continue to exist.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted to table the document?

Senator Colbeck: No.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will check back on that, Senator Siewert.

Senator SIEWERT: Can I just say that I am very disappointed. I specifically spoke twice to the coalition whip. It means that that system is worth nothing if now I can be denied leave to table this statement.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Siewert; we are not getting into a debating point. My advice is that we are checking. I have heard 'no' from the government side so the best we can do is check. Senator Williams.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales) (19:35): I rise tonight to speak about what I consider to be a big problem here in our country. I want to focus on the property investment industry. The property investment industry involves giving advice to potential property investors, which may include: advice relating to their personal circumstances, advice about what property to buy, and advice about the tax and borrowing structure to employ. It is an unregulated industry. You do not need to be licensed, qualified or educated to be a property investment advisor. There is no requirement to indicate what commissions are received. The growing popularity of property investment via self-managed super funds makes this even more alarming, with poor investment decisions putting the retirement of potentially millions of Australians at risk.

ABS data shows that financing for property investment purposes has accounted for as much as 40 per cent of all housing finance activity. Self-managed super funds are the fastest growing segment of Australian superannuation. As of June 2013 self-managed super funds held around $500 billion worth of assets, almost one-third of the $1.6 trillion superannuation industry total assets at that time

According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, this compares to just a nine per cent portion of the industry's assets in 1995. The number of self-managed super fund member accounts has also doubled over the past decade.

In September 2007, changes were made to super legislation which allowed self-managed super funds to borrow money to purchase assets under limited recourse conditions. With more than two thirds of Australians purchasing at least one property and because it is often the highest-value asset a household possesses, a lack of regulation is hard to comprehend. As noted by the Reserve Bank in its September 2013 Financial Stability Review, promotion of self-managed superannuation funds including their use for geared property investment has increased in recent times and the central bank has flagged its intentions to keep a close eye on this market. It believes it represents a vehicle for potentially speculative demand for property which has not existed in the past.

In July 2010 the federal government welcomed the final report of the Review into the Governance, Efficiency, Structure and Operation of Australia's Superannuation System—the Cooper review. This report found that the self-managed super fund system is largely successful and well-functioning. While significant changes are not required, it noted that there are still a number of noticeable issues which, for the most part, do not directly relate to trustees and members but rather service providers and the wider regulatory framework. The report found that trustees are often dependent on service providers whose current minimum standards of self-managed super fund knowledge are inadequate and that the level and quality of information available is inadequate given its significance. With more than two-thirds of Australians purchasing at least one property, and it often being the highest-value asset a household possesses, the lack of regulation is unbelievable. This is what worries me—mum and dad investors use the equity that they have built up in their family home to make property investment purchases.

How do you become a property investment adviser? It is simple. I will give you an example: I retire and walk out of the Senate. I open an office and I put a sign up, 'John Williams, property investment adviser. 'I have no education, no experience, no licence is required, there is no regulatory control over what I do. The scary thing is that someone might say, 'I am about to develop 200 units, John Williams—for every person you tell to invest in my development and they buy a unit I will give you $40,000.' For example, Senator Ketter walks into my office and says, 'Look, I want to buy an investment property, I have a self-managed super fund, what can you advise me on?' 'Oh, Senator Ketter, I have just the thing for you—200 units are being built here with water views, there is a $200,000 deposit and they are $700,000 each—buy one of them.' I have no history of giving advice, I have no education, there is no regulation over me, there is no licence for me to have, there is no regulation to say how much upkeep of my knowledge in the industry I have to do; I just push them into the investment and I get a big kickback from the developer. This is crazy. We have been through financial planning problems, and I can see a Senate inquiry coming up soon to look at this very important issue of property investment advice and make sure this issue is addressed and that people do not get the wrong advice and do not gamble with their savings or their self-managed super funds. It is unacceptable that there are no requirements to be a property investment adviser. The Senate Economics References Committee has to have a good look at this to sort this industry out.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia) (19:41): Spring is a remarkable time in Western Australia. From picnics in Kings Park amongst the wildflowers, watching humpback whales migrating from Albany to Exmouth, experiencing the Shinju Matsuri pearl festival in Broome or cheering the top two teams in the AFL finals, it is a time when the entire state comes alive and basks in the warm weather and vast array of exciting events that mark the end of winter. In WA's Wheatbelt, the end of the winter rains marks the beginning of the nervous wait amongst Australia's largest wheat growers, who know too well that this year's bumper harvest can all too easily be hit with frost or wet weather. It is a feeling shared by WA livestock producers who wonder whether this year's lambing season will be impacted by a weakening dollar or loss of access to lucrative markets.

This is why it was refreshing to see the high levels of optimism expressed by WA farmers at this year's Dowerin GWN7 Machinery Field Days, which I attended along with one of the strongest contingents of Western Australian federal and state Liberal members of parliament. This positive shift in the outlook for the upcoming season had a huge impact on the success of the event, with a record number of exhibitors and close to 23,000 visitors attending, which was well up on the long-term average for gate numbers. Exhibitors also reported high sales and a significant number of positive inquiries, with many farmers banking on a respectable season for the first time in many years. Many long-term Dowerin patrons reported that the quality of this year's exhibits was the best it has ever been, with the site absolutely packed with new agricultural machinery and related equipment.

However, as anyone who has ever spent time in the bush knows, farmers are a cautious mob, especially in times of pending good fortune. It is a nature brought on by having a million-dollar crop destroyed by hail or having livestock dying from thirst. It is a caution bred from having your market taken away at the swipe of a ministerial pen or being compelled through legislation to export your grain through a single desk. This is a caution that remains despite having a Liberal government that recognises the value and importance of our farmers; a government that supports their industry; a government that is committed to improving their farm gate returns—a government that has delivered three new trade agreements, seven new livestock export markets and 42 technical market access gains; a government that has delivered improved drought concessional loans, tax deductions for new on-farm water facilities and fodder storage assets; and a government that is reducing debt, creating jobs and supporting our farmers.

It is a caution that remains due to the Labor Party and the CFMEU's continued attack on the China free trade agreement, an agreement that will further expand the excellent trading relationship that WA farmers have with China already. It is a caution that remains due to the Labor Party and the Greens' determination to end the live export trade. It is a caution that remains due to the refusal of WA Nationals leader Terry Redman to rule out forming a government with the Labor Party after the next state election in 2017—the same Labor Party that opposes free trade, live exports, GM canola and oil and gas exploration. WA Nationals leader Terry Redman has made it clear that the WA Nationals are an independent party—independent of the conservative, centre-right Liberal Party. The former leader, Brendon Grylls, says that he sees the WA Nationals, once again, running as independents at the next federal election—independent of the coalition; independent of policies that have delivered free trade agreements, supported live exports and deregulated port access for WA's largest grain handler, CBH; independent of policies that have favoured the rollout of the NBN in rural and regional areas over metropolitan areas and addressed mobile phone black spots in regional WA; and independent of the coalition's National Wild Dog Action Plan, including funding for on-ground control measures, including fencing, to support Western Australian livestock producers.

The WA Nationals' willingness to join with and support the policies of the Australian Labor Party for their own political advantage is the cause of great concern throughout regional Western Australia. WA and regional communities remain cautious. Regional Western Australians deserve political leaders who are open and up front with their policies and will champion their issues. This is why I will continue to work with my federal and state Liberal parliamentary colleagues to realise the bright future our farmers and regional communities deserve.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia) (19:45): Tonight I rise to pay tribute to AFL CEO Mr Gillon McLachlan and his commissioners for the outstanding work they do in administering our most successful and truly national game.

As a senator for Western Australia, I am delighted by the prospect of a Derby Grand Final in Melbourne, hopefully, at the beginning of October. I am wearing my colours proudly tonight and I hope our team at the West Coast Eagles are working hard for what is, hopefully, two more winning games of football in this final series. But, as we all know, a part of our great game is that anything can happen on the day in terms of winning or losing.

The AFL administration has been through a tough couple of years, and throughout it all they have met every challenge to protect the integrity of the game to ensure its enjoyment by millions of Australians across our great country. Footy is part of the Australian way of life. It is often joked in politics that you cannot hold an election at the end of September because interfering with the viewing of the football finals is practically sacrilegious in our country. Despite our broad and varied sporting interests, there is none more entrenched in Australian culture and our way of life than the great Australian game. It is a game designed by Australians for Australians. It is fast paced, entertaining, a close, skilful contest and, above all else, a joy to watch.

The AFL plays an important role in enabling the sport to thrive. We have had two additional teams join the AFL in the past five years and club memberships across the board are on the rise, with almost 200,000 spectators, often many more, enjoying the game every weekend during the home and away season. This would not have been achieved without good management and hard work. I commend Gil and his team for all that they have achieved. I can see that under his leadership the AFL is going to have an exciting future and will only continue to enjoy greater and greater success.

The recent broadcast rights deal struck by the AFL is a fantastic announcement for football lovers. Greater access to watch our great game is critical to the sport's continued support and importance. In WA the state and federal governments have teamed up to deliver a brand new stadium in 2017 with an increased capacity to allow more Western Australians to watch the game live. Going to a football game is a great Australian experience, and the commitment by the state and federal governments, the West Coast Eagles and the Fremantle Dockers to improve community involvement in the game in WA is a great credit to both clubs.

When I had the privilege of serving our country as defence minister I had immense gratitude to the AFL for the sponsorship of AFL subscriptions that they provided to the Australian Defence Force. This support meant that our fighting men and women serving overseas could still enjoy a game of Aussie Rules whilst recuperating from very hard days in the field. The service of the men and women in our armed forces is often not recognised enough. They give up so much for the defence, security and freedom of our country, and the little things are often what provide the greatest comfort to them whilst on deployment many, many thousands of miles away from home. The ability to offer live streaming of an AFL game has immeasurable value towards bringing a little piece of home to our people in their bases. I thank the AFL very sincerely for this.

It is with a little sadness that I rally behind the finals campaign of my team, the West Coast Eagles. I know that my great friend Don Randall, the former federal member for Canning, is looking down on them urging them on to victory. Don and I often spoke of the great ability football had to bring people together. It is a great game that embodies the Australian spirit. It is not an easy game—it involves four long quarters that require incredible fitness, skill and determination in playing to win.

Finally, for many of us the Western Australian teams are receiving the respect they deserve from the east coast, particularly from those in Victoria, the proud home of Australian Rules football. This is a great achievement for the WA teams, given their travel schedules. The prospect of not one, but two WA preliminary finals at Subiaco in a fortnight's time had, until now, been nothing more or less than a pipedream. I cannot wait to see this repeated at the new Burswood Stadium in Perth in the future. This is also a fantastic send off for Subiaco Oval, which has served Western Australian football for very many years. We all have fond memories of watching, firstly, the WANFL, then the WAFL and now the AFL at Subiaco. In my case, it all began when I was about nine years old in the early sixties.

The Eagles have had a remarkable season this year, ascending from discounted cellar dwellers to premiership favourites. The Eagles have surprised everybody with their ability to deal with and cover serious long-term injuries in defence and have shown they are a champion team, not a team of champions. I am conscious of the fact that the West Coast Eagles is a very professional organisation that prepares for success and has a plan to rise up in the competition. I am not surprised personally, but I understand others might be. I pay tribute to the managerial skill of CEO Trevor Nesbitt and his talented board, to our senior coach Adam Simpson and to former coach John Wosfold. My congratulations to them on laying the foundation stones and for conducting the team in a most magnificent manner. I should also say, of course, that our foreign minister, the Hon. Julie Bishop, the member for Curtin, was formerly on the board, and what a great job she did on the board of this great club.

The club's success has not, on that basis, all been on the field. We have seen players improve across the board. For example, Brad Sheppard has found his niche as an intercept-marking defender. Jeremy McGovern has surprised everyone with his maturity and poise holding down a key position in defence. Elliot Yeo, recruited from Brisbane, and former Hawthorn premiership player Xavier Ellis have been great additions and have added versatility to the side. They are all led by an outstanding captain in Shannon Hurn

The Eagles' membership has grown this year to over 60,000 members at last count. This is a great credit, as I have said, to the club, the coaches, the players and the management and the great work they do in the Western Australian community.

With a week off to rest up, next week will see the team at full strength with the return of Brownlow medallist Matt Priddis, who I had the pleasure of meeting personally earlier this year in parliament. We will also have back our star midfielder Chris Masten. It is a long trip from WA across the Nullarbor to the eastern states. This is a trip both our teams have to make regularly throughout the season. It is not an easy task to regularly cross the country but the WA teams do it week about for 23 weeks of the year. I and all WA footy fans are thrilled with the unprecedented WA finish of first and second with four home finals in Perth. This result is not only great for the national game but also is expected to contribute an additional $30 million to the WA economy. I can only hope that it is regularly repeated! But seriously, it really is a great tribute to the strength of the game in WA.

