The PRESIDENT (12:31): I wish to make a statement to the Senate. As we begin our sittings for this year, I would like to remind all senators about standards that will be applied by the chair, particularly during question time, based on standing orders, longstanding practice and rulings of past presidents. Before Christmas I wrote to party leaders and whips about some of these matters, which are often raised by members of the public with my office.

Firstly, arguing and backchatting with the chair after a decision or ruling has been given is disorderly. Standing order 197 does provide senators with a right to take points of order but must be used appropriately. Persistent failure to come to order when requested to do so by the chair is also disorderly. Similarly, the level of noise and interjections in the chamber often make it impossible for me and others to hear and adjudicate on questions and answers. This is the national parliament; this is not a sporting contest. I do not have access to instant replay, so it can sometimes be very difficult.

Moreover, chairing the Senate is not a group participation activity. It is for the President to apply the standing and other orders. All questions of relevance are a matter for the judgement of the chair, a duty confirmed by the Procedure Committee back in 1994.

Under current rules, ministers must be directly relevant in their answers to the question asked, but it is also important to recognise that relevance and responsiveness are not the same concepts. This is a point which has been made by several of my predecessors, explaining that the chair cannot direct a minister how to answer a question or to give a particular answer. If I consider that ministers are not being directly relevant to the question, I will continue to draw their attention to the question, ask them to return to the question and remind them of the time remaining in which to answer that question. My expectation is that ministers will respond appropriately.

It has often been pointed out that questions might be more effective if they contained less extraneous material, including quotes, assertions, allegations, insinuations or other such material. After all, questions in their purest sense are for the purpose of seeking information, and answers should be similarly confined to providing that information.

However, if a question does contain additional material, the minister is directly relevant in his or her answer if he or she refers to subjects raised in that material. If a question contains a political barb, the minister is entitled, while remaining relevant and within the standing orders, to return the compliment. If senators require ministers to confine their answers strictly to a defined subject then the question itself must be confined to that subject. Again, I would expect ministers to confine the answers to that question.

In addition, supplementary questions must comply with the existing rules—namely, that they are for the purpose of elucidating information arising from the original answer and not for the purpose of introducing new or additional material or proposing a new question, even though such a new question might be related to the subject matter in the original question.

I hope that if senators comply with these rules question time will be far better for it and the Australian people will hopefully respond more favourably to the conduct of the Senate. I thank senators.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:02): Mr President, I table a document in response to a question from Senator Wong which I took on notice on 3 December 2015.

Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales) (15:03): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Gallacher and Dastyari today relating to school funding..

I want to take note of these and speak to some of the inconsistencies and myths that were presented by the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham, in answers to questions that he gave moments earlier.

But before doing so, I do also want to note that yesterday I had the privilege of being able to take my daughter to her first day at school. While many of us are going to debate over the next year how we can better fund our schools, how schools should be funded and what needs to be done to make sure we have the best possible education system, we should all be incredibly proud of the numerous teachers, principals and volunteers who make our education system as fantastic as it is.

But, while we have a fantastic education system—particularly in my home state of New South Wales—it can and it should be improved. I think it is disappointing that the minister—Minister Birmingham—outlined and actually undercut comments made by the National Catholic Education Commission, which said that the failure to properly fund the future years of the Gonski model will have the result that:

… fees will increase, schools could close and the quality of education will be compromised.

Ultimately, the government has been trying to set up a straw man argument, and the straw man argument is this: that it is all about funding—that the Gonski model and the Labor proposals that we put forward over the past year, and also the entire process over the past several years, has simply been about funding. Funding is an important component of it. Funding is the start. You cannot have a better education system if you are not prepared to pay for it. But what the Labor proposals have been saying, and what the Gonski model has addressed fundamentally, is: how do you make sure you make the most of more funding, how do you get the best bang for your buck and how do you work towards a more equal, a more fair and a more equitable system? You cannot achieve that if you do not start with a base of better funding for our education system.

Before the last election the Liberals promised—and this was Christopher Pyne, who was the shadow minister at the time—

Senator Brandis: 'Mr Pyne' to you!

Senator DASTYARI: Minister Pyne. He was not Minister Pyne at the time, he has become Minister Pyne.

Senator Brandis: I said 'Mr Pyne'.

Senator DASTYARI: He said at the time—and I am quoting a press conference on 29 August 2013:

… you can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school …

That turned out to be a statement that was not true. That turned out to be a statement that is untrue.

We also had the then Leader of the Opposition, who became the Prime Minister and who is now a quiet and subservient backbencher—a Mr Tony Abbott—talk about an absolute 'unity ticket' when it came to school funding. Then, as if that were not enough, the official Liberal Party-endorsed sign at the election on 7 September 2013—properly authorised by the Liberal Party—said:

Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.

After the election was over we saw these promises broken. We saw teachers betrayed; we saw students, parents and principals in every state and territory ripped off.

Over Christmas, when there was a presumption that nobody was watching, the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, made the decision to dump the Gonski reforms and cut $30 billion in future potential funding from our schools. To break this down: on average, that is $3.2 million from every school, which will mean fewer subject choices, less support for students with disability, fewer literacy and numeracy programs, learning support cuts and less training for teachers.

Fundamentally this all comes down to the priorities of a government and what a government should, wants to and chooses to prioritise. We have seen from the answers from the minister today and in the decisions that have been made by this government that they have decided that the future education of our children is not a priority. For this to all happen just as children go back to school is a tragedy.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (15:08): I too took my kids to school last week as Senator Dastyari did. I share his comments in commending the incredible commitment of the teachers and principal at my children's school, St Benedict's Catholic Primary School in Yeppoon. It is a wonderful school, and they do a great job. I am proud to say that all of my three children actually seemed to want to go to school. There were no complaints, tears or dragging them out of bed. I do not know if that will happen every day this year, but it is nice to start the year on a positive step.

I noted Senator Dastyari did talk about his own children to start with and he did spend a lot of time speaking about the Labor Party's policy they announced last week, which you might have seen was titled 'Your Child. Our Future'. To me that was quite a scary title and frame to put on things. I think you can look after your children, Senator Dastyari. I do not particularly want to have any kind of ownership over your children, but apparently the Labor Party wants to have some ownership over my children and other people's children as well. That approach of the Labor Party is testament to their overall overbearing and controlling approach.

In fact, improvements to our children's schools are going to come not so much from what we do in this place but from the good work, commitment and cooperation between parents, teachers and local school communities. There is no magic wand that a minister, Treasurer or budget down here in this place could wave and suddenly have my son no longer wanting to play Minecraft every night and wanting to go learn the periodic table. That is not going to happen. It is not going to happen by Labor's policy. It is not going to happen by spending billions more dollars. It is going to happen by commitment to better education at all of our schools.

I also took note that Senator Dastyari said very clearly that in his view we cannot achieve better educational outcomes unless we have more funding. That is the Labor Party's position. It is all tied to the inputs. It is all tied to how much we spend. In fact, we have spent 40 per cent more on education in the last decade. According to the Labor Party's own 'Your Child. Our Future'policy document, over that period, according to OECD data, in the year 2000 only one country outperformed Australia in reading and maths and in 2006 only two countries outperformed Australia in science. Today, 16 countries outperform Australia in maths, nine countries outperform Australia in reading and seven countries outperform Australia in science. By their own admission and their own data we have gone backwards in the past 10 to 15 years at the same time as we have spent 40 per cent more on education funding.

How do they explain that? How do you explain that the response to this reduction in our performance in the past 10 to 15 years is just to throw more money at the problem? That is the Labor Party's approach to every problem that comes in: just spend more money. Just spend more money on these Medicare reforms that are controversial now. Do not worry about the results. Do not worry about whether they actually deliver what you promised and what you argued for.

We are in a new year now. It is an election year, and the Australian people will have a choice later for a Labor Party that is still addicted to spending too much of their money, still addicted to throwing billions of dollars at problems regardless of the outcome. They do not care. They do not do the analysis. They are not particularly concentrating on the results. They only care about how many dollar signs they can put before the next policy announcement they make. They will not fully fund it, as Jay Weatherill, the Premier of South Australia, admits. They will not have a proper funding plan for it. If we do end up with a Labor government after this election, it will no be 'Your Child. Our Future'; it will be your debt and you having to pay it back. That is what will happen if the Labor Party get back into office. They will continue to spend your money, regardless of what the outcomes deliver, like they did with $900 cheques, school halls and many other programs in their last term in government. God help Australia if they get back in and can have a cash barbecue of billions of dollars more of your money with their misguided plans.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (15:13): I rise with some fury at the nonsense that we have heard from those opposite this afternoon—not just the contribution of the member who is about to leave the chamber but the outlandish misrepresentation from the minister himself. The minister no doubt stood at booths in Adelaide in the lead-up to the last election and distributed hand-outs, smiling at people all the while and saying they were on a unity ticket with Labor, that you would get exactly the same investment in funding the future of education in this country in response to the Gonski review to make sure that students got a fair go. They stood there with banners beside them that said they would match the Labor Party commitment, which was a six-year commitment. They would match it dollar for dollar.

Yet day after day we hear this quivering nonsense from them that money does not matter. It is ignoring the clear reality that is evident to every single parent who rocks up at school, opens their eyes and sees that there are needs unmet in every single school across this country bar a few very privileged schools. That is what the Gonski investigation found out, and that is why the commitment was made by the Labor Party last week to fund years 5 and 6, which had fallen off a cliff under those on the other side of the chamber. They have abandoned that commitment that they made to the Australian people. What we see day after day is that those opposite say one thing but they absolutely do another. This is a perfect example of a party that simply cannot be trusted with the truth, cannot be trusted with dollars to invest in the future of this nation and cannot be trusted with education because their miserly view of education is at odds with the facts at every single turn.