The power of football is that it is the great equaliser. No matter your background, experience or even athletic ability, anyone can enjoy a kick of the footy with his mates. The AFL is doing a tremendous job in community engagement through programs such as Auskick. The community engagement programs through the individual team clubs is a great credit to Mr McLachlan and his board of commissioners. In my home state of Western Australia, in the electorates of Swan and Canning, Gerard Neesham has done phenomenal work at the Clontarf school working with Indigenous youth and using football to inspire sporting and educational achievement. The success of that program is due to hard work, determination and a love of our national game, all of which Gerard exemplifies.

We have role models like Nic Naitanui. There is nothing but admiration for the success, skill and commitment that that young man demonstrates when playing the game. He is a role model both on and off the field. I commend the Eagles for the club culture that has encouraged their players to fulfil that important role. I would like to acknowledge the support that has been offered to Nic by the club and his fellow players. It is great to see them rallying behind him in this difficult time of loss. Nic has handled the recent loss of his mother with grace, dignity and a great strength for which he should be commended. It is not easy to lose a parent, especially with the added media scrutiny that football brings to him every day because he is such a star. Nic is a real credit to himself and his family for the way he has honoured his mother and the way he plays the game. My club has in recent years had to address a number of challenges. I know I speak on behalf of all of our supporters when I congratulate the club on the professional and determined way it has met those challenges. I conclude by congratulating the West Coast Eagles on a wonderful season so far and wishing them the very best of good luck for the next two crucial and important games.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:55): I rise to talk about one of the progressive initiatives of the former Labor government of which I am most proud. That triumph is the National Disability Employment Scheme. This scheme is already providing people with a disability and their families with personalised assistance and control over the assistance that they receive.

In 2009, the former Labor government recognised an urgent need for reform of disability services. We then tasked the Productivity Commission with thoroughly scrutinising the system and proposing improvements. The resulting report was very clear. The Productivity Commission denounced the current disability support system, labelling it 'underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient'. It clearly identified many problems and it clearly laid out the way forward. What Australia needed was a national scheme that would provide insurance cover for Australians with significant and ongoing disability.

The Labor government's disability reform minister, Jenny Macklin, worked tirelessly to lock in the details, get stakeholders on the same page and open up the national conversation to garner vital public support. The end result was not an evolution; it was a revolution. It was a complete reworking of Australian disability services from the ground up. It rightly placed individuals and their families and carers at the centre of decision making. It gave people with a disability the autonomy to make the choices about the services they needed and the providers they wanted to work with. Choice and control became the central driving philosophy.

My home state of Tasmania has benefited from a trial rollout for 15- to 24-year-olds in 2013. Last week I met with Judy Huett from Tasmanian disability advocacy group SpeakOut Tasmania. Judy told me that the young people who have been on the Tasmanian trial program have reported to her that they feel more independent and more included in their communities than they have ever felt before. I often meet with the mother of a fine young man from Ulverstone on the north-west coast of Tasmania who regularly tells me of the change to her family's life since the NDIS. Her son has a rare condition known as floating harbour syndrome and also autism. Mitchell's life has taken an entire turnaround since he has been part of the NDIS. He has control over what he wants to do with his life, and it has opened up opportunities he never thought could exist for him. He spends every second weekend with a host family. They participate in new adventures with him, helping to broaden his social skills. This time also gives his family a much-needed respite break.

This scheme is changing lives. But I am not here today just to recognise a great initiative of the former Labor government. I am here to shine a light on the government's attempts to interfere in the NDIS and delay its delivery. I am here to sound a bell on the NDIS timetable and demand that the government keep their promise to the Australian people to deliver the full NDIS on time. Before the election, people on all sides of this place recognised the value of this historic plan. We were united in our commitment to a program that would deliver autonomy and dignity to hundreds of thousands of Australians. We recognised that disability could happen to any of us, and thus disability insurance should be available to all of us.

But, as with so many things in this place, things started to look very different after the election. Those opposite started to talk down talk down the NDIS, which they had strongly supported before the election. We started to hear murmurings about the burdensome cost of the NDIS. Within a few months of gaining power, the coalition government's politically motivated Commission of Audit recommended that the NDIS rollout be slowed down by three years. It talked about the 'ambitious' rollout schedule and the need to implement it in a 'fiscally sustainable' manner. Then we started to hear public rumblings from government members about the funding for this scheme. Mr Scott Morrison called into question the financial sustainability of the NDIS. He even had the gall to say that the government's vicious welfare cuts were necessary to fund the NDIS. In doing so he completely misrepresented the savings and funding measures that were put in place by the former Labor government to support the scheme. The reality is that Labor clearly outlined to the Australian people before the election that the NDIS would be supported by a 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy. At that time, this increase was supported by the then opposition. We also made sensible budget savings to put towards the program, including a $6.5 billion saving from means testing the private health insurance rebate. The NDIS is costed and sustainable.

More recently, we have seen Senator Fifield try to weasel out of previous assurances that the NDIS would be delivered on time and in full. When he was asked the question less than a month ago on Sky News he ducked and dived and dodged and weaved, but he would not give a straight answer. The NDIS is not just a line item on the budget balance sheet. It is an investment in a more inclusive, fairer, more productive society where people with a disability have control over the assistance they receive.

First, those opposite talked down the NDIS. Then, recently, they set out to attack the NDIS board, with the unprecedented re-advertising of board jobs with completely changed criteria. In doing so, the Liberals are laying the groundwork to turn their backs on the crucial requirement for the NDIS board to include nominees from each state and to be representative of people with a disability. Instead the advertisement for board positions stipulated that the candidates must have:

… substantial board experience either in a large listed company or a significant government business enterprise.

Why would the government set out to replace members of a high-quality board that has delivered a groundbreaking scheme on time, within budget and with high levels of participant satisfaction? There is no reason. There is just a transparent agenda of sidelining the states, removing board members and stacking the NDIS board with their big business mates.

The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations slammed the move, saying:

The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO), and people with disability and family organisations are extremely concerned that the proposed process and timeline to appoint a new Board will undermine the continued good governance of the NDIS.

This is absolutely right. There is no reason to replace a board that has been working well and has effectively shepherded the NDIS over the past three years.

Let's not kid ourselves that Mr Turnbull did not support this petty and vindictive move. In fact, when asked the question about his government's blatantly political board-stacking policy, he said:

I think it’s fair to say that the government has had a policy or a practice of, by and large, not reappointing people, with a view to refreshing government boards … That has certainly been the preference.

Those opposite have a tendency to see investment in social services and support for our fellow human beings as a 'budget drain'. They fail to recognise that it is an investment in our people, our communities and our national productivity.

The government has been dragging its feet on the NDIS from the beginning. It has been confecting problems and putting roadblocks in the way of the full rollout. At the end of last month, Mr Tony Abbott missed a vital deadline to sign the NDIS agreement with the states. This deadline was integral to ensuring that the rollout proceeds without delay. People with disability have waited long enough. Over 400,000 Australians living with a profound and severe impairment and their families are relying on this government to fulfil its promise. The government has plunged these people and their families into uncertainty and created enormous anxiety.

The Turnbull government, as a matter of urgency, needs to stand up and honour its longstanding commitment to deliver the NDIS in full. It does not matter who is at the helm: every single member of this government bears responsibility for the severe trust deficit they have created in the Australian community. They broke their promise that there would be no cuts to health. Now it looks like a rock-solid commitment to deliver the NDIS in full and on time is in grave peril. Mr Turnbull needs to stop dithering on the NDIS, sign the agreement with the states and deliver on the government's promise. People such as Mitchell and his family deserve it.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (20:04): Before I commence, I seek leave on behalf of Senator Rachel Siewert, as discussed with Senator Bushby and Senator Colbeck, to table the Dive industry statement in support of marine sanctuaries.

Leave granted.

Senator LUDLAM: I thank the Senate for that. I rise tonight to speak to the most recent report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I am not a present member of the treaties committee—and I miss it a bit. I want to add my voice of thanks to the members and the secretariat for producing the most recent report on an issue that is very close to my heart, which is that of the uranium sales agreement with India.

It is not often that the Australian Greens would not table a dissent to a report from a government chaired committee, such as the treaties committee, on the subject of a nuclear sales agreement. Instead, Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, who is the Greens representative on the treaties committees—and I thank him and his staff for their work—tabled an additional comment. In other words, we substantially agreed with the unanimous findings of the treaties committee. I note that Labor committee members, including the member for Fremantle, Melissa Parke, also tabled their own additional comment.

This is a profoundly important report. It is yet to be seen whether the new Prime Minister will have a different view to that of his immediate predecessor on the wisdom of selling uranium to a country that has firmly remained outside the global nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament legal architecture—the non-proliferation treaty or NPT. There are huge issues that have been canvassed in this treaties report. It is incumbent on the government to read the report before they recklessly press ahead with a nuclear sales agreement with India. They do not even have to read the fine print. They should read the report itself and read the advice of those, including some quite unusual voices, who gave very strong evidence to the committee.

The reason that we did not fundamentally disagree with the treaties committee findings is that the committee has recommended that sales agreements to India not proceed until a number of very important conditions have been met. I would like to firmly put on the record that the Australian Greens do not believe that this trade should occur at all. The industry is on the way out, and this is something we should not be getting any further into. The conditions that the treaties committee unanimously agreed should be applied before Australia even considers signing up and starting this trade are quite instructive. They read:

Committee recommends that … sales to India only commence when the following conditions are met:

India has achieved the full separation of civil and military nuclear facilities as verified by the IAEA;

India has established an independent nuclear regulatory authority under law;

the Indian nuclear regulator's existing policies and arrangements have been reviewed to ensure its independence;

the frequency, quality and comprehensiveness of onsite inspections at nuclear facilities have been verified by the IAEA as being best practice standard; and

the lack of sufficient planning for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities has been rectified.

These are tremendously important concerns, which are thrown into the path of the headlong rush that former Prime Minister Abbott had been engaged in to embark on this most dangerous trade with a country that has remained outside the disarmament and nonproliferation architecture. Not only that but it has a rather uneasy proliferation record, having effectively lied to Canadian authorities in order to design and build its first fleet of nuclear reactors and then immediately embarked on a process of plutonium separation for nuclear weapons.

This is not some kind of abstract cold war calculation. India is engaged in a nuclear weapons arms race with its neighbour Pakistan, with which it has fought several wars since the 1950s. On both sides of that uneasy border, nuclear weapons are occasionally threatened by standing military and political figures from both sides. Yet Australia would propose to sell uranium into that subcontinental nuclear arms race in which nearly two billion people are implicated.

The treaties committee took some unusual evidence from some figures who you would consider would be very much part of the pro-nuclear establishment, such as Dr John Carlson, the former director general of ASNO, the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office—somebody who I had significant run-ins with when he occupied that office. I take my hat off to him, because I have not seen language quite as strong as this deployed by somebody like Mr Carlson. He told the committee:

Within the first decade or two there could be tonnes of plutonium derived from Australian uranium that would be well beyond any information available to Australia. The same situation applies to the uranium recovered from reprocessing, most of which could be recycled many times. Without a proper accounting system, once material loses its initial identity, there is no way of knowing where that material goes, or even quantifying it. There is no substitute or "equivalent" for accounting and tracking.

Mr Carlson used to run the Australian government's Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office.

Another gentleman, Mr Ron Walker, who was the chair of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, Board of Governors—again not somebody who would make these kinds of comments lightly—wrote to the committee in May of this year and warned that the agreement:

… has a number of loopholes which mean that under the terms of the NCA India could use our uranium in the production of material that could end up in bombs.

ASNO itself, under its current director, the very capable Dr Robert Floyd, has conceded that:

… such a hypothetical situation could occur.

That is Australian uranium being dug out of the ground in central South Australia or in Kakadu in the Northern Territory and being sold into a subcontinental arms race, where regulators, former regulators and former IAEA board of governors members have said: 'Whoa. Do we really want to be fuelling this nuclear arms race?' It is not something that I believe could be supported, but you could argue that, with proper accounting structures within the NPT framework, you could in fact account for Australian obligated nuclear material down to the very small quantities that you need to keep track of to ensure that fissile material is not being separated and making its way into nuclear weapons.

But how about this? K Subrahmanyam, former head of the National Security Advisory Board in India, said the following in 2005:

Given India's uranium ore crunch and the need to build up our nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast as possible, it is to India's advantage to categorise as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be re-fuelled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons-grade plutonium production. Clearly, Australian uranium would boost India's nuclear weapons capacity.

So—no matter what kind of safeguard agreement you sign, and no matter how carefully you track it down to the grams of separated plutonium and uranium—there is a senior Indian nuclear official saying, 'We are freeing up our domestic sources of uranium for nuclear weapons and we will be importing uranium from countries like Australia to fuel our civilian reactors.' No safeguards agreement in the world is going to protect Australia from being complicit in a nuclear weapons arms race if that is indeed the ambition of the Indian authorities.

So that takes in some of the weapons arguments canvassed in the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report. The treaties committee was unable to form a view on whether these sales would even be legal under the treaty of Rarotonga. You would have thought that that was a red flag at the outset—that that would be enough to be a show stopper. Instead, there is strong language in the report. I think that being unable to tell if you would be breaching international law around the sale of this material to India should have been a show stopper.