When Labor were in government, we recognised that there was an urgent need for excellence and equitable school experiences right across this country. The review that was undertaken involved 70 different education groups, 39 school visits and 7,000 submissions. Mr David Gonski, whose name has been attributed to this for such a period of time now, wrote:

… the additional investment—

which is the dollars that the Liberal Party continue to say do not matter—

is needed to implement a schooling resource standard. It is necessary because without it—

this is the key part—

the high cost of poor educational outcomes will become an even greater drag on Australia's social and economic development in the future. The need for the additional expenditure and the application of what those funds can do is urgent. Australia will only slip further behind unless as a nation we act and act now.

That was a compelling argument that this government knew Australians understood. Those opposite were prepared to stand up and pretend to the Australian people that they would fund the entire six years of Gonski. People rolled up to vote in good faith and had a look at those posters that reassured them that this government would match the funding that Labor had committed to this national education project dollar for dollar. Well, now those opposite are quibbling over every single dollar. They have withdrawn their support. They misrepresented to the Australian parliament and to the Australian people what they were going to do, and they continue to come in here and peddle a load of nonsense about the lack of need in schools.

In schools around Australia we know that there are kids right now who are benefiting from the first four years of funding going through. In New South Wales, I have visited many of those schools, such as Woy Woy South public school, where there has been a transformation in learning for many of the students, particularly for the local Indigenous families, who have suddenly been able to achieve literacy and numeracy standards never before achieved because they got access to the additional education they needed to help them make up the gap from where they started.

But this government continues to deny that there is any inequity in schools. We need schools that can access the funding to make sure that they are able to do the job of educating our young. We need schools to get that money because they cannot do the job on the miserly amount that this government is intending to give them, a CPI indexation that is not up to the job. There is a failure to understand that speech therapists and quality teaching cost money. It is an investment in the future of the country. Labor is for it; the Liberals stand against it, and they continue to misrepresent their position.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory) (15:18): I am very pleased to join in this very important debate. I will start by commending the wonderful teachers we have here in the ACT and the wonderful schools we have in the ACT both in the government sector and in the non-government sector. I have had the privilege of attending some of these schools here in the ACT along with my family members both in the public sector and in the non-government sector, and my kids now have the opportunities in these wonderful schools. I commend the teachers here in Canberra and around the country who do such an outstanding job.

I think when we take note of answers it is worth reflecting on the point that the opposition are trying to make in some of their questioning. I have got to say this is a little bit like the first day of school. It is the first day back for us here in the Senate after the summer break. You would think that, having had many weeks to regroup, the Labor Party could have come up with something a little bit better than this. They meandered around about Prime Minister Turnbull's views on the republic, on climate change, on same-sex marriage. When that did not get anywhere, they started asking other questions. I thought, 'What a tired strategy in an election year.' We had the year of ideas last year, which produced some extra ideas for taxes from the Labor Party. You would think that in an election year they would be raring to go. But unfortunately that is not what we saw in question time today.

That brings us to some of Labor's questioning on education funding. This is lazy policy from the Labor Party, and this is policy that they know they cannot deliver. They cannot afford it. They cannot deliver it. They knew it when they were in government, which is why they put it out to years 5 and 6. This is the fundamental issue here. Let us look at the first four years, the four-year cycle of the budget, which is what we deal with, which is what Treasurers deal with and is what governments deal with. It is what the Labor Party had when they were in government and it is what the coalition government has now. Over those four years that we committed to, not only will we match what the Labor Party was going to deliver but we will deliver an extra $1.2 billion—that is a fact. That is the record in terms of the coalition government.

We have seen an increase in funding of 27.3 per cent over the forward estimates, a significant increase in funding. The point has been made that we need significant increased investment in our schools, which we are doing. But that is not the only question as to how you get better outcomes. From the late eighties to around 2011-12 there was a 100 per cent increase in schools funding in Australia, yet we saw many of our outcomes going backwards. It is not the be-all and end-all. Even though we are increasing funding by 27.3 per cent in education over the forward estimates—$1.2 billion more than Labor was going to deliver—that is not the only answer. That is not a whole equation.

It comes down to the credibility of Labor to deliver. The reason they pushed it out up to years 5 and 6 was that they had not done the work; they did not have the money, because they wasted it in government; and they certainly would not have the money if they were ever trusted with the Treasury benches again. You do not have to believe me. Believe Jay Weatherill if you want to know Labor's credibility on funding their education promises. What did Jay Weatherill, the South Australian Labor Premier, say about their plans? He said: … we haven't seen any coherent or sustainable way in which that's going to be funded.

Those are the words of a South Australian Labor Premier. If even your mates in South Australian Labor do not believe you on education funding, how can the Australian people believe you on education funding? Jay Weatherill has called you out. He has said that you cannot fund it, that you have got no plans to fund it. Tinkering with multinationals is not going to fund your plans. You are going to have a budget black hole. This is the fundamental credibility problem Labor have, not just on education but on a whole range of other things. Until they can fix that, they can never be trusted to govern again. (Time expired)

Senator LINES (Western Australia) (15:23): I too rise to take note of answers on education given by the government today. All we have heard from government senators is ridicule of Labor's very solid, fully costed plan on education. There is a reason for that. It is that those opposite have nothing to say when it comes to education. They have absolutely nothing to say. And why is that? Because they have ripped out of every single Australian school $3.2 million. That will happen over the next 10 years. That is their school plan: to reduce the funding available to schools—$3.2 million out of every single school across this country. What a disgrace. Imagine what impact the loss of that money has on the quality of resource, the quality of teaching, the exciting learning experiences that children simply will not have because those opposite, the Turnbull government, will have ripped the heart out of every single school in Australia.

I come from a state where, unfortunately, their Liberal counterpart, Colin Barnett, has also ripped the heart out of school funding. Not only will every school in Western Australia suffer this $3.2 million cut imposed by the Turnbull government; they have got cuts of their own imposed by the Colin Barnett Liberal government. Let me tell you: schools in Western Australia are in a shocking state. But of course it is not just Labor saying this. I recently chaired the inquiry into children with special needs in our education system. Again, we saw another mistruth. Christopher Pyne, when he was the opposition shadow, made promises that he would commit the sort of Gonski funding that kids with special needs in our schools need. And yet what we have seen is that government has introduced this indexation to CPI, which is failing children with special needs.

What did the very conservative Catholic Education they tell the inquiry? They told the inquiry exactly the same thing—that they cannot manage on this funding, that it is not enough for Catholic Education to provide the quality and the specialist services that children with special needs need in their schools. And they went further. They said, 'Schools will close.' Schools for special needs children that they manage will close if this drop in funding—the failure to commit to their promises—continues by the Turnbull government. We heard Catholic Education yesterday say exactly the same thing about their mainstream schools. We cannot all have a comprehension problem. You do not sit there as a Catholic Education office and attack your funder unless things are dire—and they are dire. We heard shocking experiences of children with disability in our education system. If they had the Gonski funding, things would change.

We heard from schools in New South Wales who had picked up the special funding that Labor put into schools that have children with special needs, and they told us of the great innovations that they were able to bring to bear—all of which is now gone. This is what we see again from those opposite. The Gonski review was revolutionary. Obviously those opposite have never bothered to read it. It established very clearly the growing inequity in our schools between those students who come from wealthier areas and those students who do not. There is a growing disparity. But of course that is what the Turnbull government are all about. Unless you can help yourself, they have got no interest in helping you. The Gonski panel set out very clearly what was needed. Yes, of course funding is at the core of reform, but we also need good quality teachers—something Labor will invest in in our policy. We want to see innovative schools. We want to see all children having the best opportunity, not being defined by postcode.

I have two grandchildren in high school this year. Unfortunately they do not live in the green leafy suburbs. Their schooling is difficult. Their schools need more funding, and yet I know that those opposite have taken $3.2 million away from their schools, denying them the opportunities of other children.

Question agreed to.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (15:28): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Rural Health (Senator Nash) to a question without notice asked by Senator Lambie today relating to proposed changes to bulk billing incentives.

Today the National Party's Senator Nash tried to defend the indefensible. Her party, a party that is supposed to look after the interests of rural and regional Australia, has agreed to be an accomplice to a Liberal policy which is guaranteed, over time, to increase the number of women who will die from preventable diseases like cervical cancer and diabetes. A report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare states: 'The number of deaths has decreased significantly, with 72 per cent of women diagnosed surviving cervical cancer. Ninety per cent of cervical cancers are preventable with early detection.'

The reason we have this good news is that over the last 10 years Australia has had a clear focus on primary health care and preventative health checks, which has saved our nation lives and money. This $650 million cut to Medicare if allowed to go unchallenged by this Senate will undermine our focus on preventable health care by dramatically increasing the costs of cancer tests like Pap smears. The costs savings the government trumps in the short term will pale into insignificance when compared with the additional costs incurred in the long term when women, our grandchildren, begin once again to lose their lives unnecessarily and too soon to preventable diseases like cervical and other cancers. Why aren't we making decisions for our grandchildren?

I warn this government that I will take whatever action is necessary in the Senate, including voting against all government legislation, to ensure that cancer and other health checks remain affordable for all Australians. I will do everything in my power to stop cancer health checks like Pap smears from costing an extra $30, as predicted by the Royal College of Pathologists. The average Australian is sick of this Liberal government fiddling with bulk-billing rates for vital medical checks like women's Pap smears. It is time for the Liberals to stop their sneaky attacks on Medicare and their sly attempts to kill it off. It is time the Nationals grew a backbone and stood up to this cruelty to women.

Local Burnie businesswoman Karlie Deacon has told me she wants the Australian PM to stop messing around with our bulk-billing rates. She wants the government to make it easier, not harder, for young women like her to have cancer checks. Respected health professionals like Tasmanian scientist Richard Hanlon have warned that the effect on patients will be quite significant because it will discourage them from going to their doctors, patients may pay up to $30 extra in co-payments and it has the potential to stop patients from testing for chronic diseases like diabetes and cancers with Pap smears. We have had a focus on primary health care for 10 years or more and now we are removing that so hospitals will become inundated, cancers will not be seen until it is too late and diabetes will not be seen until it is too late either. It will have a huge cost on the health system and a huge cost on the hospital system in particular, the public system. Pathology is about as efficient as it can possibly get. We believe there is very little fat left to cut off the bone. That will mean it will be passed on to the customer. Any fool can see that reducing Australia's investment in primary health care is going to cost us more in the long run.

I commissioned a Parliamentary Library study and asked: can these cuts be disallowed by the Senate? The answer is:

Yes. The relevant regulations are a disallowable legislative instrument. The process for disallowance is explained in this Senate Brief. Broadly once the regulations are registered and tabled in parliament a Senator has 15 sitting days to give notice of a motion to disallow the instrument in whole or in part.

So I make this promise to Tasmanians, especially Tasmanian women: I will use my vote to disallow any Liberal government regulation that attacks our Medicare bulk-billing system. I look forward to working with my fellow crossbench senators, the Greens and Labor to stop this insane attack on one of the best universal healthcare systems in the world.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (15:33): Senators, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 24 December last year of the Hon. James (Jim) Joseph Carlton AO, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Mackellar, New South Wales, from 1977 until 1994.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:34): by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 24 December 2015, of the Honourable James (Jim) Joseph Carlton AO, former minister and member for Mackellar, places on record its appreciation of his long and highly distinguished service to the nation and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

Jim Carlton was born in Sydney on 13 May 1935 and educated at state schools and then at Marist Brothers Kogarah—the same school where he befriended his younger pal former senator Graham Richardson—and at the University of Sydney, where he studied science and engineering and led both the student representative council and the University Liberal Club. After graduation he worked as a manager in a manufacturing company in Britain for several years before joining the global management consulting firm McKinsey. In 1971 back in Australia he succeeded Sir John Carrick as the general secretary of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party when Sir John entered this chamber. In 1977 Jim Carlton succeeded WC Wentworth as then only the second member for Mackellar, serving in the House of Representatives until 1994 when he was succeeded by a member of this chamber—the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop.

Jim Carlton served as Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Minister for National Development and Energy in the last year of the Fraser government in 1982-83. Subsequently he held a variety of shadow ministerial posts, including health, Treasury, education and defence, and key positions in opposition policy formulation and coordination until his retirement from the House of Representatives in 1994 to become the secretary-general of the Australian Red Cross. It was thus Jim Carlton's misfortune that his most fertile years in the Australian parliament were years which coincided with the Liberal Party's period in opposition during the period of the Hawke and Keating governments. Nevertheless, his career also demonstrates the weight and impact of a contribution of a sharp public policy mind from the opposition benches.

In his valedictory speech to the House of Representatives Jim Carlton said that he would often ask himself the question: what have I done for Australia?

The answer, although Jim Carlton would have been far too modest to have given it, is that he did an immense amount for Australia and, in a variety of ways, for the wider world. His place in the history of this country is far greater than a mere recitation of the positions he held, impressive though that list might be, for he was one of the most influential thinkers and activists in one of the most important intellectual and political movements of recent generations—those who, in the 1970s and 1980s, led the public policy agenda in the direction of freer markets; more limited, yet more efficient and effective government; and facing up to the need for Australia to compete in an intensifying global economic competition. Without this intellectual and political development, the liberalisation of the Australian economy under the prime ministerships of Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard would not have happened. That liberalisation contributed to Australia, remarkably, being spared a recession for a quarter of a century now, and to countless Australians having better jobs and higher living standards than would otherwise have been the case.

Jim Carlton worked in the tradition of Bert Kelly, and along with some other dry colleagues such as John Hyde and Peter Shack, through the Crossroads Group and the Society of Modest Members. That band, initially backbenchers, stood up to Prime Minister Fraser and, later in their careers, supported the liberalisation by the Hawke and Keating governments of Australian economic policy. Through painstaking policy preparation, through long years of opposition, they were important contributors to the economic policy developments of those years, which were carried largely in a bipartisan manner—a notable feature of those times—and which would not have been achieved had it not been for the wise bipartisanship that the Liberal opposition in those days, under the influence of men like Jim Carlton, offered.

Jim Carlton's work and its profoundly positive impact show, above all, the power of ideas, especially when those ideas are combined with the hard slog of careful organisation and tireless advocacy. Among his political generation, Jim Carlton was seen as very much of the front rank of our political leaders on the non-Labor side of politics. Indeed, his status in the Liberal Party of that generation was such that on one occasion he was a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

At the state memorial celebration of Jim Carlton's life, held recently at the University of Melbourne, and attended notably by both John Howard and Paul Keating, Professor Ross Garnaut spoke of Jim Carlton's assistance to him when he, Garnaut, had been Bob Hawke's economic adviser—a great example to us all of the benefits of cross-party cooperation and support for good public policy in the nation's interest, leaving aside mere partisan considerations. Of that, Jim Carlton was a very fine exemplar.

His business experience in Britain and the United States, as well as in Australia, convinced him that Australia not only must but also could compete strongly in the increasingly globalised and competitive economy. He was much influenced by the ideas that underpinned Germany's postwar economic miracle. He saw economic policy as a means to better social outcomes, using market forces for social good. He denied the false antithesis between rational economic policy and compassionate social policy. Indeed, he believed, and in a sense this is the emblem of his career, that a good society depends upon a good economy, a compassionate society depends upon a prosperous economy, and a prosperous economy is underwritten by the economic reforms and liberalisation which were trademarks of his career.

He was, all his life, guided by strong, compassionate, humanitarian convictions; a career bookended by his active opposition, as a Liberal student leader in the 1950s, to the White Australia policy and, at the end, by his occupancy of the position as chairman of the Red Cross. But throughout all this his commitment to a freer market, precisely because it created more and better opportunities, was his hallmark. He contributed to Australia's international reputation in his post-parliamentary life, through his work with the Red Cross, for which he was awarded the highest international honour that that distinguished body can confer: the Henry Dunant Medal. Jim Carlton argued for the government to focus on opportunities for young people with youth orientation, as he put it, and for gender equality. So he was both an economic and social liberal, committed to the idea of freedom. He was the embodiment of the cool head and the warm heart.

Jim's interest in the wider world and Australia's place in it reflected in extensive work of foreign and defence policy and on foreign aid, including work to promote democracy internationally. In 1985 he helped to establish an Australian branch of the international committee for a Community of Democracies, and later served as an international vice president of that body. He was a Commonwealth observer at the 1991 elections in Zambia, which saw a return to multiparty democracy in that nation.

Jim Carlton was a politician with a hinterland; with broad cultural, intellectual and indeed culinary interests. He was, for example, a passionate devotee of opera—particularly German opera, from Beethoven to Wagner to Richard Strauss.

Alongside his humanitarian motivation, his focus on long-term strategy and his broad interests, Jim brought to all that he did the emphasis on the value of operational efficiency that he learnt as an industrial manager and as an adviser to the private sector. This reformist impulse was evident, for example, in his work as general secretary of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party in the early 1970s in promoting national rather than state based federal election campaigns, in his promotion of efficiency, accountability and integrity in public administration, in his work with the Red Cross to combine eight separate blood banks into a national Red Cross Blood Service and in his advocacy of digitisation of archives when he chaired the advisory council of the National Archives of Australia.

In his retirement, as many warm tributes since his death reflect, Jim's expertise and active, probing mind were widely sought and deeply valued by government, business, the not-for-profit sector and academia. For example, with Ross Garnaut and Tricia Caswell, he was nominated by BHP to serve on the board of the Papua New Guinea sustainable development program to ensure the proceeds of the Ok Tedi mine best served the needs of Papua New Guinea. He was a senior adviser to the Boston Consulting Group. He served on boards such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and the Cranlana Program. He was active in the Accountability Round Table, helped to found the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and held adjunct professorships with the National Institute for Governance at the University of Canberra and the Centre for Public Policy at the University of Melbourne.

He was a man of parts, a person of enormous intellectual substance and depth. But, as well as a sharp mind, Jim Carlton always had a ready smile, a twinkle in his eyes, an amusing story and an encouraging word. Many present and former members of this parliament, including the present Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, and my colleague Senator Fierravanti-Wells, regarded him as both a mentor and a friend. I remember him fondly. He was very kind to me and always had an encouraging word for me in my political career, including until the time I most recently saw him, at a function in this city last year. His friendliness to all and the work of his wife, Diana, in promoting friendship between the partners of members and senators across parties contributed greatly to the respect and warmth with which Jim and Di were regarded throughout the parliament. Which of his colleagues were the subjects of his greatest gift for mimicry we might never fully know!

Above all, of course, Jim Carlton was a loving husband to Di and a loving father to Alex, Freya, his late son Richard and Rob, and an adored grandfather to Ned, Angus, Rosie, Claudia, Tom, Leo and Jim. Our hearts go out to them in their loss as we share their pride in the remarkable life of Jim Carlton. Those of us who had the privilege to know him are the richer for his friendship and his encouragement, and our nation is truly the richer for the powerful impact which he had on this parliament and on Australian public policy, for his pioneering intellect and for his profound commitment to public service for the good of the people of Australia.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:48): I rise also to speak, on behalf of the opposition, on this motion of condolence on the passing of the Hon. James Joseph Carlton AO. At the outset I convey the opposition's thoughts for his wife, family and friends at this time.