It is probably very little known in Australia just how closely the Indian population have come to suffering a catastrophic meltdown of the sort that we saw at Chernobyl and Fukushima. In 2012, the Indian Comptroller and Auditor-General pointed out that, without substantial reforms to the regulatory regime in India, that was precisely where they were headed. If senators have not heard of the fire at the Narora nuclear power plant in 1993 or the fire at Kakrapar in 1991 and the catastrophic floods in 1994 and the collapse of the dome at the Kaiga nuclear power station in the Western Ghats in Karnataka: if the reactor had been operating when that dome structure had caved in, injuring 14 people, that place would have joined the names that now live on in infamy—Fukushima and Chernobyl; it is only by extraordinary good fortune and bravery of those on site at the time that we have not heard of those places.

This is by no means a green light for yellowcake sales into India. It is, in fact, precisely, the reverse. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will have a lot on his desk in coming days. We would urge him that the one thing that he could do to prevent a further increase in insecurity and instability on the subcontinent is to get behind the extraordinary progress being made by the Indian solar industry and back out of the nuclear industry, which is on its knees.

Senator KETTER (Queensland) (20:14): In the midst of the political drama that we have experienced in the past 24 hours, it is very important to remember that there are many women and children who are tonight terrified in their own homes. Feeling safe at home is a basic human right and one which many of us take for granted.

I rise tonight to draw attention to the national crisis in this country of domestic violence. This is an issue that transcends age, culture, faith, circumstance and socioeconomic status. As journalist Jess Hill wrote in her article for The Monthly:

The statistics are now well known: a woman is murdered at least every week, another hospitalised every three hours.

As a man, father, husband and senator, I call on the men of Australia to play their part in being good role models to younger men. Domestic violence is a national emergency. Sixty-two women have died in Australia this year at the hands of a partner or ex-partner. As a father of three daughters, I was mortified by the news last week from my home state of Queensland.

The shocking events in Queensland have once again highlighted the need for urgent action to tackle the scourge of family violence in Australia. There were three horrific events in one week. Tara Brown, a Gold Coast woman, died in hospital last week after her estranged partner allegedly rammed her car off the road and then proceeded to brutally bash her as she lay trapped in the wreckage. The following day, Karina Lock was allegedly shot dead on the Gold Coast by her former husband. A few hours earlier, another Brisbane woman, Zarah Abdi, was allegedly attacked with a machete by an ex-partner. In the last week we have seen the death of two women and a six-year-old.

The statistics are clear: the ABS found that, in 2012, 87 per cent of domestic violence victims were women. I do not believe that we should demonise all men. Men are part of the solution. In 2013 the World Health Organization found that violence against women is a violation of human rights that affects more than one-third of all women, and is a 'global public health problem of epidemic proportions'. Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety notes that, in Australia, domestic violence is the most prevalent form of violence experienced by women, and a woman is more likely to be assaulted in her home by a male partner than anywhere else or by anyone else. It is known that the majority of those who experience domestic violence are women, and such violence affects members of all cultures, ages and socioeconomic groups.

I note that a number of risk factors and at-risk groups have been identified. Key research findings demonstrate that, for example, alcohol and drug use can lead to higher levels of aggression by perpetrators. A study found that between 2000 and 2006, 44 per cent of all intimate partner homicides and 87 per cent of Indigenous intimate partner homicides were alcohol related. I am also very concerned to note that pregnancy is one of the risk factors which may intensify the risk of domestic violence. A quarter of women who experienced partner violence since the age of 15 reported experiencing domestic violence for the first time from a previous partner while pregnant. Separated women are more likely to experience violence than married women, and it is most common for women to experience violence from a male ex-partner.

Young women are more likely to have recently experienced violence than older women. Researchers suggest that inexperience, age differences in relationships and a lack of access to services exacerbate younger women's vulnerability to violence. Indigenous women and their children are more likely to experience violence than any other section of society. When compared to non-Indigenous women, Indigenous women are five times more likely to be homicide victims. Rates of domestic assault reported to police are also more than six times higher for Indigenous women. Also of concern is that women in rural and remote areas have a higher reported incidence of domestic violence than women in metropolitan settings. Those in rural and remote areas who have experienced domestic violence may lack access to services, transport and telecommunications and suffer a lack of anonymity.

This vexed issue requires bipartisan support. It should be above politics. In March Labor called on then Prime Minister Abbott to hold a national crisis summit, bringing together Commonwealth, state and territory governments, law enforcement, service providers, experts and survivors to urgently agree and implement judicial and service reforms to tackle family violence. Labor previously committed to holding such a summit within 100 days of being elected to form government.

Given the horrific events in Queensland over the past week or so, I want to commend the Queensland Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, for announcing earlier this week immediate changes to the way police stations handle individual domestic violence complaints; the fast-tracking of the rollout of 300 body-worn cameras on the Gold Coast; and plans to implement a death review panel. As Dame Quentin Bryce, the chair of the Premier's Implementation Council for Domestic and Family Violence, said over the weekend in Queensland: the first response is absolutely critical. Unfortunately, the police and the criminal justice systems are commonly criticised for not treating domestic violence seriously enough. I am very pleased to see that, in Queensland, domestic violence complaints will now be prioritised. Domestic violence victims will move to the front of the queue. Senior police will be forced to sign off on any complaint, ensuring that women like Tara Brown—who, according to media reports, was turned away by police—do not fall through the cracks.

We need more education. The Queensland Premier is right when she says that the biggest change must be socially borne. If you are out in a pub and someone is not doing the right thing, then call them out on it and say, 'Come on mate—that's not the way you do it.' So I commend the Palaszczuk government for fast-tracking legislation in this area.

I also want to raise a huge challenge for our society, which is the portrayal of women in misogynistic lyrics in popular music. Society's attitudes towards women play a role in the justification of violence against women. The Tasmanian Commissioner of Police, Mr Darren Hine, has said: 'We are all responsible for shifting social norms that blame, excuse, minimise and justify violence against women and their children.' The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women has reported a tremendous increase in the representation of violence against women, particularly sexual violence, in the media.

In conclusion, I would like to urge incoming Prime Minister Turnbull to commit to holding a national crisis summit. I will leave you with this chilling statistic: that, as of 6.30 this evening, police in Australia will have dealt with, on average, 509 domestic violence matters in the course of today. This is unacceptable. Our country is in a crisis, and it needs to be resolved. If anyone listening is experiencing domestic and family violence they should ring the Domestic Violence Hotline on 1800811811. And, if you know someone who is in danger or you are in danger, ring 000.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (20:25): At a time in history when the world has never been more connected, it can sometimes seem that our politics and leaders have never been more disconnected. But, although the greatest challenges threaten to divide us, locally and globally, there has never been more of an opportunity to unite. This was made clear to me on a recent parliamentary delegation visiting the Pacific. On 10 days through Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and Fiji, our cross-party delegation witnessed firsthand what our neighbours are up against. But underlying the entire trip was a sense of hope—hope that, with decent education, health care and care for the earth, the future is bright.

I want to share just a few of their stories and how what we do in this place impacts every day on their lives and livelihood. We must not forget that this is our corner of the world. Their problems are our problems. And when they benefit, we all benefit—like in Papua New Guinea, a country with which we share an intertwined history and which continues to be our biggest aid recipient.

Visiting the Bomana War Cemetery, where a large number of Australians are buried, was a moving reminder of the incredible efforts of Australian soldiers—supported by PNG locals—in fighting the Japanese forces in World War II. I have pledged to myself to return and walk the whole Kokoda Track.

In the 1980s, PNG's maternal morbidity rates dramatically increased after midwifery training was reduced, and the consequences are being felt around the country. In rural areas, there is little to no access to pre- and post-natal care, leading to tragically high levels of deaths of women and babies in childbirth. With the help of Australian foreign aid, midwifery programs like that at Goroka university have increased the numbers of midwives in PNG, and it is having a powerful impact. The program leaders we met at Goroka were passionate, and so proud of their students and alumni. They have heard that their funding may be discontinued at the end of the year, so they made it clear to us how vital this funding is.

There is an epidemic of sexual and gender based violence in PNG. Two-thirds of PNG women will experience such violence in their lives. But there are some amazing people doing amazing work to tackle the issue through support services and education programs, like Rita Kare, who is supporting a women's economic empowerment program run by a local Goroka organisation called Susu Halvim Susu—sisters helping sisters. With her restaurant and food business, Rita and the Susu Halvim Susu women are helping women establish small businesses and become financially independent.

We met the straight-talking Naomi, who has been working to establish the Goroka Safe Haus. She told us of the essential need to tackle the underlying gender inequality in PNG society, because encouraging women to become financially independent risks making husbands feel that their wives are no longer under their control, making life much less safe.

We also met an inspiring, energetic woman, Selene, who runs a coffee farm with her family. After we were greeted with an impressive 'sing sing', Selene and her husband showed off their farm, which has come about because of a program run by Care International that trains local farmers in best-practice coffee growing. The program has a particular focus on building women's skills and encouraging the treatment of women as equals on the farm. One of the male training participants, Steven, told us it had made him realise that men so often treat women like their wheelbarrows, and how wrong this was. These programs—and these women—are powerful.

We cannot be under the impression that we are immune from these issues. A woman is killed every week in Australia by their partner or ex-partner. We need to share our challenges and successes in the areas of gender based and sexual violence.

Vanuatu is another place where our histories are linked, with the 'blackbirding' of ni-Vanuatu. The Vanuatu National Archives highlight the kidnapping and slavery of people to work in the sugarcane fields in Queensland in the late 1800s. The injustice was compounded a decade or two later when many that had remained, post slavery, were forcibly deported under the White Australia policy. The connections that managed to remain in Australia between ni-Vanuatu and their home islands remain strong.

In Vanuatu, we visited a fabulous multifaceted youth and community centre called Wan Smolbag. Since it was started by an English couple in 1989, it has grown to employ 120 staff and to provide much needed services for the community—from being a drop-in and education centre for kids and teenagers not attending school to a theatre and drama program, including a theatre group for disabled people, to a sports centre, to running a nutrition program and to a reproductive and sexual health clinic, which in recent months has expanded to treat people suffering after Cyclone Pam. Wan Smolbag is largely funded by foreign aid, including $1 million a year from Australia. It is worth every cent.

The devastation of Cyclone Pam is still palpable in villages across the country. The storm stole family and friends and destroyed their homes. Science tells us that there are going to be more of these storms and they are going to be more intense because of the pollution we keep pumping into the atmosphere. We have a responsibility to take urgent action to reduce the impacts of climate change. Failure to do so will result in more suffering within these communities, and the repair bill will keep going up and up. In the wake of Cyclone Pam, Australia gave millions in aid to help the estimated 132,000 people affected. Can we afford to take action on climate change? We cannot afford not to.

As we moved on to Fiji, we saw the direct benefits of education programs funded by our aid. We visited one particularly impressive school, with passionate teachers, articulate kids and a productive farm, which was funded through the Australian quality education program. Our aid funds things such as the renovation of the dormitory bunks and provisions for kids who have to walk three hours to and from their villages on weekends. These measures have lifted their attendance rates to 96 per cent. Young people from the village tend the school farm and excess produce is sold to the community. With beans, radishes, carrots, lettuce, corn and cassava, the farm also provides the basis of nutritious meals. Prior to the farm being operational, the kids who boarded had to carry their own food to school each week, which usually consisted of lots of cassava and not much else.

We also saw the devastating loss of nature across Fiji, with large areas of cleared and burnt land and waste strewn everywhere. I was struck that the only birds I saw there were Indian mynas, which were in plague proportions. There was plastic waste on every beach, entangled around every mangrove, in every creek and river bed. Electricity was largely diesel generated, and pristine environments were few and far between.

Imagine the opportunities for well-managed recycling programs and for powering communities with energy from the wind and sun. Imagine the possibilities of focusing our foreign aid program on sustainability measures. It would create employment, enable private enterprise, build technical skills, reduce reliance on imported oil and gas, clean up the air and water, and tackle climate change.

Imagine helping these countries change the way their people get around. The roads are clogged, and building more and more of them—like we have—is a costly path to go down that will only worsen the situation. Buses are already widely used. They have the opportunity to replace ageing bus fleets with electric buses. They have the opportunity to revolutionise the way their government, police and support services operate, with a fleet of electric vehicles. It would decrease fuel costs and pollution levels and stop the appalling situation where police cannot reach victims of family violence in far-flung villages because they cannot afford the fuel. These could be built by Australian suppliers and funded by Australian aid, but they would benefit the local economy and the local people. On the trip, I saw a total of three people on bikes. We could change this by supporting walking and cycling. It would bust congestion and have massive health benefits and benefits to small businesses.

And we could support the rollout of serious broadband—connect every school and health centre, and reap the educational, social and economic benefits, allowing young people, in particular, to engage in the modern society and economy from their home villages. In this way, we could further connect our people.

Yes, there are barriers. The political instability in the region is real, and corruption is always a risk. But it is a manageable risk, and the benefits far outweigh these other considerations. These are our neighbours—only a flight of a couple of hours from Australia. Their cultures are generous, but so are we. We have much to learn from each other. When our friends and neighbours benefit, so do we.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (20:34): There are still many serious questions that senior Liberals have to answer about the handling of the alleged theft by their former state director in Victoria and Tasmania, Mr Damien Mantach. It is believed that some $1.5 million may have gone missing from the Victorian division of the Liberal Party, discovered after forensic accounting firm PPB Advisory found irregularities in the branch's accounting. According to The Age article from 20 August:

The fraud allegedly included payments to non-existent companies for non-existent services, with money channelled back to family interests.

Party president, Michael Kroger, was quoted in the article as saying he hoped to recover some of the missing funds which had been spent on investments and lifestyle. I understand that the Victorian branch's administrative committee has been preparing a brief of evidence on the matter for Victorian police.

The article also included revelations that there were discrepancies in Mr Mantach's spending on his party credit card from his time as director of the Tasmanian branch of the party, and it was later revealed that he had racked up almost $48,000 in personal expenses on the card.

It is understood that the then president of the Tasmanian branch, Mr Dale Archer, met with the then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Abetz, on 5 March 2008 to inform him of the investigation. According to Senator Abetz's account of the meeting, 'no advice was sought or offered' and 'no sum of money was mentioned'. The following day, 6 March, Mr Archer informed the federal director, Mr Brian Loughnane, that Mr Mantach had resigned. According to the Hobart Mercury, Mr Archer said:

Brian Loughnane was informed by me of the full extent of the circumstances surrounding Mr Mantach's departure …

There is a file note that confirms in writing that the federal director was advised of this issue on the 6th of March, 2008.

It is curious. If we believe the accounts of both Mr Archer and Senator Abetz, that means that, within a day, the investigation was completed, the amount of money was determined and Mr Mantach had agreed to resign.

A couple of weeks ago, the party's current Tasmanian President, Mr Geoff Page, held a closed-door meeting with about 60 members to discuss the party's handling of the issue. Mr Page told members at the meeting that a 'sensible decision' was made to 'negotiate' the repayment of the money by Mr Mantach. Until the Victorian revelations came to light, the Tasmanian branch had not disclosed to the Australian Electoral Commission Mr Mantach's repayment of the expenses.

The current Tasmanian Director, Mr Sam McQuestin, filed the request only last month and said that the failure to do so seven years ago was an 'administrative oversight'. It would be easier to believe that the failure to disclose these repayments was an oversight, were it not for the failure to disclose Mr Mantach's dealings to the members of the branch or the broader Tasmanian public. Everyone was kept in the dark.

There are a number of questions for the Tasmanian branch of the Liberal Party to answer over this scandal—and this includes Senator Abetz, who we have heard knew of Mr Mantach's conduct at the time. It also includes the Tasmanian Premier, Will Hodgman, who was, and still is, a member of the party's state executive, which is responsible for the affairs of the party. Firstly, when did Mr Hodgman and other members of the executive first become aware of Mr Mantach's activities and the arrangement for Mr Mantach to pay back the money? Did the party discuss going to the police if Mr Mantach refused to pay the money? Why did the party have to 'negotiate' the payment of the money? Section 234 of the Tasmanian Criminal Code states:

Any person who steals anything is guilty of a crime.

So if money was stolen, repaying the money does not absolve a person of committing the crime. Section 102 of the Criminal Code states:

Any person who solicits, receives, or obtains, or agrees to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, as a consideration for any agreement or understanding that he will compound or conceal a crime, or will abstain from, discontinue, or delay a prosecution for a crime, is guilty of a crime.

So I ask: why was the matter involving the Tasmanian branch of the party not reported to the police?

I know that the Tasmanian Leader of the Opposition, Bryan Green, wrote to the Tasmanian Police Commissioner, Darren Hine, asking him to investigate the matter. Tasmania Police advised Mr Green that they would not investigate the matter because, according to Deputy Commissioner Scott Tilyard:

Tasmania Police does not investigate alleged property offences without a complaint from a victim, or a person acting on behalf of a victim.

Given the police will not investigate the matter without a complaint from a victim, it now falls to the Tasmanian branch of the Liberal Party to answer on behalf of their members the question: will they now refer this alleged crime to the police, albeit seven years too late?

The Federal Director of the Liberal Party, Mr Brian Loughnane, also has questions to answer. I understand that Mr Loughnane was part of the selection panel that appointed Mr Mantach to the position of director in Victoria. The other panellists were Mr Tony Nutt—former Chief of Staff to Prime Minister John Howard and current New South Wales Party Director—then Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu and his Chief of Staff, Mr Michael Kapel. We know that Mr Archer claims to have informed Mr Loughnane of Mr Mantach's resignation. So I ask: did Mr Loughnane inform any of the other panellists about the nature of Mr Mantach's departure as director of the Tasmanian branch? Did they, along with Mr Loughnane, appoint Mr Mantach to the position of Victorian Director of the Liberal Party knowing the circumstances of his resignation as director of the Tasmanian branch? I am also curious to know what the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, knew of Mr Mantach's dealings.

In March 2013, tape recordings revealed that Mr Nutt and Mr Mantach offered cash, accommodation and employment assistance to former staffer Tristan Weston, after he was forced to resign when his role in a plot to undermine former police commissioner Simon Overland was made public. At the time, Mr Abbott gave Mr Mantach his support. He said: 'I know Damien Mantach well. He is a person of integrity. So let's see where this investigation goes. He has my confidence.' So Mr Abbott was claiming at that time to know Mr Mantach well. I wonder, did he know of Mr Mantach's conduct in Victoria and Tasmania? And why did he consider Mr Mantach to be a 'person of integrity'?

If just one of the many people in the Liberal Party who knew about Mr Mantach's conduct in Tasmania had come forward and reported the matter to police, it is possible the much larger alleged crime in Victoria could have been avoided. Given that public funding of political parties is available in Victoria, this is not just members' money we are talking about—although the members clearly have a right to be angry about this. It also involves public money, and the Australian public have a right to answers.

In this place we hear a lot from the other side about union thugs, but when it comes to issues of crime in their own midst, they do not care to report them or to get the police involved. It is high time that much more white collar crime was brought to the fore. This whole murky affair is either a monumental stuff up—a case of mismanagement by those in the hierarchy of the Tasmanian, Victorian and federal divisions of the Liberal Party—or, even worse, it is a cover up and conspiracy. Either way, those who had knowledge of this scandal need to come clean and tell Liberal Party members and the Australian public exactly what they knew and when. Because what we have heard so far, as Mr Hockey would put it, simply does not pass the 'sniff test'.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (20:43): Tonight I want to speak about a problem that is holding back millions of Australians and holding back our nation as a whole. Today no doubt many of us have been reading the headlines and media stories and opinion polls following the change in leadership in the government. But, disturbingly, a large segment of our population struggle to read at all. Being able to read and write is taken for granted by so many in the community. If you were lucky enough to receive a good education, then reading and writing becomes second nature. But those of us who were not so lucky face a life of just getting by—hiding their limited literacy from society and not being able to meet their potential at work—if, indeed, they find work at all.

Tonight I want to talk about these Australians, what they struggle with, how Australia is performing in terms of adult literacy and what needs to be done urgently to improve it. I am sorry to say that this government, since coming to office, has cut funding to adult literacy services by tens of millions of dollars. This is both cruel and counterproductive and I hope a Turnbull government will have a change of heart in this area. Because adult illiteracy is much more than an education or a social services issue. Being able to read and write should, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, be a fundamental human right. And not being able to read or write properly is a silent break on Australia's economic performance. Improving literacy is an economic and productivity imperative. It is a no brainer for Australia right now.

The National Skills Strategy for Adults in 2012 estimated that an improvement of just one per cent in the level of adult literacy would lead to a 2½ per cent increase in labour productivity. A modest investment in the tens of millions of dollars could unleash billions of dollars of increased productivity. That is a huge economic dividend, and the social benefits of such an improvement are priceless. We cannot afford to not improve our level of adult literacy because the signs are getting worse by the day. The latest indicator of our lagging living standards came out this morning with a NATSEM study, commissioned by Anglicare, that showed most Australians will see zero improvements to their standard of living in the next decade. Worryingly, the bottom 20 per cent of earners are expected to go backwards financially.

So how does adult illiteracy affect people's lives and what can be done to turn it around? Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was so right when he said, 'Literacy is a bridge from misery to hope.' I recently met with a champion of adult literacy in my home state of South Australia as well as with those who have worked to improve their own literacy levels. One thing is too common in their stories—adults with limited literacy are often ashamed or embarrassed about it. They do not want anyone to know about it. If it is certain that limited literacy will make your life more difficult, then trying to hide it and cover it up makes life doubly difficult.

One example I have been told about recently is Mick Goss from Tasmania. In fact, I spoke with Mick earlier today and it was great to speak with him. Mick Goss is one man who took the courageous step 'from misery to hope' to address his low literacy. Ten years ago as a 40-year-old single dad of a seven-year-old son, a work-related injury led to him losing his job. Years earlier, as a year 5 student, a teacher had laughed and insulted him for his attempts to read. The experience was gut-wrenching and deeply embarrassing and led to Mick becoming, in his words, 'a nightmare at school', and he left in year 9 with minimal reading and writing. He still winces when he thinks about the incident and will not enter a classroom for any reason because of the painful memory.

Mick had always been good with his hands and found work at a sawmill. After losing his job due to injury he had very few options left. But his efforts at that time to start a dad's playgroup in Launceston led to a remarkable story of self-improvement. Mick soon realised he could not even write out the flyer for his new group, but his ambition to look out for local fathers was soon recognised by Relationships Australia, who offered him a part-time job. There was one catch—he had to agree to go to adult literacy sessions every week. He told me:

I was quite embarrassed about not being able to read and write, but I had to do something about it. After hiding for 40 years I started some training through the local Community House and realised—this isn't so hard. When I first started my writing it was like a doctor's scrawl because I was hiding it.

Now Mick writes reports and proposals, and he is expert at writing flyers for the two men's groups he runs. Mick says that men particularly are embarrassed to admit they have difficulty reading and writing.

Mick's is an inspiring story but what Australia needs are hundreds of thousands more stories like Mick's. The scale of the challenge may surprise most Australians. The recent survey by the Programme for International Assessment of Adult Competencies, PIAAC, found that one in eight Australians, or 12.6 per cent, have 'very poor' literacy skills. Taken as a fraction of Australia's working-age population of 10,400,000 people, that means that about 1.3 million working-age Australians have very poor literacy skills. An additional one in three Australians are estimated to have literacy skills which made them 'vulnerable to unemployment and social exclusion'. That is another 3.4 million working-age Australians at risk due to poor literacy. That is close to five million Australian adults with below-par literacy skills.

In Adelaide I recently met with a passionate advocate, a man with 40 years' experience in education and an expert in adult education. His name is Paul Mulroney. He works at an adult community centre in adult education and is also the vice president of Adult Learning Australia. Paul told me that adults who do not meet minimum functional literacy levels fall into two categories—those who grew up here in Australia and did not receive adequate education, and those who came here as migrants and do not have adequate English literacy. Paul also told me that both groups face big limitations socially and in finding and keeping employment. Paul works with these men and women and knows their challenges firsthand. They just get by—many of them are adept at getting by without attracting attention to themselves. No-one wants to be known as having poor literacy.

Paul told me there were two keys to reducing adult illiteracy. The first is what the government can do. The second is what the person can do for themselves. Firstly, we must have adequately funded national programs in the workplace and through community groups that deliver effective tutoring and teaching services to adults. I will speak more about this and the cuts made by the current government a bit later. Secondly, and more subtly, adults with low literacy have to want to address the issue. They have to be given the opportunity, the time and the space to decide to improve their literacy skills.

Adult illiteracy has to come out of the shadows—destigmatised and demystified. Programs to tackle adult illiteracy have been around for decades, but amazingly they have been defunded by the current government since the election. In the 2014-15 Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, MYEFO, the government announced a cut to one of its major national funding streams for adult literacy improvement—the Skills for Education and Employment program, SEE for short. The government will save $44 million over three years but as a result, according to statements at additional estimates, 3,000 fewer adults will receive literacy and numeracy programs. But it does not end there. From this year, the government abolished the Workplace English Language and Literacy program, or WELL. This program has been going since 1991, working with more than 10,000 adults a year, improving their literacy at work and so improving their productivity and capacity. The WELL program is no more and 10,000 Australians will be worse off for it on an annual basis—but we will all be worse off as a nation.