Mr President, today we remember Jim Carlton, and we acknowledge his service as a member of the parliament from 1977 to 1994, as Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Minister for National Development and Energy in the Fraser government from 1982 to 1983, and as Secretary General of the Australian Red Cross from 1994 to 2001. And we also recall the role—as my colleague the Leader of the Government has extensively outlined—that Mr Carlton played as a thinker and agitator inside the Liberal Party for changes to its approach to economic policy.

Jim Carlton grew up in suburban Sydney in a household that felt the effects of the Depression in the 1930s. After completing a science degree and working in business and industry for a decade, he came to the other place by a pathway that is often maligned in public discourse: he was a party official. He served as the general secretary of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party for six years before his election as the member for Mackellar in 1977. In making his first speech, he was given the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech of the Governor-General, and he spoke principally on issues of economic management, on the importance of motivating investment and on lowering unemployment. He sought to balance the challenges of industry restructuring with a call for policy settings that would stimulate employment growth, including the development of local skills. Exploring new answers and charting a new course on economic policy would be a continuing theme throughout his career.

It was Jim Carlton's role as a leading economic dry within the Liberal Party that is perhaps his greatest political legacy. With others, he successfully gained the political ascendancy as the Liberal Party moved from government to opposition, seeking to—and I quote him—'put intellectual spine into Liberalism in Australia'. He described his mission as shifting Australia from—and I again quote—'an essentially inward looking and somewhat protectionist society into a liberal market economy that was capable of standing in the world as an equal with anybody else'. He sought efficiency in public administration and containment of spending, and in this he found increasing levels of agreement on both sides of politics.

In many ways, his social views were more progressive than many of his colleagues who shared his opinions on economic policy. He said in his valedictory speech that he was worried he had been characterised as being solely concerned with economic issues but that he had only ever regarded these as a means to achieving social outcomes. Mr Carlton took his inspiration from a West German economist and politician, the architect of that country's postwar recovery, Ludwig Erhard, and in him saw the benefit of the combination of market based economic policies with active government-led social policies, creating a compassionate framework for the use of market forces for social good.

Paradoxically, it was probably in social policy more than economics that Jim Carlton was to get his opportunity to be a member of the executive as Minister for Health for 10 months before the Fraser government lost office in the 1983 election. A couple of months after his appointment The Sydney Morning Herald proclaimed, 'Jim Carlton is a dry who suddenly found himself in a lush and boggy wetland when he was made Minister for Health last May.' Certainly, receiving the Health portfolio may have been a surprise but it was certainly suited to his management and administrative abilities. He sought improvements in consumer choice and in the standard of care for the aged and chronically ill in a system that still provided assistance to those least able to care for themselves. Concurrently he served as Minister assisting the Minister for National Development and Energy, with his ministerial career coming to a premature end as the Fraser government lost office.

Jim Carlton was not to serve in government again but he held a number of shadow portfolios in opposition, most notably Treasury, between 1985 and 1987, putting him up against Treasurer Paul Keating, who was at the height of his powers. Mr Keating, unsurprisingly, found a number of colourful things to say about Mr Carlton over the course of their time in parliament together, but his attendance at Mr Carlton's state funeral was a demonstration of the respect the former Prime Minister held for his one-time sparring partner. In his remarks on his valedictory in 1993, Mr Keating said of Mr Carlton:

Jim Carlton has enjoyed a tremendous friendship with most members of this parliament. He is an exceptionally likeable person. As a consequence, most people like him.

Mr Carlton also had responsibility at various times in opposition for Health, Education, Defence and Environment, and later he was to have a key role in policy coordination between 1990 and 1993, including in the development and promotion of the Fightback package and, later, in its review.

Of interest to those in this place might be Jim Carlton's views about the role of the other place in the legislative process. In his valedictory speech, he decried the lack of consideration given to legislation in the other place, observing that:

In this sense this chamber is almost worthless and the Senate is having to do a double job of both primary and secondary treatment. It is important that this House becomes a primary treatment area for legislation and that issues are properly aired and legislation cleaned up, including with public hearings, before it goes across to the Senate.

He felt that the Senate would be easier to deal with if this chamber received legislation which had been the subject of more comprehensive scrutiny. Regrettably, I am not sure his suggestions have yet been acceded to.

Jim Carlton did not leave public service when he left public office. As my colleague Senator Brandis has said, he took up the position of Secretary General of the Australian Red Cross, retaining this until 2001. He relished the opportunity to work for a wonderful humanitarian organisation with responsibility both for national and international operations. Amongst his various achievements was the combination of the eight separate blood banks run by the states and territories into the unified service.

Speaking on the occasion of Jim Carlton's retirement from parliament, the then Leader of the Opposition, Dr Hewson, accurately reflected on the quality of his contribution. He said:

He concentrates a lot more on ideas than on the personalities of the business. In that sense he has made his greatest contribution. Jim will be remembered for the ideas he has generated in a policy sense and the contribution he has made to the development of ideas, much more broadly than just on our side of politics.

Jim Carlton will be remembered as a politician who pursued ideas he thought were right, and that is a fine legacy.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:55): I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the motion of condolence. It is always hard to hear of the passing of a good man. The Hon. Jim Carlton AO was certainly that: a good and decent man who has left a positive, lasting legacy. Mr Carlton lived by his principles, and the nation is a better place for his life.

Mr Carlton was born in Sydney on 13 May 1935 and completed his tertiary education at Sydney university. Perhaps it was the completion of a science degree that started the spark of his reputation as a strategic and innovative thinker. A decade working in business and industry sectors gave Jim those practical skills and that life experience that would stay with him for the remainder of his life.

In 1971 Mr Carlton became the General Secretary of the New South Wales Liberal Party, and it was during this time he demonstrated his unifying reputation in building a national campaign effort for the Liberal Party, which until then had been sort of state-isolated. Elected to federal parliament in 1977, he diligently represented the seat of Mackellar in the House of Representatives until his retirement in 1994. During that time he held a variety of positions, including shadow Treasurer, shadow minister for health and a number of other shadow ministry positions. Jim Carlton was a role model for all politicians, demonstrably and strategically emphasising long-term prosperity for our nation over short-term politics.

I want to take time to talk briefly about Mr Carlton's efforts following his time in politics, including his role as Secretary General for the Australian Red Cross. I think his most notable achievement was the establishment of the National Australian Red Cross Blood Service from what were then separate—and some would argue disparate—state and territory services. In referencing this commendable service that saves the lives of so many every year, I know that Jim would never want me to miss an opportunity to encourage all those listening to take the time to visit donateblood.com.au and make an appointment. It would be a very fitting way to honour his legacy.

Mr Carlton's achievements were acknowledged by the Red Cross in 2007 when he was awarded the highest, most prestigious, honour available to the Red Cross, the Henry Dunant Medal. This award followed earlier awards, including the Order of Australia and the Centenary Medal in 2001. The Prime Minister recently described Mr Carlton as 'a particularly warm-hearted and likeable man'. I would like to think Mr Carlton's nickname—provided by the opposition in that day, I think somewhat fondly—'Old Rosie' can now be used to describe and recall his warmth of character.

Mr Carlton's great mind and his lifelong commitment to humanity are tragically now lost to this nation. National thoughts and prayers go out to Jim's wife, Diana, and to their children, Alex, Freya and Rob, in what would have been a very difficult Christmas. Even in passing, Mr Carlton is helping others: he most generously donated an organ to another person in need. His legacy lives on. Vale, Jim Carlton.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (15:59): I am honoured to be afforded the opportunity to speak on this condolence motion and say a few words in memory of my former boss and mentor, the Hon. Jim Carlton AO.

I attended Jim's state memorial service on 14 January 2016 in Wilson Hall, at the University of Melbourne. The word most used by those who spoke about Jim was 'gentleman'. Jim truly was a gentleman. You have only to look at the various press reports of the service to see that—for example, The Australian Financial Review talked about a 'Bipartisan flavour to Jim Carlton farewell'. Present there were, as has been indicated, former prime ministers John Howard and Paul Keating, former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer, former ministers Fred Chaney and Gareth Evans and of course my own colleagues Andrew Robb, Josh Frydenberg and Kevin Andrews. The Financial Review report refers to the very lively relationship that Jim had with Mr Keating, who, as Minister Scullion mentioned, referred to him as 'Old Rosie' in reference to Jim's rather pinkish complexion, not of course to his politics. As the Attorney correctly said, Jim combined not just the economic dry but the small 'l', socially progressive liberal in the political spectrum.

On the same day as his memorial service, there was a very moving piece titled 'Jim Carlton: a gentleman reformer who led the dry argument' by Peter Shack, who was one of Jim's longstanding friends and parliamentary colleagues. The article recalls various anecdotes about their time together but most importantly their time together during the Fraser years pushing for and adopting more market based and competitive policies—the article talks about how they used to meet in Jim's cramped little office—and that is how the dries were formed. It then goes on to talk about Bert Kelly and the work that they did, the work that Jim, Phil Lynch, John Hyde and others did and, instrumentally, the forming of the Society of Modest Members and the Crossroads Group.

I met Jim in 1990, when I approached him for a job. At that time, I was an acting principal legal officer with the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service on secondment from the Australian Government Solicitor. I wrote to Jim and said, 'I would like a job with you.' At that time I was on the princely salary of $70,000, but I took a salary cut of half my salary to go and work with Jim. The rewards of working with Jim were greater. They were, indeed, the beginning of my political career. At the time, Jim was responsible for policy coordination and development. Together with David Kemp he was responsible for transition to government. Jim gave me a wonderful opportunity as a government lawyer. I had a good understanding of the public sector, having had the opportunity to act for many government departments and statutory authorities. Having had that experience, he afforded me a great chance to work very closely with him.

The first thing that he did was to give me a paper on vertical fiscal imbalance. Jim adhered to the Freiburg school of thought, which had influenced the reconstruction of Germany after the Second World War. I learnt a lot about Ludwig Erhard, famed for leading the German postwar recovery. Jim would organise gatherings where like-minded dries would come together to discuss important economic issues. The passion and debate at these gatherings was wonderful to witness, certainly to a budding politician. We also supported the Modest Members and their activities at Parliament House. I still recall Bert Kelly coming into the office with his little old school case and the wonderful discussions that would ensue. The work that Jim did as a minister was fantastic, but I actually think that the work he did while we were in opposition is truly what he will be remembered for.

At that time our shadow ministers were in various policy groups. It enabled them routinely to discuss their policy proposals but, more importantly, it enabled them to ensure that the broad policy agendas aligned with each other. Jim chaired the social policy group, but in his shadow role as policy coordinator he also coordinated policy right across the opposition. It was the time of Fightback, so our work was intense, detailed and very complex. My job was to take Fightback and translate that into the public sector changes necessary. I acquired copious quantities of butcher's paper. The office had two charts, on opposite walls—we were of course on the House of Reps side. One wall had a long sheet with the Public Service as it was then, down to the assistant secretary level, and on the other side was the Public Service under Fightback, down to the same level. My job was to look after the paper on the wall, but there was a lot of work that went into it. The thing about Jim that was wonderful was that he always welcomed discussion. He challenged me to be my best, to think clearly and to contribute always to the discussion. I saw that process of policy and politics firsthand. I learnt from a good man, a man who respected the process and who respected others. Indeed, our corridor on the first floor on the Reps side had all these former ministers, both Liberal and Labor, and the friendship across the political divide spoke of the great respect that Jim was held in. It was a good way to learn the fundamentals of political life.

At the 1993 election, Jim ensured that we were ready for government. We even had the administrative arrangements drawn up. Regrettably, the suitcase of work to transition to day 1 was never opened. It went back to Canberra and into the bowels of coalition history. After the election, I was seconded to be senior private secretary to then Premier John Fahey and I became involved in the division in New South Wales. I stood for preselection a number of times, until coming to this place in 2005. For me there were difficult times along the road, but Jim was always there with me. He supported me, he advised me and he was always there to offer counsel.

After resigning as the member for Mackellar in 1994, Jim went on to run the Red Cross in Australia and, as the Attorney correctly said, he was awarded the Centenary Medal for service to Australian society through parliament and the Australian Red Cross, receiving its highest honour. Later that year, Jim was inducted as an Officer of the Order of Australia for service to the community, particularly through the Red Cross in the areas of international humanitarian relief, international law, peace and disarmament, and to the Australia parliament.

His contribution to public life continued, virtually, until his death. Jim never really retired. His mind was sharp and agile. Indeed, just a few days before he passed away, I called Jim and Di and we had a long chat on a whole range of different issues as I drove down to Wollongong. We had organised for John and me to catch up with Jim and Di in the new year; sadly, this is not to be. Indeed, so many of his former staff attended his service. We were his wider family. I can recall, vividly, lunches that we used to have at his home in Avalon. He always made a point of inviting his staff and former staff to join him at Christmas lunch with Di at his home.

Jim died, as he had lived his life, amongst his beloved family. At the memorial service, his son Rob recounted how Jim had passed away on Christmas eve. Jim loved to cook. The family had gathered at the New South Wales central home of Rob and his wife. Jim was not well and the ambulance was called. As Jim was taken away, he duly reminded Di, as he was carted off, about the preparations for the Christmas roast for the next day—I am recounting the story that his son Rob told at the memorial; but that was Jim to a tee. On Christmas day, his family celebrated his life and the wonderful contribution he had made.

To Di, his wife and partner of many years, to his children—Alex, Freya and Rob—to his grandchildren and to his brothers and sisters, John and I offer our heartfelt condolences on the death of this wonderful man.

On behalf of the Liberal Party of New South Wales, where Jim was the former secretary-general, I record its gratitude for the service that Jim gave. I live in Mackellar; indeed, I live close to the old Wentworth Estate where his predecessor resided. The people of Mackellar still remember Jim Carlton.

Jim Carlton AO was highly regarded, respected and very well liked. He made a great contribution to public policy and debate as a minister and in other fields of endeavour. To me, he was a friend and a mentor. Vale Jim Carlton.

Senator DAY (South Australia) (16:10): Others have noted the late Jim Carlton's distinguished service for the voters of Mackellar in Sydney; his term as health minister; his service to the Red Cross, receiving their highest honour; later academic contributions; and the Order of Australia recognition.

As chair of the Bert Kelly Research Centre and someone familiar with the group within the Liberal Party known as 'the dries', I met Jim regularly at Ray Evans's lunch meetings in Melbourne. Jim participated forcefully in the many debates at those lunches. I do not recall Jim ever missing a meeting.

Jim was a true liberal and in economic matters supported market based competitive policies. Jim, John Hyde and others got together to press on with the cause that Bert Kelly had started but that had been cut short by the end of Bert's parliamentary career. Jim and Bert's parliamentary terms did not intersect. Bert concluded his service prior to the 1977 election that saw Jim enter parliament.

The former member for Tangney Peter Shack observed in The Australian just before Jim's mid-January funeral that the remaining dries realised after the 1977 election that there was 'much which needed to be done to drag Australia out of the protected mercantilism of the 1950s and sixties in order to ensure a more internationally competitive nation and greater prosperity for all its citizens'.

Whilst John Hyde took a leading role in the dries, Jim provided the opportunity to sharpen their arguments, posing the wet side of the debates. Jim realised the importance of winning not just the economic arguments but also the moral arguments. Protectionism, for example, had to be exposed as not only economically foolish but also morally wrong. It had to be discredited and Jim was very good at this because he never played the man, only the ball, and was respected by all sides of politics for his gentlemanly conduct. Jim Carlton contributed to the style, tactics and strategies that the dries adopted to win a decades-long campaign of shifting public opinion and economic policy change.

On a personal note, Jim supported me becoming a member of the Society of Modest Members, which continues here today in honour of the late Bert Kelly, the original modest member. I thank the Senate for the time to mark Jim's passing and, like many here, I am happy to carry the torch of reform that Bert, Jim and others have passed to us.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Day. I ask honourable senators to stand with me in silence to give assent to the motion.

Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.

The PRESIDENT (16:13): It is also with further deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 28 December 2015 of Margaret Joan Deahm, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Macquarie in New South Wales from 1993 until 1996.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales) (16:21): I, and also on behalf of Senator Sterle, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the trucking industry consists of approximately 49 000 businesses of which 25 000 are owner-drivers,

(ii) road freight transport delivers more than 2 billion tonnes of goods per year, which is 71 per cent of Australia's domestic freight,

(iii) the industry has had a poor but improving safety record, particularly considering the growth in the number of trucks on the road, and in the 12 months to the end of September 2015 there were 102 deaths in crashes involving articulated trucks and 82 deaths in crashes involving rigid trucks,

(iv) some large companies have been unfairly asking trucking operators to accept extended payment terms of up to 120 days which is not in the spirit of a harmonious business relationship,

(v) the resultant impact on a trucking operator's cash flow may affect their ability to meet their own financial commitments, such as, for wages, lease payments and maintenance of their vehicles, and

(vi) any reduction in maintenance and repair schedules forced on operators by extended payment terms could lead to more serious accidents and fatalities; and

(b) calls on businesses to adopt payment terms not exceeding 30 days consistent with the requirements of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, and in line with the Australian Government policy of making payments no later than 30 days for many contracts.

Question agreed to.

Senator LINES (Western Australia) (16:21): I, and also on behalf of Senators Urquhart and Brown, move:

That, on International Day of People with Disability, the Senate calls on state, territory and Commonwealth governments to demonstrate their commitment to people with disability by signing the remaining bilateral agreements for the full rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Australia-wide.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Assistant Cabinet Secretary) (16:21): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RYAN: Bilateral agreements for transition to the full scheme of the NDIS were signed by the Prime Minister and the premiers of South Australia and Tasmania at COAG on 11 December last year. South Australia and Tasmania have now joined New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT with plans in place for transition to full scheme. Together they will provide insurance to around 300,000 people with disability—more than 65 per cent of the estimated 460,000 people who will access the NDIS nationwide. Negotiations with other jurisdictions are progressing well, and the government remains committed to rolling out the NDIS in full.

Question agreed to.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:22): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 990 standing in my name for today, concerning the implementation of committee report recommendations in relation to housing affordability.

The PRESIDENT: Is this the amendment regarding the date?

Senator LUDLAM: That is correct.

Leave granted.

Senator LUDLAM: This one was held over from last year, which is the reason for the amendment. I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a)   notes:

   (i) the findings of the Economics References Committee in its report Out of reach? The Australian housing affordability challenge (received 8 May 2015) containing 40 recommendations, and

   (ii) that the Government supported nine of these recommendations, including:

(A) to commit to ensuring adequate funding so that women and children escaping domestic violence are housed in secure and appropriate housing,

(B) investigating housing supply bonds and tax increment financing to fund infrastructure for new housing developments, and

(C) to look closely at its aged care policy in relation to the difficulties confronting older Australians in the rental market; and

   (b) calls on the Government to update the Senate on Wednesday, 3 February 2016, on any progress, if at all, on implementing those nine recommendations.