The government has also gutted the funding of the Adult English Migrant Program, AMEP, which was originally launched way back in 1948. The government has only committed to the current year's funding of $14.5 million, with no more money budgeted in the forward estimates. That is unacceptable. Any government committed to raising our productivity by giving people the skills and know-how to be 'lifters, not leaners' must be putting more funds into adult learning, not less. And it is a false economy. Whatever savings the government makes will be dwarfed by the improvement in national productivity we miss out on due to the cuts. Simply put, low literacy holds back men and women at work, and everyone loses as a result. I implore the Turnbull government to treat this issue as a national priority with a great degree of urgency for the sake of millions of Australians, for their dignity and to unlock their true potential.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (20:52): I echo the sentiments that were just expressed by Senator Xenophon. In fact, they relate quite closely to the comments that I want to make this evening, about a piece of legislation that, happily, was rejected by the Senate last week—that is, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Unemployment and Other Measures) Bill. I take this opportunity to speak to the nature of the government under Mr Abbott, sanctioned by then senior minister Mr Turnbull, and articulate their miserly vision of Australia that have seen implemented over the last two years, and why we should not expect much difference going forward.

Youth unemployment in Australia is at levels not seen since the mid-1990s, and that has happened on the Abbott-Turnbull government's watch. Of the almost 800,000 Australians who are unemployed, over 284,000 are young people—young people searching for work. At no stage during the global financial crisis was youth unemployment as high as it is today under the Abbott-Turnbull government. During the past 12 months, the average rate of unemployed young people looking for full-time work has been assessed as being 15.7 per cent for 15- to 24-year-olds and 28.7 per cent for 15- to 19-year-olds. Youth unemployment on the Central Coast is, sadly, close to 15 per cent, and in the Hunter region, just a little further north up the M1, it is 20 per cent, the highest in the state of New South Wales.

What was the Abbott-Turnbull government's response to the genuinely damaging and life-changing problem of unemployment, which scars people and damages communities? It was to come into this place and the other place with a social services bill that attempted, yet again, to prevent young people from having access to essential services and a small amount of money to enable them to live, to feed themselves, to travel legally on public transport, to seek work, to make their car payments, to honour their commitment to their landlord if they are renting, to pay the part of the rent they might be responsible for in their family. The government—Mr Abbott, sanctioned by his entire frontbench and everyone who sits on the other side of this chamber—were happy to see young people cast on the scrap heap, in many cases at the very beginning of their adult lives, for one entire month, with nothing, no resources of any kind. That is the shameful reality of what Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull and their team stand for.

We see it manifested in many programs. Take the Work for the Dole program. The government argue that this is designed to provide young people with new skills that, they say, help the transition into work. But the evidence does not show any such thing. In my discussions with young people on the Central Coast of New South Wales, they suggest that Work for the Dole absolutely fails them. It does not deliver any of the claimed advantages that we hear spoken about in this place, because it does not actually prepare young people for work and entering the workforce—not the genuine workforce. It rarely allows those involved the education and training that would enable them to become proficient in new areas and to develop new skills that they need in a genuine workplace. Rather, what we have on the coast is the revelation of Work for the Dole as a program in which people find themselves doing a variety of menial, unskilled tasks, often in a work environment—nature—that bears absolutely no relation to their existing knowledge or enthusiasm, and does not meet any of the tests for developing competent workplace capacities.

I am really mindful of the illusion that this government tries to create. When Mr Abbott announced the funding for the Work for the Dole program on the Central Coast, he made sure that the television images that evening would show him once again adorned in a bright shirt in a workplace with lathes and other high-tech equipment around him so that people would think the Work for the Dole program was actually going to lead young people to that kind of workplace. But the reality on the Central Coast is that young people, as well as older people, who are called to participate in the Work for the Dole program are walking along coastal tracks, pulling weeds. In a sophisticated, knowledge economy in the 21st century, this backward way is the government's signature program for getting young people into work. It is an embarrassment and it is certainly not supported by any articulated policy.

What drives the Work for the Dole program is politics, not carefully thought through, evidence based policy. Policy programs such as those the Abbott-Turnbull government have on offer has very little, if anything, to do with the availability or creation of secure employment. Work for the Dole is not structured around formal skill development that would make a tangible difference to the likelihood of securing employment. It is unfortunate that programs such as this are allowed to continue when they only pretend to offer solutions to these really critical problems that young adults face during periods of unemployment.

This is particularly a problem—and, Madam Acting Deputy President Peris, you would be very mindful of this yourself—in regional, rural and remote settings in Australia. There needs to be an authentic and ethical understanding of the challenges of creating jobs in that context, outside of cities, and people's ability to move their body from where they live to a place where work is available. That is something that this government, previously under Mr Abbott and now under Mr Turnbull, seems incapable of coming to terms with. Instead, we see callous insults hurled at tens of thousands of young Australians who are desperate to get on with their lives, desperate to find paid employment.

One of the suggestions that they make is that young people really do not want to work, that they want a life of being a 'leaner'—that appalling language that has characterised this government and been supported by one and all. That suggestion is absolutely false. It is utterly fatuous, but all too typical of a government that is anxious to wield a big stick but not prepared to work to solve the problems of youth unemployment.

Labor understands that it is our role in this place to develop evidence based policy initiatives and to participate in the legislative program to enable change that will bring about employment for young people—real and authentic opportunities for them to get genuine training and cadetships, to grow their skills and knowledge. We must ensure that they can confidently—with literacy capacity, with social capacity, with emotional capacity—take their place as citizens who can make constructive contributions as members of our community, not just in their workplace but in the broader community.

Labor believes our role with young people and those seeking employment must be one of support, encouragement and skill development, not a role of abandonment as characterised by this government. It is Labor's view that the mark of a civilised society is that during times of crisis and hardship a fair and just government provides targeted support to those who are exposed to the frustration and misery of unemployment.

I recall, very sadly, the passing of the father of one of my daughter's good friends—in her primary school years. The friend's father was sadly killed in a tragic accident in the family home. He was an employer of young people. That put the entire workplace at risk. All of those young people had responsibilities; they had debts that they needed to pay. Becoming unemployed through no fault of your own is a reality for Australians. This government does not seem to understand that a safety net for those who find themselves unemployed is a fair and ethical thing to do. Rather, they seek to demonise those who are vulnerable. The stories that were told to the Fair Work task force that visited Gosford last Friday reveal just how desperately we need a government with a vision for the country, not this miserly Abbott-Turnbull government and what it has provided so far.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (21:02): Today I would like to say: thank you for riding a motor bike. In fact motorcyclists should take a bow. The more people ride motorbikes, the more the rest of the community benefits. And I am pleased to say that motorcycling is enjoying a sustained surge in popularity. Older people and women are now more likely to become motorcyclists. And there is a broader range of motorcycles available, from lower powered scooters to large touring bikes.

In most Australian states motorbike registration has outstripped car registration on a percentage basis in the last five years, growing nationally by 25 per cent. In my state of New South Wales motorcycle registrations have enjoyed a 60 per cent increase. But this growing popularity is largely in spite of state and federal government policies, not because of them. People ride motorbikes to commute, for touring and for trail-riding. Motorcycling offers affordable mobility, helps avoid traffic snarls and acts as stress relief. There is the personal freedom of touring. Then there is the pleasure of just riding; riding a bike anywhere is worth it.

Motorcycling also offers social interaction with others. It is an enjoyable leisure activity and provides the means to share an activity with like-minded friends. For many, the thrill of participating in or being a spectator to motorcycle racing adds further value to their lifestyle. A motorbike is more capable of negotiating heavy traffic than other vehicles, with trip times up to one-third less than cars.

But why do motorcyclists deserve to be thanked? Because motorcycling in our cities significantly eases congestion, on the road and also with parking. This is beneficial to other road users. Motorcycles use less fuel, produce fewer emissions and cause less road wear than other vehicles. Up to five motorbikes can occupy the same parking space as a single car. Another reason is that motorcycle touring is a boon to our regional economy. The average motorcyclist spends $120 to $140 per night in regional towns, compared to an average $18 spent by grey nomads.

I am among those who deserve to be thanked. I have been riding motorbikes for 40 years. It is a part of my life and gives me great enjoyment. My current bike is a recently acquired BMW S1000R, a 1000cc rocket ship. Living in Australia's biggest city, I particularly like being able to weave my way through the traffic. In the process, I use less fuel, take up less space on the road, share parking spaces with other bikes and cause less wear and tear on the roads.

Given all that, you might think that planning for and encouragement of motorcycling would be high on the agenda of road planners and traffic authorities. You would be wrong. Not only are motorcycle riders invisible to many car drivers; they are also invisible to policymakers. In the 173-page road safety strategy review, just two pages are devoted to motorcycling issues. Even though motorbike use in the Melbourne CBD increased 73 per cent between 2006 and 2014, and even though there are now over three-quarters of a million motorcycles registered nationally, they are ignored in road safety planning.

And when authorities actually pay attention to motorcyclists, they typically begin from the wrong starting point. Instead of encouraging and enhancing the growing trend towards motorcycling, the policymaker mindset is stuck in prohibition and regulation in an attempt to control and curtail motorcycling. Because the consequences of accidents are more serious for motorcyclists, the authorities consider motorcyclists feebleminded and in need of saving from themselves

It is well known that doctors and nurses in hospital emergency departments refer to us motorcyclists as 'organ donors'. They, and others who also never ride a motorcycle, feel entitled to impose restrictions and constraints on motorcycling. And yet motorcyclists know the risks that flow from having an accident. We are adults, we have minds of our own, and we accept those risks. Ask any one of us.

A better attitude to motorcycling, with a more constructive approach by policy makers, would translate into broader recognition and acceptance by the public of the benefits to all road users from motorcycling. The do-gooders and nanny-staters should back off. We encourage the use of public transport as an alternative to commuting by car. We should also acknowledge that motorcycling is a viable means of easing traffic congestion. It is not a nuisance. Road rules and parking provisions should facilitate motorcycling, not inhibit it. The National Road Safety Strategy should do likewise. The Transport and Infrastructure Council, chaired by the minister for infrastructure, is the peak road safety policy forum in the country. I urge the minister to get motorcycling on the agenda for the sake of all road users in Australia. And it is high time that police, engineers and road safety experts stopped making life hard for motorcyclists. The three-quarters of a million Australians who choose to ride a motorbike deserve better.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (21:08): Yesterday Girl Guides came to parliament. While there were significant numbers of Girl Guide biscuits, there were neither woggles nor campfires present. What we did have were strong women of all ages who came to talk about what guiding meant to them and what they hoped Girl Guides would provide for many young women in our country and across the world. For the last two years, Australian Girl Guides have been doing a national review of what guiding means to our community and also how they hope guiding will continue into the 21st and further centuries. Yesterday we had the opportunity to meet with women who were proud of being Girl Guides. Representatives from across Australia came, including Chief Commissioner Robinette Emonson and CEO Kit McMahon. They wanted to talk about the achievements of girl guides, and about how they were working with young women to look at their needs and challenge them into the future.

As we know, the history of Girl Guides goes back to 1909, when it is said that at the first Boy Scout rally Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts, was surprised when several girls turned up and insisted that they wanted to be girl scouts. He agreed, which is good, and in 1910 the World Association of Girl Guides was officially formed. From as early as 1909 here in Australia girls were forming their own groups and by 1920 Girl Guide associations had been formed in six states. In 1926 the state associations federated and formed a national organisation—Australian Girl Guides. Since that time, over a million Australian women have been or are still Girl Guides. And once a Girl Guide, always a Girl Guide. Girl Guides Australia is a founding member of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts—WAGGS. They are part of a worldwide movement of some 10 million members in 146 countries. This is indeed an international movement for women.

Girl Guides Australia see the role of non-formal education and lifelong learning as critical for the empowerment of girls and as a way of contributing to meeting our national and international development goals. They are working with colleagues in Australia and across the world to roll out nonformal education programs, including three programs I want to talk about this evening—Guide Your Money, Free Being Me and Voices Against Violence. At the core of these programs is the real empowerment of girls so that they have the knowledge that they can achieve in our community. Dedicated Girl Guides Australia volunteers are instrumental in developing programs and inspiring girls and young women to be their best.

The Guide Your Money—Girl Guides Australia Financial Literacy Strategy was developed with international help so that we have the same kinds of skills available, and it was based on a concern about economic disadvantage that women face. We know in Australia, as we talked about last week, that the current gender pay gap sits at 17.9 per cent. We believe, along with the Girl Guides, that we should be working towards achieving the economic empowerment of women and girls through the Guide Your Money program, which aims to equip members with financial literacy skills and build real financial capability. It aims to empower girls and young women with practical learning on personal finance so that they can make better decisions for themselves for an independent secure financial future. The Girl Guides movement partners with lead organisational expertise in financial literacy, and this translates key content to the Girl Guide method for sustainable outcomes. The program is designed to support transformational change in the lives of girls and young women and to provide access to understanding the value of positive personal money management, and to develop a financial literacy program that covers key life stages of girls and young women and through that to provide guide leaders access to financial literacy development.

The Girl Guides structure aims to work at young women across many ages, so the target audience for this program is structured into two groups—girls from 7 to 12 are given positive role models on saving and using money, and they are introduced to the basics of budgeting and making better money decisions; young women, the older guides aged 18 to 30, are empowered to take control of their financial future. Skills will be developed via face-to-face learning, online content and practical application. The strategy will also develop capacity among adults who lead the young girls and peer educators—you are never too old to learn about effective money management.

This program is planned to work through the non-formal learning program, creating life skills in girls and young women by raising awareness of informed financial decisions and the importance of making informed financial decisions. It empowers girls and young women to know where they can seek information and to be mindful about the role of money and finance in their lives, with the intent of making women independent. The idea is to develop positive mindsets, knowledge and understanding of how financial literacy can empower their future and, importantly, to create what is called a 'pause point' in a girl or young woman's life when financial decisions are made so that they can consider how a decision on their own personal finances can contribute to that necessary financial independence. Importantly, this program aims to provide opportunities for girls and young women to take a moment to envision their own financial future and to understand what actions they can take to realise that future.

Another program which I really, really like is called Free Being Me. This program was developed by the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts and the company Dove to improve the self-esteem of girls across the world, again making sure that young women in Australia are learning and sharing their knowledge with young women across the world. Girl Guides Australia is concerned that 70 per cent of girls in Australia have said that they have body dissatisfaction and 20 per cent of females in Australia have identified an undiagnosed eating disorder. Free Being Me is a program designed to show young people that body confidence and self-esteem come from valuing our bodies, standing up to social pressure and supporting others to become more confident.

Participants in Free Being Me will learn leadership skills and will feel empowered—that word again—to make a difference in their own lives, their local communities and in global communities. The vision of this partnership is a world where girls have sense and confidence about knowing how they can respond to the anxiety caused by appearance-related fear and loathing. The mission is to empower girls to reach their full potential by strengthening their body confidence and esteem.

Again, responding to girls of all ages, the research team has developed two versions of the program: one for seven- to 10-year-olds and the other aimed at 11- to 14-year-olds. This program aims to impact 23,000 girls by March 2016, rolling out the curriculum to approximately 7,500 guides in Australia. Internationally, the plan is that the partnership will see 3.5 million girls taking part in this program. The program is based on a sequence of activities that sets up cognitive dissonance. Research into body confidence programs tells us that it is only through setting up a stage of cognitive dissonance that behaviour towards body confidence and image can be and will be sustainably changed. In this way we build resilient girls with high self-esteem.

The sequence of learning is: discover the image myth and understand how media and society broadly set girls and women up with unrealistic expectations of what beauty really is; understand where the image myth is found and how it affects us; define the cost of the image myth in personal, social and community terms; and understand body talk—the fact that a key part of perpetuating the myth is in the words and phrases that are used to reinforce our sense of self and our wellbeing; and take action from this learning and growing awareness. The young women and girls participating in the program are asked to spread the word and take action in their communities. The confidence that they learn can then be shared and we can break down this fear and anxiety which we know is all too prevalent in our community.

The third program that I want to talk about this evening is Voices against Violence. This Girl Guides program for children and young people is to stop violence against girls and women. It seems to me that no group could be more aware of the need to work effectively with young women than the Girl Guides. Girl Guides Australia is deeply concerned about the fact that—and we know this awful fact—one Australian woman dies every week from domestic violence and internationally six out of 10 women will be subject to some form of domestic violence or abuse in their lifetimes. They realise that a priority area for action is addressing violence against women systematically as a way of engaging with women and young girls locally and also having a sense of the international problem.

Voices against Violence is a non-formal education curriculum developed in partnership with UN Women, again having that sense that this is not just something that impacts in Australia—it is an international issue, and we can make change here locally. Through delivery of a non-formal education curriculum, the program supports children and young people to understand their right to live without violence and discrimination, to identify different forms of violence and to gain the skills and confidence to speak out and take action in preventing violence in their own lives and in their communities. Again, there is shared strength and shared action.

The target audience is divided into different age groups so that the response can be immediate and skills are built up over a period of time. The age groups are young, middle and older years, with age-appropriate activities on different forms of violence for each group. In delivering the Voices against Violence program, Girl Guides Australia again is part of a global community committed to reaching out to 30 million people in over 100 countries. Groups of all ages look at the topics, which include gender stereotyping and gender discrimination, domestic violence, child abuse and sexual bullying. Older groups look at all topics, such as informed consent, sexual harassment, relationship abuse, sexualisation, female genital mutilation and forced and early marriage. Again, there is sharing of knowledge. As you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President Peris, these are the core issues that are discussed internationally through the UN movement. There is such a wealth of knowledge and experience that can be learnt and discussed with the young women and girls. The idea is that people will have the confidence to learn and then be able to self-identify and to say quite confidently, 'No, this is not right.' They will be part of an ongoing campaign to stop violence. The curriculum has been developed, naturally, for worldwide use. It can be adapted to different cultural, social and legal contexts and has already been successfully piloted in 20 countries. After developing the ability to identify and understand gender violence, participants are encouraged to speak out and take action to stop violence. This they can do so through their own local campaigns, events or activities with the support of Girl Guides Australia.

The Girl Guides are alive and well and active in our community. While they do have a long history, they are not necessarily just part of history. The two-year program that has reviewed Girl Guides in Australia will be used to activate future programs, to ensure that generations to come will have the challenge of being involved in the movement and to share the knowledge so that women will be able to be part of the million Australian women who have been part of Girl Guides up till now. The plan for Girl Guides Australia is that this number will increase not just here but across the world.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (21:23): We have been told he is a conviction politician with a grown-up approach to policy. The walk, the words and the delivery might be very different from those of the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott. But the new Prime Minister, Malcom Turnbull, is just another leader of the same Liberal Party that specialises in cruel, discriminatory policies. Mr Turnbull is my local MP. There should be no honeymoon for this new Prime Minister. For the member for Wentworth, the warning bells should ring loud and clear.

The new Prime Minister supported all the hardship measures, all the cuts in the 2014 budget. That was the Hockey-Abbott horror show that attempted to deny the dole to unemployed young people for six months while imposing savage cuts on public education, public health, public broadcasting and pensions. This was the 'no pain, no gain' budget. It was when the career of the not-yet-former Treasurer, Mr Hockey, probably started to go downhill. He clearly misjudged the situation. Remember, this budget—again, one that Mr Turnbull signed off and was actively out there promoting and committing himself to—was one where the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, broke many promises. This was also when the former Prime Minister and the current Treasurer were out there telling the business community that it might not be popular but it was the right budget. Again, so much of this unravelled but always Mr Turnbull was there backing it. He backed the $80 billion of cuts to school and hospital funding across our states. It was so severe that conservative premiers in the states took a stand against it—but not Mr Turnbull, who was always loyal to this very cruel budget. Significant structural reform was said to be introduced to address a deficit, but what it was used to do was to sack and end the jobs of many public servants. We saw the very harsh way that played out. Again, this is the 2014 budget that Mr Turnbull has at no time criticised or tried to distance himself from. It is worth remembering that the Abbott government came in on a very clear commitment of no cuts to education, to health, to pensions or to the ABC and SBS. These promises were broken, but the current Prime Minister just went along with it and spoke very strongly on some occasions in support of that very dangerous and destructive budget.

We learned a bit more about where the Prime Minister is at in the two speeches he gave yesterday. Essentially what we heard there was that he is ready to lead a neo-Liberal government. Neo-Liberal policies writ large is what came across. He said:

This will be a thoroughly Liberal government. It will be a thoroughly Liberal government committed to freedom, the individual and the market.

Let us remember what this means for ordinary people's lives. Turnbull will be turning back the clock in so many areas. For working people, for people who are doing it tough and do not have a job, for people in the later stages of life and for people who are sick and disadvantaged in different ways, it is certainly not looking good under a Turnbull government. You do not need to join many dots to reach these conclusions. Mr Turnbull has helped us out. He also gave an example, and the example he gave was the Howard government. He said:

… we have a great example of good Cabinet Government, John Howard’s Government most of us served in.

Let us remember what that government did to this country. The Howard government introduced Work Choices. That was debated in this place, in the House of Representatives and across this country and was one of the key reasons why he lost his job. Australians recognised how savage it was, how wrong it was and how it was there to turn back the clock on many of the conditions that Australians had worked so hard for—both fair working conditions on the job and the right of unions of people to collectively organise. And now we have the current Prime Minister harking back to the good old days of the Howard government. Those policies of running down the conditions of working people were a big theme of the Abbott government and, again, something Mr Turnbull has not distanced himself from.

I have noticed that in a number of assessments of Mr Turnbull one of the comments being made is that he could be an even stronger backer of the stringent approach to unions and working people's rights, because of how close he is to the business community. Big businesses are his big friends. Campaigns for cuts to penalty rates, the China free trade agreement and the political show trial which has the sanitised name of a royal commission against union corruption are not likely to change under a Turnbull-led government. Nothing in his speeches came close to expressing any interest in the lives of ordinary people. This is what we are seeing already from Mr Turnbull, so it does not look good.

The China free trade agreement was something that Mr Turnbull made reference to as soon as he announced that he was ready to challenge the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott. His emphasis on that gives us an insight. Considering this is so controversial in Australia at the moment, he could have not said anything about it or he could have at least opened up space and said, 'Maybe we need to relook at this.' But he was solidly behind this very dangerous so-called free trade agreement. I notice, under the previous Prime Minister, the government even changed the name of it; they were starting to realise how unpopular it was. This is a trade agreement that will destroy Australian jobs and working conditions in this country. But, again, there was no interest from this Prime Minister at all. We know of his commitment to the so-called free trade agreement with China from his failure to speak out about it and his actions over many years. If you go back to 2008 you can see that Mr Turnbull was quite evasive when the Fair Work bill was going through this place. We can easily conclude that he is a Prime Minister who backs cuts to penalty rates, cuts to the minimum wage, cuts to the rights of workers and, effectively, robbing jobs from our community. If you are going to support the free trade agreement with China as it is presently constructed, that is what you are backing.

Mr Turnbull has made no secret that he is a friend of big business. He has failed to stand up for unemployed workers, workers doing it tough, people on pensions and people who are uncertain about what the future holds for them in Australia. I want to particularly mention some of the issues in New South Wales. Yes, Mr Turnbull is the member for Wentworth, but he has been a minister. Surely he could have thought of people doing it tough in New South Wales. I particularly want to mention the Illawarra, where there is a real threat of the Port Kembla steelworks closing down. This Senate has twice passed motions to bring some sanity to policy on this issue. But there has been no interest from Mr Turnbull. Surely, where there are 10,000 jobs at risk in an area where youth unemployment is about 25 per cent and general unemployment is on the rise, he would have taken some interest. He could have visited there. It is less than an hour and a half from Sydney. We have seen over the years huge job losses in Western Sydney, particularly from the manufacturing sector. Maybe the now Prime Minister has taken an interest, but I certainly could not find any record of it. If he has taken an interest, he would be wise to get mention of it out there, because it is becoming a more and more serious problem in our country.

It does not look good for refugee rights under this Prime Minister. He used the phrase 'restoring the security of our borders' when he was praising the former Prime Minister in one of his speeches yesterday about what the former Prime Minister did for Syrian refugees. There he was, using the phrase 'restoring the security of our borders'. It was typical of the language that we have become used to hearing from Malcolm Turnbull. His language is much more eloquent than the former Prime Minister's, but the intent is still the same. It is a very savage approach—an internationally illegal approach, I would argue. He is effectively saying that Australia will not abide by our international obligation to acknowledge that asylum seekers—however they might come to our country—have the right to come to this country. We have a duty to process them, consider their needs and determine if they are refugees. Again, that was a very informative phrase that Mr Turnbull used.

We hear that Mr Turnbull has promised that he will not reintroduce an emissions trading scheme and that he has effectively signed off on the very inadequate climate change policy of the former Abbott government. For somebody who carved his reputation in his early years in this place around more effective climate change policies, it is not a good sign. Where is his backbone? Where is the commitment on such an important issue when we are getting closer to the important meetings in Paris about this issue?

We know Mr Turnbull is not just a big businessman but a true believer in free market economics—but surely it is time to reassess what free market economics does. Clearly, business has a role in our community. I am not saying it does not, so those opposite should not go down that ridiculous path of misrepresenting what I am saying. But Mr Turnbull is now Prime Minister of the whole country. He is not just there for big business. He is not just continuing the agenda of the previous government but with a more eloquent way of saying it. That is deeply dishonest. That is why I said that the new Prime Minister does not deserve a honeymoon period. This government is continuing with so many of the old policies. The poor, the needy, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, marginalised people, Indigenous people—life is not looking good for so many communities under this Prime Minister. Unemployment is now at a 12-year high. What is going to happen there? It is a real concern in so many areas.

I could not believe it when the Abbott government came up with their plan to deny young unemployed people income for six months. Yes, it has been lowered so that they would only be denied income for one month. But that is no way to assist our young people who are coming out of school to consider their future. As a starting point, the Prime Minister should scrap that, get it off the agenda and start thinking about all Australians irrespective of where they live, how they live and what their plans are for the future.