I seek leave to make a brief statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator LUDLAM: By way of explanation, this motion relates to those findings of a very long and detailed Senate inquiry report into housing affordability that was tabled in May of last year. It had good, strong participation by all sides of this chamber—government, opposition and crossbench. I will get to the consensus recommendations in a moment, but what we found, in my view, was that the Abbott government at the time had pursued effectively a scorched earth policy on housing affordability. They had taken and burned to the ground everything that the previous government—with the support of the crossbench and the Australian Greens—had put into play around homelessness and housing affordability.

There were nine recommendations that coalition senators did find it in their hearts to support. This motion seeks any clarification from the government if anything at all has been done by this government on those nine consensus recommendations that coalition senators reported. It is unforgivable that we have heard nothing from the government on the findings of this report. (Time expired)

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Assistant Cabinet Secretary) (16:24): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RYAN: The government will not be supporting this motion. The affordable housing report is a substantial piece of work. It took the committee 15 months to complete. The committee received 230 public submissions and conducted eight public hearings. The report is almost 500 pages in length and contains 40 very wide-ranging recommendations.

The government needs to ensure its response to the report integrates effectively with other current and recently completed reviews that have impacted or will impact upon housing and homelessness policy settings. The Senate granted the committee a number of extensions of time for reporting, with the final report tabled 11 months after the original reporting date. The government does not consider it unreasonable that the same courtesy be extended in return.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ludlam, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (16:25): I ask that the name of Senator Macdonald be added to this motion, which could be a historical moment! I, and also on behalf of Senator Macdonald, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the success of Tambo Teddies as the inaugural winner of Google and the Regional Australia Institute's 'Online Heroes' competition,

(ii) that Tambo Teddies have been making bears and wool products since 1993 in the regional community of Tambo, and in 2015 celebrated bear number 40 000, and

(iii) that this company developed from a government Future Search Workshop, a program to create jobs in country towns in 1992, whilst Western Queensland was suffering a crippling drought and devastating wool prices,

(iv) That the original bears were established by three women, Ms Mary Sutherland, Ms Helen Sargood and Ms Charm Ryrie, and That the business is now a major national and international company; and

(b) acknowledges the enterprise and inspiration of this local business.

Question agreed to.

Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (16:26): I, and also on the behalf of Senators Day, Muir, Wang, Lazarus, Leyonhjelm and Lambie, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the 2003 committee report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, Every picture tells a story: Report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation, which recommended that a new non-adversarial system be created; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) recognise that thousands of Australian children continue to be harmed by a family law system that is not fit-for-purpose,

(ii) recognise That the Family Law Act 1975 should be revised, simplified, shortened and based on core principles of the paramountcy of the long-term welfare of children, gender equality, and equal parental care and responsibility, when neither parent has been proven unfit, and

(iii) undertake a root-and-branch review of the family law system with a view to creating a new mechanism that is not adversarial in nature and deals with family separation in a way that has a tangible and primary focus on the welfare of the child, including an urgency for decisions, education and fairness.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (16:26): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator MOORE: The family law system in Australia has been developed over decades and generally operates effectively in what is an extremely difficult area of law. While all legal frameworks should be subject to ongoing review and reform where the need for improvements are identified, there is no basis for a root-and-branch review of the entire family law system in Australia as proposed by this motion.

The less adversarial trial—LAT—approach was introduced into the Family Court in 2006 by the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006. The enactment of that legislation followed the 2003 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs report and a trial conducted in the Family Court at about the same time, known as the Children's Cases Program. This LAT approach is mandated in division 12A of part VII in the Family Law Act. It applies to all child-related proceedings and in financial matters by consent. The LAT has been a highly significant departure from the traditional adversarial trial. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:29): I, and on behalf of Senators Moore and Lindgren, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) 3 December is International Day of People with Disability,

(ii) the theme for 2015 is 'Inclusion matters: access and empowerment for people of all abilities', and

(iii) the three sub-themes are:

   (A) making cities inclusive and accessible for all,

   (B) improving disability data and statistics, and

   (C) including persons with invisible disabilities in society and development;

(b) acknowledges International Day of People with Disability is an opportunity for the community to make positive changes to the lives of 4 million Australians;

(c) urges government at all levels to take action to develop inclusive and accessible communities; and

(d) encourages all Australians to get involved in the celebrations in their local community by visiting www.idpwd.com.au.

Question agreed to.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:29): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) congratulates the Right Honourable Patricia Scotland on her selection at the 2015 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) as the 6th Commonwealth Secretary-General; and

(b) notes the 2015 CHOGM Communique which states:

(i) the Commonwealth Heads of Government reaffirmed their shared and enduring commitment on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth to the values and principles of the Commonwealth Charter,

(ii) that young people, who comprise sixty percent of the Commonwealth's population, have an important role in building stable, secure and prosperous societies, and that Commonwealth programs can help raise awareness of the risk of radicalisation and prevent young people from embracing violent extremism, radicalisation and terrorism in all its forms,

(iii) That the Commonwealth recognises that freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of religion and belief are cornerstones of democratic societies, and important for the enjoyment of all human rights, and

(iv) that good governance and respect for the rule of law are vital for stable and prosperous societies.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: We now move to No. 1000—lucky 1000!

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:30): Mr President, I am just wondering whether I win anything!

The PRESIDENT: No prizes, Senator Ludlam!

Senator LUDLAM: I seek leave for the same purpose as earlier, to amend general business notice of motion No. 1000, standing in my name for today. It relates to the proposed introduction of mandatory data breach notification laws.

Leave granted.

Senator LUDLAM: I move:

That the motion be amended in the terms circulated in the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Senator LUDLAM: At the risk of being a bit predictable, I seek leave to make a brief statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator LUDLAM: Thank you. I will not detain the chamber for long. The Senate had begun to debate mandatory data breach notification under the previous government. I do not recall who had carriage of it, but the Labor government had introduced such a bill before the 2013 election and I understood that it actually had the support of all sides of the chamber.

When the government introduced its dramatically unpopular mandatory data retention laws last year it was a recommendation firstly of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and then it was a commitment of the Attorney-General, George Brandis, to introduce data breach notification laws. Senator Singh had a private senator's bill in this place that I think is midway through debate. All it means is that if an agency or an entity loses control of your private information you have a right to be told. What could be simpler than that?

Where is the bill? After stuffing around for more than two years we got an exposure draft late last year. Why is this not already law? Why does the government not simply get on with it?

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Senate had begun debate on mandatory data breach notification legislation prior to the 2013 election;

(ii) the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) committed to introduce data breach notification laws before the end of 2015 during the debate over the national data retention scheme;

(iii) the Attorney-General again committed to introduce such laws to the parliament before the end of 2015 in an answer to a question without notice on 13 October 2015;

(iv) contrary to these commitments, the bill has not been introduced; and

(b) calls on the government to make a statement to the Senate on 3 February 2016 explaining why such legislation has not been introduced, and clarifying the government's intentions.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Assistant Cabinet Secretary) (16:31): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RYAN: I thank the Senate. The government opposes Senator Ludlam's motion. The government has released an exposure draft to the Privacy Amendment (Notification of Serious Data Breaches) Bill 2015 to consult extensively with industry and other stakeholders on the proposed scheme, in particular with a view to minimising costs and regulatory impact. The draft legislation and explanatory memorandum regulation impact statement, along with the discussion paper, was released on 3 December last year, and submissions can be made until 4 March this year. The government will closely consider the views of stakeholders and introduce the bill into parliament in the first half of this year.

Strong privacy protections are a critical foundation for a vibrant digital economy. The proposed mandatory data breach notification scheme will give all Australians an added level of confidence in dealing with business and government online.

Question agreed to.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (16:32): I, and also on behalf of Senator Dastyari, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) complaints by Western Sydney Wanderers fans that a heavy-handed approach to crowd control has been adopted, and that this is deterring fans from attending games,

(ii) that football fans may be banned from stadiums by Football Federation Australia with no opportunity to appeal against the banning order,

(iii) the publication of a list of the names of allegedly banned football supporters in the Sunday Telegraph on 22 November 2015, which apparently included individuals who were not banned, and others who were under 18 and had not been charged with any offence, and

(iv) football fans from a number of clubs have staged walkouts at recent games to protest alleged excessive policing and security, as well as Football Federation Australia's policy regarding banning;

(b) acknowledges Football Federation Australia's:

(i) recent undertaking to develop an appeals process for banned supporters, and

(ii) assurances that it was not responsible for making private information about banned supporters available to the Sunday Telegraph;

(c) calls on Football Federation Australia, police, stadium security, active supporter group leadership and A-League clubs to develop an accord, with a view to ensuring:

(i) Football Federation Australia's banning procedures comply with the rules of natural justice,

(ii) individuals engaging in anti-social behaviour are appropriately dealt with, while other football fans are allowed to enjoy the game in peace,

(iii) exuberant fan behaviour should not be unreasonably interpreted as anti-social or harmful, and

(iv) football supporters are not over-policed; and

(d) calls on the Minister for Sport (Ms Ley) to consider becoming involved in this matter.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Assistant Cabinet Secretary) (16:33): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RYAN: Thank you, Mr President and the chamber. The government agrees with the general principles of this motion. Over 15 million fans have passed through the turnstiles since the A-League's inception. Of those 15 million fans, only 198 have been banned.

The growth of soccer over the last decade, led by the FFA, has overwhelmingly been a positive development. The government encourages both participants and officials to continue to uphold the principles of positive participation in sports.

Question agreed to.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (16:47): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence (Senator Payne), no later than 3.30 pm on Monday, 22 February 2016, a copy of the Lazard Scoping Study completed on the future ownership and operations for Defence Housing Australia.

Notice of motion altered on 28 January 2016 pursuant to standing order 77.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Assistant Cabinet Secretary) (16:47): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RYAN: The scoping study referred to in this motion is a confidential document not intended for release. In line with the approach of all previous governments, scoping studies of this nature are not publicly released because they are for consideration of cabinet and contain significant commercially sensitive information, the release of which could damage the Commonwealth's commercial interests.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that notice of motion No. 997 moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.

Senator DAY (South Australia) (16:51): I, and also on behalf of Senator Leyonhjelm move:

That the Senate calls on the Government to engage the Productivity Commission to review the Australian domestic shipping industry, to report on:

(a) the impediments to productivity in the sector;

(b) any consequential impacts on the productivity of the Australian agricultural, resources or other sectors arising from those impediments; and

(c) whether aspects of the European 'Motorways of the Sea' system could deliver productivity benefits to the Australian economy and domestic shipping.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (16:51): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator MOORE: Labor was not consulted on the words of this motion. While shipping policy necessarily includes productivity issues, it goes well beyond that to issues as strategic industry policy, Australian skills development, environmental protection, national security and the management of reliable risk. Referring shipping to the Productivity Commission is unlikely to further this debate including because the PC has recently looked at Tasmanian shipping and freight. The opposition has indicated it is willing to work with the rest of parliament to make changes to existing shipping laws, where this is consistent with supporting a revitalised coastal and international shipping industry that employs Australians.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (16:52): I request leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator LAMBIE: I am not sure where Senator Leyonhjelm and Senator Day have been the last three or four months, but we have actually been running forums around this. These guys have stepped up to the plate. They are working it out off their own bats. Doing anything else is just not feasible. We have got a long way into this. There will be legislation presented over the next few months. You have been getting the same information that everybody else has. Those forums run, and I invite you to attend them—feel free.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 992 moved by Senator Day be agreed to.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Lines ) (16:57): 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:

"Despite the change of Prime Minister, the Turnbull Government has adopted former Prime Minister Abbott's misplaced priorities and broken promises".

Is the proposal supported?

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

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

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:58): We may have replaced the Prime Minister, but the only difference that can be seen between former Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Turnbull is that Mr Turnbull wears a nicer cut of suit. So many people have made that comment that it has got to be true: that the only difference is that Mr Turnbull wears a nicer cut of suit.

The government removed Mr Abbott because he was unable to sell their misplaced priorities and disastrous broken promises. They did not remove him because they rejected his cruel policies. They still support those same cruel policies. The policies that caused the Australian people to decry Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey are still the same under Mr Turnbull. He is just hoping that nobody will notice. Mr Turnbull is also hoping that no-one will notice that the urbane, small 'l' liberal Mr Turnbull of times past has sold out every single principle he has to become Prime Minister—every single one. We are now seeing a huge gap between what the Prime Minister says and what he does.

He was hoping that by breaking promises during the summer holidays, when Australians were enjoying time with their families, no-one would notice. Between Christmas and New Year Mr Turnbull's Liberals confirmed they will dump the needs-based Gonski reforms and keep his massive school cuts. The new education minister has said that he will not fund years 5 and 6 of the Gonski school education funding reforms. This is an enormous disappointment to parents, to students and to teachers right around Australia. The students who will suffer the most are those in remote schools and in disadvantaged schools and particularly Indigenous children. Before the last federal election Christopher Pyne trumpeted his unity ticket on Gonski claiming, 'You can vote Liberal or Labor and you will get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.' Well, that is a clear broken promise—one which they tried to hide during the Christmas break.

This comes after two consecutive Liberal budgets that will strip $30 billion from our classrooms over the next decade. That is an average of over $3 million in school funding lost from every school in Australia. Australians should be outraged by these cuts. It is a farce that Mr Turnbull talks about innovation at the same time he is cutting funding for every school across the nation. The Liberal government's cuts to our classrooms are the equivalent of sacking one in every seven teachers.

Labor knows that, if you are serious about education policy and equally if you are serious about this country's future economic growth, then you need to get our education system right and that means real investment in the programs that make a difference to increasing Australia's educational attainment. Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' is a fully costed policy guaranteeing long-term education for all Australian children. We have a plan that will improve the literacy and numeracy of every child in every school in every state and territory and we have a plan that will increase year 12 retention, because we know that this is the biggest indicator of whether these students will go on to be employed. Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' plan will see an additional investment in our education system of $4.5 billion over school years 2018 and 2019 and a total provision of $37.3 billion for the package over the decade. Labor has done it through finding sensible, appropriate and fair savings of $70 billion to pay for the most important program of school improvement in a generation.

As well as failing to properly fund schools the government's misplaced priorities have seen them cutting funding to the healthcare system. We saw recently the Australian Medical Association's Public hospital report card 2016 that confirms the crisis being created by the Turnbull government's decision to cut more than $57 billion in public hospital funding. Before the last election Labor had a signed agreement with all states and territories committing to fund 50 per cent growth funding at the national efficient price. The Liberals promised to match it. They have again broken this promise. Most importantly, this agreement included reforms to improve the efficiency of Australia's public hospitals to reduce waiting times and increase capacity. Instead, in one of their first acts in government the Liberals completely walked away from this promise. In doing so the Liberals immediately gave up on any attempt at reform and cut more than $57 billion in the process.

The government has fundamentally attacked bulk-billing of pathology and diagnostic-imaging services through $650 million in cuts for bulk-billing incentive payments. There are 50 million pathology tests done every year. It is extremely alarming that there will be many thousands of Australians who will end up not having vital pathology tests because they will no longer be able to afford them. This is a shameful attack by this government on the health of those who are least well off in our community. It is utterly shameful. This government's attacks on health are just more broken promises.

Labor has a $7 billion plan to close tax loopholes and stop multinationals shifting profits offshore but the Liberals are refusing to adopt it. It is not a priority that they want to pursue. In fact, they have made it even easier for companies and high-wealth individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax. The tax office has confirmed that more than half of the 2,149 redundancies in the ATO in 2014-15 came from the compliance business line, with the pivotal private groups and high-wealth individuals section losing 270 officials, or nearly 20 per cent of its workforce. It makes absolutely no sense for this government to sack the people responsible for ensuring that appropriate amounts of tax are paid by private groups and high-wealth individuals.

Instead, the government wants to increase the GST to 15 per cent as well as increasing the base of the GST. It wants to slug the least well off in our society with a massive increase in the GST. We could see a massive increase in the cost of fresh food, education, health care, electricity and other vital daily expenses. A 15 per cent GST on everything, including fresh food, health care, aged care and education, will see an average family pay an extra $6,200 in GST per year—$6,200 extra in GST per year. That is a huge attack on household budgets and that is why on that side some of them are talking about compensation, but we all know that that compensation, because of inflation, gets eroded, gets eaten away, so any compensation is only temporary. This is a terrible attack on the budgets of millions of Australian households and it is not what the Australian people want.

The government has also shown that it does not care for our communities through its savage cuts to the DSS grants program. The government savagely cut $270 million from vital services that support and advocate for vulnerable communities, families and children, including domestic violence services, emergency relief and financial counselling.

And what about the government's utter lack of interest in Australia's cultural heritage? The government's attacks on the arts community have been unfair. They have been unrelenting and they have been totally misguided and inappropriate. The Abbott-Turnbull government's attacks on the arts include more than $100 million of cuts in the 2014 budget, including $37 million from the national cultural institutions and $25 million from Screen Australia, a further $13.2 million cut from the Australia Council, Screen Australia and the Ministry for the Arts in the 2015 budget and, most appallingly, $105 million ripped from the Australia Council to fund the government's ministerial slush fund. In December, the government made an extraordinary cut of $10.4 million from Screen Australia to help fund the government's spending on two films by the American filmmaker Ridley Scott—Alien: Covenant and Thor. This government, the Turnbull government, has decided that it will utterly decimate the Australian film industry to fund foreign films. So, apart from its broken promises, the government continues to show that its priorities are completely and utterly wrong.

As we have seen, the new Prime Minister has just continued the cuts, broken promises and wrong priorities of the previous Prime Minister. Mr Turnbull sold out every belief he had to become Prime Minister and his continued following and implementation of Mr Abbott's policies shows this to be so. He is beholden to the conservatives in his cabinet and on his backbench—those who want to cut health, cut education, cut the arts while allowing multinationals to pay almost no tax and allowing very high income earners to get extremely large superannuation tax concessions. He has done nothing, and will do nothing, to change these terrible policies.

He has been happy to allow the least well-off Australians to suffer, just to fuel his personal ambition. Mr Turnbull is rapidly looking like the Wizard of Oz: just a powerless man in a shiny suit hoping that no-one will notice he is a fraud, arguing against everything he used to believe in. I can assure Mr Turnbull and his senators opposite— (Time expired)

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (17:08): First of all, I want to thank Senator Moore and Senator Bilyk for raising this matter for debate today because it gives me the opportunity to highlight some of the exciting new policies being brought forward by the coalition government. Can I start with the $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda, which will help create a modern, dynamic 21st-century economy for Australia. Our innovation agenda will promote a culture of entrepreneurship and place innovation at the heart of everything we do as a nation. We will make it easier for start-ups and new innovative businesses to access early stage capital to grow their businesses by providing a 20 per cent tax offset for investments up to $1 million, as well as capital gains tax exemption. And we will be establishing a $200 million CSIRO Innovation Fund to turn world-leading research into commercial outcomes and to help small CSIRO spin-off companies access capital to grow their business. Our innovation agenda will help transform Australia into a leading innovation nation and position us to seize the next wave of economic prosperity.