On another matter, the recent passing of the Biosecurity Bill 2015 in New South Wales has the potential to set a worrying precedent for the criminalisation of whistleblowing by animal activists in Australia. The movers of the New South Wales bill claim that it offers integral biosecurity protections across the state. That may be true; however, hidden in this bill are shoddy ag-gag provisions that aim to stifle the rights of people—activists and consumers alike—to speak out and learn about animal cruelty. Ag-gag laws aim to stop animal advocates investigating industrial scale animal cruelty, by raising penalties against activists who engage in undercover operations. The New South Wales Biosecurity Bill could see animal cruelty whistleblowers hit with a fine of $1.1 million, imprisonment for three years or both. How extreme is that?

Undercover operations led by animal activists are integral to letting the community learn about the realities of life for animals on factory farms. People say to me, 'But they're breaking the law, Lee. That's wrong.' They would not need to take those actions and they would not need to go into the farms and, at times, break the law if we had adequate animal welfare laws that were enforced. That is why we need to ensure that these ag-gag provisions do not come in. Right now, it is the courageous actions of many animal welfare activists that ensure that animal welfare issues are addressed. They are doing the jobs that governments and the various authorities are failing to do. That is why we have to speak out against these ag-gag laws.

If the community cannot learn about cruelty, the potential for the community to speak out to protect the welfare of animals is diminished. If the community does not speak out, there is no incentive for animal welfare reform to take place. Farmers who otherwise may have invested in measures such as giving animals access to the outdoors, larger cages for chickens or nesting materials for sows will lose their incentive, as these reforms will offer little to no return from consumers who are unaware of the harsher conditions on alternative farms that may not have invested in these welfare measures. This law will, therefore, have the potential to slow, stop or reverse animal welfare reform by reducing the ability of activists and consumers to question the suitability of animal production systems. We have seen in recent years the move of consumers away from battery cage eggs and sow stall pork. Consumers care about the standards and welfare of the products they are buying. These laws serve not only to impact on the welfare of animals and those farmers who wish to implement higher welfare standards for their animals but also on the rights of consumers to make choices they deem ethical.

It is not just the arena of intensive food animal production in which whistleblowers will be criminalised under this law. I am sure everybody would remember the Four Corners program that exposed the widespread animal cruelty occurring within the greyhound racing industry in this country. Under this proposed New South Wales legislation, activities such as those carried out by Four Corners and Animals Australia to investigate and uncover live baiting cruelty would have been impossible. The extensive program and all the vision that we saw would not have been possible, and the follow-up, which resulted in much of the cruelty ceasing and in some of those dogs being saved, would not have happened. We would not know about that now if that law was used. Greyhound Racing New South Wales, the independent body charged with overseeing animal welfare in this industry, told a 2014 New South Wales government inquiry that it had no evidence that live animals were being used as bait. Fortunately, we had courageous people go in and get that vision. Four Corners, to their credit, ran that, and there was much follow-up. I repeat this because it is so important: if Four Corners and Animals Australia had not carried out undercover investigations, the public may never have found out about this obscene cruelty. Again, with that law, that could well be the result in the future.

These excessive attempts to criminalise whistleblowing only serve to indicate that maybe there is something to hide. That is why these ag-gag laws are wrong.

Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (21:41): Firstly, I seek leave to table a document, and it was disclosed to all the whips earlier today.

Leave granted.

Senator MADIGAN: Tonight, I speak about corruption and fraud in the power generation industry. The Senate wind turbine inquiry's final report made 15 important recommendations. Tonight, I rise to speak in support the Labor senators' dissenting report's fifth recommendation:

… that state and territory government consider reforming the current system whereby wind farm developers directly retain acoustic consultants to provide advice on post-construction compliance.

Avoiding noise from wind turbines is an expensive bother that does not hold any appeal to wind farm operators. Slowing down turbines increases costs and slows down profits. So I was not surprised to learn that, in the seven years of its controversial operation, the adjustments necessary to ensure Cape Bridgewater wind farm operated in compliance with its planning permit have never been applied. Wind farm operators have found a simple and far less expensive process to game the system: they employ compliant 'experts'.

In 2006, Marshall Day Acoustics, with consultant Christophe Delaire, prepared a preconstruction noise impact assessment for the Cape Bridgewater wind farm. The report predicted that compliance could not be achieved at Cape Bridgewater wind farm without operating 13 of the 29 turbines in reduced operational noise modes. Before it was even built, developers knew this wind farm would operate in breach of permit unless adjustments were made. But Delaire told the committee of inquiry, 'following measurements on site, it was found that noise optimisation was not required.' How did Delaire's 'expert' preconstruction and post-construction reports come to draw such contrasting conclusions? The answer is simple. Pacific Hydro did not noise optimise turbines at Cape Bridgewater, because they knew they would not have to. They only had to commission a post-construction noise report to say the wind farm was compliant. On both occasions, Pacific Hydro got exactly the report they wanted from MDA, but the compliance assessments were not compliant with the standard and neither were the reports.

Questions of multiple reports reaching opposite    conclusions were raised at the Portland hearing. During the Cape Bridgewater wind farm's noise monitoring    program, measurements were taken every month and monthly noise reports were generated to assess compliance at dwellings. Let us look at a few from house 63. October 2008: 'Wind farm noise levels exceed the New Zealand noise limits'. June 2009: 'The New Zealand limits are significantly exceeded.' July 2009: 'The New Zealand limits are significantly exceeded.' MDA's original reports identified noncompliance at multiple homes and every wind speed. This did not satisfy the client.

On 22 July, MDA reissued revised monthly reports for every house and every month. These reports were to Pacific Hydro's satisfaction but not the permit's. The reissued versions for October and July said, 'There is reasonable correlation between measured noise levels and wind speeds.' References to exceeding the New Zealand limits were erased. Without incriminating original reports, MDA's final report concluded, 'Noise emissions from the Cape Bridgewater wind farm comply with the New Zealand noise limits at all houses and at all assessed wind speeds.' Pacific Hydro submitted it to the planning minister as 'proof' the Cape Bridgewater wind farm was compliant. But how? MDA combined all the reissued monthly reports and averaged them out for each property. There is nothing in the 1998 New Zealand standard that allows acousticians to find 'average' post-construction noise levels and yet Pacific Hydro told the committee, 'Current noise standards require the average post-construction wind farm noise level.'

There is no tolerance within the standard that would allow a wind farm to casually comply with its noise limits in some months but not others. Condition 13 does not allow the wind farm to occasionally comply with its permitted use. The New Zealand standard is supposed to protect amenity and night-time sleep. Wind farm planning permits are issued with conditions that decision makers expect will protect the communities that host them—in real time.

In February 2009, the panel assessing the Lal Lal wind farm stated:

There is little point in giving permission for a WEF to operate under certain conditions unless compliance with those conditions can and is demonstrated.

It added:

any exceedance of the limit should be considered as a breach of the condition …

An 'average' noise level means absolutely nothing. That is why the permit requires that when the wind farm is operated it must comply with the New Zealand noise limits at all dwellings and, clearly, this one does not. The Cape Bridgewater wind farm has never been compliant, despite the falsified conclusions drawn by MDA and the claims of its master, Pacific Hydro. A Victorian Planning officer told the committee: 'Studies need to be done in a way which is robust. That is why the peer review of the work is important.' So why wasn't a review of the Cape Bridgewater report commissioned as a matter of due diligence, not to mention consistency?

When ACCIONA gave the minister its report, the minister sent a copy to the EPA, and within a week he had commissioned an independent technical review. He promptly wrote to ACCIONA, describing multiple breaches of permit and expressing his dissatisfaction that compliance had been achieved with the noise monitoring program required by condition 17. He said that the report shows that the operation of the Waubra wind farm does not comply with the noise standard at several dwellings and he was not satisfied in accordance with condition 14 that the operation of the facility complies with the relevant standard. Then he asked ACCIONA to 'noise optimise the turbines'. Delaire from MDA prepared Waubra's wind farm's preconstruction noise report, which predicted noise would exceed the New Zealand limits and would only comply if 50 of its 128 turbines were noise optimised. Same preconstruction formula, same post-construction problems. If not for that pesky peer review, ACCIONA might have got away with it. They had never intended to operate noise optimised turbines in compliance with the limits. Why? ACCIONA had an MDA post-construction noise report that concluded that Waubra wind farm operated in compliance with noise limits without needing to noise optimise any turbines, let alone 50 of them!

The Minister wrote to ACCIONA again a year later, stating that the MDA report it submitted showed non-compliance and that testing was not undertaken in accordance with the New Zealand standard. The minister queried who it was that undertook the assessment and whether this person or people were qualified and experienced to do so. MDA's website says that Delaire graduated with an engineering diploma in 2002, after beginning with MDA as a work experience student the year before. Delaire has prepared acoustic reports for 50 wind farms. MDA's website promotes its 'proven record of successful wind farm approvals' and credits Delaire for developing a 'specialty' in wind farm environmental noise assessments.

At the beginning of MDA's reports there is an extraordinary disclaimer which acknowledges that reports are written to satisfy the client's brief. It says their reports 'may not be suitable' for other uses. MDA's disclaimer proves they are not fit for purpose as independent compliance documents. MDA is a member firm of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants, whose code of professional conduct requires that members avoid making statements that are misleading or unethical and that they endeavour to promote the wellbeing of the community. They must not knowingly omit from any finalised report any information that would materially alter the conclusion that could be drawn from the report.

MDA has clearly failed the community consistently. There is no doubt that MDA's commercial arrangements with both ACCIONA and Pacific Hydro adversely affected the independence of reports and the legitimacy of conclusions. This example alone shows exactly why we needed an inquiry that examined the regulatory governance of wind farms and why the scrutiny of an independent national wind farm commissioner is essential. There must be arm's length relationships between acousticians and wind farm operators. Independence would put a stop to the practice where false compliance documents allow operators to gain pecuniary advantage.

Local, state and Commonwealth government authorities, departments and agencies have been duped by sham compliance reports

A wind farm that is 'compliant' with state laws can receive RECs. A 'compliant' wind farm can secure finance, like the $70 million Pacific Hydro swindle from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. But those who these reports fail most are decent rural people, left suffering the consequences of deception. A shonky noise report can erase away the harm and nuisance it has caused for those living, working and suffering beside excessively noisy industrial machines.

Last month I asked the Victorian government to take a good hard look at all the submissions we received—in particular, those from the people duped by the regulatory failures of the Waubra and Cape Bridgewater wind farms. Samantha Stepnell's submission is No. 470. Melissa Ware's submission is No. 206.

While ACCIONA and Pacific Hydro were busy breaching their permits to maximise their profits, residents were and still are often exposed to horrendously excessive noise. Twenty or more of these same people had sent affidavits to former health minister and current Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews in June 2010. They reported severe sleep disturbances and a series of unexplained adverse health effects that were not present before the wind farms started operating. Local doctors and a sleep specialist confirmed concerns of a correlation.

By December 2010, 11 families around Waubra alone had vacated their homes, citing noise nuisance as the reason. But the Victorian government refused Pyrenees Shire Council's request for a health impact assessment, citing the NHMRC's rapid review. That very rapid review found that there was no evidence of adverse effects when planning guidelines were followed. At Waubra, we know that they were not. A simple peer review would have found that they were not followed at Cape Bridgewater either. With callous indifference, the Victorian government has consistently failed in its duty of care to these people. These people represent the human cost of corporate fraud, regulatory failure and political indifference. These families still have the right to be able to sleep at night, to work safely on their farms and to live in peace and have the quiet enjoyment of their homes. This is as much a human rights issue as it is an environmental one.

The nocebo theory is obliterated by the fact that the noise measured at Waubra and Cape Bridgewater exceeds World Health Organisation recommendations for sleep protection. Sleep deprivation is an indisputable health effect. Even the NHMRC now admits there are probably adverse health impacts for residents living within 1.5 kilometres of a wind turbine.

I have been writing to the AMA since May 2014 about its wind farm position statement, asking why audible noise impacts had not been considered. The AMA has failed to respond, but blindly endorses the disproven nocebo drivel by Chapman and Crichton, stating:

The available Australian and international evidence does not support the view that the infrasound or low frequency sound generated by wind farms, as they are currently regulated in Australia, causes adverse health effects on populations residing in their vicinity.

That is because infrasound and low frequency sound from wind farms are not regulated in Australia. Irrespective of what the AMA has been told or wants to admit, exposures to excessive audible noise, low frequency pressure and vibration cause debilitating nuisance, sleep disturbance and compromised health and amenity that reduce quality of life.

So where does that leave those suffering the continuing nuisance at Cape Bridgewater? In submission No. 206, Melissa Ware said she was driven beyond despair and wretchedness. Last year, Pacific Hydro told residents: 'It is our goal to improve your quality of life or at least restore it to what it was before the wind farm was there.' They told me personally: 'We recognise that the wind farm has reduced their quality of life, and we want to help them get it back.' But that was before Steven Cooper's study found that all six residents surveyed are adversely impacted by the operation of the Cape Bridgewater wind farm. Funnily enough, Cooper was instructed not to test compliance. Despite the infamous screeching, thumping, whirring, whistling and siren-like audible sounds produced by the Cape Bridgewater wind farm, special audible characteristics were not assessed in MDA's report. If the five decibel SAC penalty were properly applied, an independent report would identify noncompliance at every dwelling, at every wind speed.

The Waubra and Cape Bridgewater reports were written within months of each other by the same acoustician from the same firm, using the same formula. Perhaps the planning minister has not commissioned a review of Cape Bridgewater's report because he already knows it shows noncompliance. Is this the real reason why the planning minister insists that it is Glenelg Shire's responsibility to enforce noise compliance at Cape Bridgewater, not his? Glenelg Shire cannot enforce compliance without any access to noise reports and the complaints procedure. Only the minister has that information. Condition 13 says compliance must be to the satisfaction of the minister. Council cannot legally exercise that judgement. Condition 13 remains unresolved. Cape Bridgewater wind farm continues to operate at full capacity and maximum noise, without any regulatory authority accepting responsibility for enforcement.

In submission No. 456, Sonia Trist explains how officers from the Victorian planning department admitted noise limits are exceeded at her home, one apologising that: 'The department adjusts information to obtain the required results.' In June 2014, this retiring officer called me and later sent me an email, blowing the whistle on his department: 'There is so such more to convey and I am sorry that I cannot do so now. Department incompetence and indifference is the primary reason for the current situation. I found it hard to find the truth, working inside, so it must be hard for your side.' On 'my side' are those exposed to excessive and harmful, sleep-destroying, audible noise emissions at levels that exceed noise standards and breach permits. Those not on my side include complicit regulators, wilfully blind health bodies and greedy operators who put corporate profits before country people. And also not on my side are crooked acousticians flaunting a fraudulent reporting formula that concludes compliance when there is not.

Notable for their refusal to attend the Senate inquiry and be questioned, the Australian Medical Association were not alone. Others who similarly refused were the authors of the two NHMRC-commissioned literature reviews from Adelaide University and Monash University, and Professor Gary Wittert.

In December 2013, I warned about the culture of noncompliance arising from systemic regulatory failure in Victoria. But that culture of noncompliance, aided, abetted and enabled by recklessly irresponsible reporting and regulatory indifference, will only continue for as long as we tolerate it. This industry demands root-and-branch regulatory reform. Those who have actively and deceptively harmed communities, gamed the planning system, rorted the RET and exposed the CEFC and the private sector to investment risk must be investigated and held to account. I urge the government to swiftly adopt the prudent recommendations of the wind turbine inquiry. We insist that the Labor senators' fifth recommendation is acted upon as a matter of urgency.

Senator CONROY (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (22:00): We now have a new Prime Minister promising to usher in a new paradigm for political debate in this country. Mr Abbott's poor judgement, unfair policies, outright incompetence and malevolent ideological agenda finally wore down his colleagues. This is a former Prime Minister that used the trappings of office—the resources of the taxpayers—to pursue his own ideological vendettas against the Labor Party and its affiliates for his own political ends. You might think that that was unusual. In fact, I would say to you that it was unusual—because even former Prime Minister John Howard would not publicly support using royal commissions to investigate decisions of previous governments.

In their moment of electoral despair, after being behind Labor in the last 30 Newspolls, the Liberals have resorted to promoting Mr Turnbull into the prime ministership. Never mind the fact that Mr Turnbull has failed to deliver the government's commitments on the National Broadband Network, despite blowing the budget by more than $26 billion—yes, that was a 'b' for billion, not an 'm' for million. Never mind the fact that Mr Turnbull handpicked his own CEO for NBN—a man who, it has now been revealed, oversaw Vodafone while they were in the midst of covering up an illegal phone-hacking scandal. Never mind these facts that speak so strongly to Mr Turnbull's inability to deliver and to his total lack of judgement—this is the person whom the Liberal Party has installed as Prime Minister.

Mr Turnbull has some tough issues to deal with from the get-go. Mr Abbott was politically assassinated last night, and one of the main assassins sits in the chamber—Senator Scott Ryan. He was named on television last night on Sky News. He is loving it. Everyone gets their 15 seconds of fame, Senator Ryan. You were named on Sky television last night. Tonight, despite the fact that Mr Abbott was assassinated, his legacy is a minefield of disastrous decisions that Mr Turnbull must now contend with.

Tonight I want to speak again in regards to the Liberal Party's royal commission—its $80 million Star Chamber charged with persecuting the government's political enemies. Tonight I direct my comments to the Senate, but I hope that Mr Turnbull and his merry band of supporters—many of whom can be found on this side of the building—are also listening. My message to them is that this royal commission is a political witch-hunt. It is a relic of Mr Abbott's failed leadership.

I have to return to Mr Dyson Heydon—the captain's pick of captains' picks, possibly—and all of his royal commission staff. They are now so hopelessly compromised that Mr Turnbull should dismiss them immediately. Failure to do so will ensure that this biased royal commission hangs around Mr Turnbull's neck as testament to his failure of leadership and will show that Dyson Heydon is interested in nothing more than the size of his pay cheque.

Senators will be aware that this is not the first time I have spoken on this issue. The circumstances surrounding this royal commission and the conduct of Dyson Heydon are so outrageous that they cannot be detailed in one single speech. Last week I drew the Senate's attention to the nature of any royal commission's position within our constitutional structure. Despite the pathetically ignorant and misleading claims of those opposite, this royal commission is simply an extension of the executive Liberal-National coalition government. There can be no separation of powers. The royal commissioner was appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of Mr Abbott. Dyson Heydon has been a puppet of the Liberal Party. Through the royal commission he has persecuted the government's political enemies without any regard for fairness.

I also spoke on Dyson Heydon's conduct within the royal commission. I outlined the fact that Dyson Heydon had wilfully ignored any principles of natural justice. Dyson Heydon has ensured that the prejudicial nature of this royal commission has been enshrined in the commission's practice directions. By refusing people the opportunity to defend themselves, to cross-examine witnesses, to interrogate evidence and by holding secret hearings and coaching witnesses, such as the disgraced union leader, Kathy Jackson—by helping to cover up Kathy Jackson's crimes and by rejecting the evidence, which another court found her guilty of—Dyson Heydon has eliminated any opportunity for procedural fairness and justice within this royal commission. All Australians know that this royal commission is a taxpayer funded dirt unit established by Mr Abbott to smear and slander anyone who stands up to his bullying and his backward views. Despite all Australians understanding the prejudicial, biased nature of this royal commission, the arrogant actions of Dyson Heydon put this beyond doubt.

I want to talk tonight on Dyson Heydon's decision to attend a Liberal Party fundraiser and then his attempt to cover it up when his inappropriate association with the Liberals became public. He covered up. We always say in politics: 'It's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up that gets you.' Dyson Heydon has been caught in a web of his own lies. The revelation that Dyson Heydon agreed to be the keynote speaker at a New South Wales Liberal Party fundraiser removed any shred of credibility that this royal commission was clinging to—and it was pretty thin by then.

While Heydon claims that he was unaware that the event was a political fundraiser, he admits to receiving multiple pieces of correspondence outlining the event's ties to the Liberal Party. The chair of a Liberal Party lawyer branch invited Heydon to the event on 10 April 2014. The email explicitly explained the relationship between the Liberal Party, the lawyer branch and the event itself. Dyson Heydon knew straight away that it would be absolutely inappropriate for him to attend a party political event. But he did not decline, as he should have. Dyson Heydon knew that his attendance at such an event would blow his cover—his support for the Liberal Party cause would have been clear for all to see.

Mr Heydon's correspondence—never meant to be shared with the public—shows his cynical scheming to deliver the biased outcome on the royal commission and appear at the Liberal Party fundraiser immediately afterwards. He conspired with the Liberal Party representative responsible for organising the event to attend the fundraiser after handing down his findings in the royal commission. He did not say, 'I can't do a fundraiser for the Liberal Party.' He said, 'I can't do it till afterwards.'

So despite Mr Heydon's acknowledgement that his appearance would be inappropriate, he committed to address the event after the royal commission had been completed. So arrogant was Mr Heydon that he supposed he could pass judgement on the political enemies of the Liberal Party and then, having done so, immediately contribute to their fundraising and organisational efforts.

But when concocting his plan, Mr Heydon did not plan for an extension of the royal commission. In October 2014, the Abbott government extended the commission's reporting date from December 2014 to December 2015—overrunning the date for Mr Heydon's planned Liberal Party attendance. Mr Heydon was again contacted by the organiser on 2 March and 4 April 2015—long after he knew that there had been an extension for the whole following 12 months. Despite this and despite knowing that he was still hearing the royal commission, he was too arrogant and too lazy to excuse himself from the Liberal Party event. He just thought, 'No, I can get away with this.' And on 12 June 2015 the organisers of the event, the Liberal Party emailed Mr Heydon the formal invitation—again from the Liberal party branch with the Liberal Party logo emblazoned across the top. The invitation included the fundraising details and even provided advice regarding political donation disclosure laws, and, by Mr Heydon's own admission, his assistant printed this document out and handed it to him.

On four separate occasions of communication, Mr Heydon failed to excuse himself from the Liberal Party event. It was not until 14 August 2015 that Mr Heydon cancelled his attendance. Initially he pleaded that the dog ate his homework—the old dog-ate-my-homework defence. He claims that, despite all the emails and despite the fact that his assistant even printed the invitation out for him to read, he failed to realise the connection between the event and the Liberal Party. What I do not understand is why he declined to speak at first while the royal commission was being held. He said, 'No, let's do it afterwards.' But all of a sudden, a year later, he's saying, 'Oh, I didn't realise it was a Liberal Party fundraiser at all.' The first lie.

Dyson Heydon has a long history of rejecting such pathetic defences, both in court and at the royal commission itself. He would not cop a defence like he gave himself. Mr Heydon desperately claims that he miraculously decided to cancel his attendance just hours before the media published details regarding his fundraising gig. What a lucky coincidence! He cancelled it before the media got in touch with him.

However, tragically for Dyson Heydon, the cover up was beginning to unravel. Evidence subsequently produced proved that he was tipped off to the media interest via his good friend and loyal foot-soldier, Jeremy Stoljar. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that despite claiming to have publicly released the relevant correspondence, certain details were withheld. Panicked at being caught out, it would seem that Dyson Heydon lied again about his knowledge of the fundraiser. He lied about his knowledge of the media interest and he lied about the relevant correspondence.

In accordance with the accepted process, a number of trade union groups submitted to Dyson Heydon that, through his conduct, he had exhibited an apprehended or apparent bias thus requiring him to recuse himself from the royal commission. The process of a decision maker adjudicating upon an allegation of their own apprehended bias is clearly ridiculous. Even Dyson Heydon acknowledged this in his reasons for decision. I quote:

To some minds, including those of fair-minded lay observers, it might seem strange that a person complaining about the bias of a Royal Commissioner should make application for disqualification not to a court, but to the person accused of bias or apprehended bias. What are the prospects of success in making an application against a Royal Commissioner on that ground, it might be said, when that Commissioner hears the application?

Well, he is certainly right about that. But, as Dyson Heydon goes on to state, this is the legal process for prosecuting such issues.

However, Heydon's capacity for self-reflection ended right there. After appearing for just minutes to arrogantly demise the apprehended bias claim, the royal commissioner released the reasons for his decision. This document deserves to be read by every fair-minded Australian because it outlines his pathetically weak justification to remain as the royal commissioner, despite his obvious biased conduct and lies to cover up his biased conduct.

Heydon argues on a technicality that bias is established upon the proof of prejudgement, rather than predisposition. I promise senators in this chamber that I will come back to that matter. He does not deny that he is predisposed to pursuing and attacking the Liberal Party's political opponents. Heydon goes on to claim that the submissions from the union groupings are 'imprecise'—not in fact but apparently in subjective logic. And then remarkably Dyson Heydon asserts that:

… before disqualification there must be something more than mere party membership or attendance at party functions …

I think joining a party or going to one of their fundraisers could actually, possibly, be construed by a lay person that you have a predisposed view.

Bizarrely, Mr Heydon maintains that, despite the invitation explicitly outlining the fundraising methods—the intended use for the money for Liberal Party political campaigns and the relevant fundraising disclosure laws—this was not a fundraiser. There is an extraordinary, brilliant, legal mind in logic. This is a disingenuous, dishonest and pathetic attempt to defend his biased actions. Even the Liberal Party stopped pretending it was not a fundraiser, but not Dyson Heydon. He clings to his role as a royal commissioner. In order to do so, he has employed technicalities of language and subjective interpretation of evidence and history.

I agree with Dyson Heydon on one point: he is not fit to pass judgement on his own bias and prejudice. Dyson Heydon's conduct is clearly in breach of community expectations. Mr Abbott should have acted to resolve this issue but instead he chose to protect his mates. It is now incumbent upon Mr Turnbull to clean up this disgraceful mess.

Senate adjourned at 22:20