This is a debate, and I simply cannot let pass some of the fantasy stories told by the previous speaker in her contribution. She talked about school cuts under the coalition government. As Senator Birmingham pointed out time and time again in question time, there are no school cuts; there is increased funding for schools. What happened was Labor—without any budgeting, without any money—said, 'We're going to spend X amount on schools.' This was not funded at all. We get into government, find there is no money there and so we have to increase the money that is there to do the things that the coalition government wants to do. So Senator Bilyk is wrong on school cuts: there are no school cuts; there are increases. Similarly with Gonski: there were no forward funding commitments for Gonski. That is being contributed by the coalition government.

Senator Bilyk talked about the tax of multinationals. The Labor Party was in power for six long years and did not a thing about the problem that Senate Bilyk now says is such a major concern for the Australian economy. By contrast, the coalition government has already introduced legislation to deal with that. There has been no talk by anyone on our side of politics about a 15 per cent GST, but day after day after day I hear Labor's spokesmen saying nothing else but '15 per cent GST'. The only one actually proposing this, until two days ago, was the Labor Premier of South Australia. He was the only one, until Mr Baird entered the debate; until then, for the last four months the only one who has been advocating a 15 per cent GST has been a Labor politician, the Labor Premier of South Australia.

Senator Bilyk also talked about arts funding. I am delighted today to hear that, out of the minister's Catalyst fund, the Girringun Aboriginal community—based in Cardwell, between Townsville and Cairns—has received funding through Catalyst to the display of the works of the Girringun Aboriginal Corporation, and the wonderful painters and contributors they have from that community, in exhibitions in Sydney and at the Monaco art festival. This is made possible not by the Australia Council, not by state governments, but by Senator Fifield's Catalyst fund, which allows the government to fund wonderful, very useful and very worthwhile groups like the Girringun Aboriginal Corporation to display their artworks around the world. I understand from Senator Bilyk that she would be opposed to this, so I will make sure the Girringun Aboriginal community are aware of that.

The subject of the debate does have some credence, because there are things that the Turnbull government will not be changing. For example, we will not be changing the coalition's policy of stopping the boats—a policy that Labor could not even comprehend, but we did. The Turnbull government will continue that policy to save lives and to save having children in detention. Furthermore, the Turnbull government will continue the coalition government's campaign to get children out of immigration detention. When we took office, almost 2,000 children were in detention under the Labor-Greens government that ran Australia; now there are fewer than 100. We are going to continue the policies that have allowed that.

We have abolished the carbon tax, and I can assure you that no coalition government ever again in the future will be reintroducing Labor's carbon tax. We will be meeting the climate change targets that the coalition government have set and which I see that the new Chief Scientist has said are well set and will be able to be met by the coalition's policies. And it is wonderful to see that we are doing something about reducing carbon emissions while the rest of the world just talks about it. We are actually doing it, and we will continue doing it.

We are going to continue the coalition's policy of having a referendum on same-sex marriage. What can be wrong with asking the Australian people in a plebiscite to determine this difficult issue? When you are in a democracy, what can be more democratic than asking the Australian people to do it?

Another thing the coalition will not be changing is our determination to build the infrastructure of the 21st century for our country. The money that the Australian government has put in and has leveraged from others into our infrastructure is just legend. Over the Christmas break I had the opportunity of driving to Brisbane along the Bruce Highway, and I am amazed at the amount of work that has been done. I had heard about it. I had seen media releases about all the work along the Bruce Highway, but I actually experienced it. This is work that the coalition has done which Labor could never do, and that policy of building the infrastructure for the next century will continue.

Could I finish on northern Australia. The coalition government have a wonderful policy on northern Australia that we have been considering for the last 10 years, I have to say, and in earnest for the last three or four years. We had a green-paper process on northern Australia. We had a white-paper process. We consulted everyone. We launched the white paper in June last year. I have to say that the wonderful initiatives in that—including the $5 billion loan facility, the CRC, the new infrastructure, new water policies and a new dam policy—are all happening. We are no longer talking about them.

But, by contrast, what are Labor doing? Let me tell you what Labor are doing. Labor have suddenly decided that they have to set up a northern Australia task force to consult with people on what they should do for their policy. They have not got a policy. They have never had a policy on north Australia. And suddenly they are starting, about five years behind the coalition, on looking for a policy for north Australia. With respect to my friend and colleague Senator McLucas, I think she is in charge of that, but unfortunately the Labor Party in their wisdom have got rid of Senator McLucas from their Senate team and replaced her with a bloke from Brisbane, a union delegate—a union hack from Brisbane to replace northern Senator McLucas. And yet she is given the unenviable task of trying to pull together a northern Australia policy before she leaves the Senate in favour of a Brisbane union hack who is taking her place.

As to this discussion by the Australian Labor Party, I am delighted they have brought it forward. It allows me and my colleagues to demonstrate just what wonderful new initiatives are coming forward under the current government and under Prime Minister Turnbull but also to emphasise that the tried and tested policies that the Australian people elected us on will continue for the benefit of all Australians.

Senator SIMMS (South Australia) (17:18): I thank Senator Macdonald for highlighting the fact that, despite the change of leader, the Liberal Party have stuck with the same deeply unpopular and divisive policies, the kinds of toxic policies that are bad for our nation and bad for our planet. They are things like inaction on climate change, things like cruelty towards asylum seekers and things like spending $160 million on a costly and divisive plebiscite on marriage equality, asking a question when we already know the answer. We know Australians support that reform.

It is interesting. When Mr Turnbull became Prime Minister, he talked a lot about new ideas and new innovations: 'There has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian,' and so on and so forth. We have heard these lines repeated ad nauseam over the last four months. But it is clear that Mr Turnbull is all sizzle and no sausage. It is clear that he is all sizzle and no sausage because, when it comes to putting the meat on the bones, when it comes to actually articulating a different policy agenda, all the Liberal Party have under Malcolm Turnbull is the same stale, Abbott-era policies as Senator Macdonald has highlighted. He is leaving the room, no doubt embarrassed by the reality of that.

In terms of this issue of a plebiscite, Mr Turnbull has made his views on this very clear. He said in a media interview to 3AW just the other day—and these comments were widely reported in the news at the time—that he favours a traditional free vote in the parliament as a way of resolving the issue of marriage equality but that, when Mr Abbott was the Prime Minister, it was determined that the matter would be put to the people through a plebiscite. That is the position that he has adopted, on the basis that it is Mr Abbott's position.

The Australian people may well ask: who is running this show? Who is running this government? Is it Mr Turnbull, or is it Mr Abbott and his conservative supporters on the backbench? Despite the fact that Mr Turnbull has articulated a view in favour of marriage equality, he seems to be completely powerless to rein in his colleagues and to deal with this issue. We saw last week the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal and National parties tying themselves in a knot over this issue, quite frankly making a meal of an entree over the issue of marriage equality, making this issue far more complex than it has to be.

We know from media reports over the last week that the numbers are now here in the parliament. For the first time, we have a majority of members of parliament in both houses who support marriage equality and want to see action on that reform. But there is one thing that is holding back progress on this issue, and that is Mr Turnbull. Because Mr Turnbull is refusing to grant his colleagues a free vote, because he is wedded to the Abbott-era policy of a deeply divisive and costly plebiscite, he is holding back progress on this issue.

The reality is the Australian people do not want a costly and divisive plebiscite on marriage equality. Just today we saw a poll that came out in Nationals-held seats that found that 63 per cent of those polled described the $160 million plebiscite as 'poor' or 'very poor' value for money. Fifty-six per cent of voters supported the parliament resolving the issue on its own. Only 28 per cent of those polled supported a plebiscite. So it seems this idea of a plebiscite on marriage equality is about as popular as its architect, Tony Abbott. It is going down like a lead balloon in the Australian community. It really is time for the Liberal Party to dump this policy. We have seen a change in leader but we are seeing a continuation of the same unpopular policies that led Mr Abbott to be repudiated so strongly by the Australian people.

The reality is that the numbers are mounting. The list of policy failures for this government is growing. It is time for the government to show some leadership and take action on this issue. The issue of marriage equality presents an easy win for Mr Turnbull. Heading into an election year, why doesn't he put it to the parliament and let the parliament decide it? There are two bills—a bill before the Senate and a bill before the House of Representatives. All he needs to do is grant a conscience vote, and we can save $160 million and get this matter done.

Senator LINES (Western Australia) (17:23): The legacy of former Prime Minister Mr Abbott will be that he was a Prime Minister who could not be trusted. He was a Prime Minister who broke his promise on almost everything he committed to in the lead-up to the election and after the election. His legacy will be that of the worst Prime Minister in our recent history, a Prime Minister absolutely despised by Australians who voted for him in the end—

Senator Cameron: And his own party.

Senator LINES: Yes, and his own party—thank you, Senator Cameron. He could not be trusted on health. Despite his saying there would be no cuts to health, we saw the cuts from day 1. Despite his saying there was a unity ticket on Gonski—tricking the Australian voters to vote for him, believing that a vote for Mr Abbott would mean no change to Labor's commitment on Gonski; we saw those signs, and I certainly saw them in Western Australia—almost immediately upon his winning government we saw that broken promise. Very quickly it was: 'Nah. Sorry. You've voted for us. Now we've got our three years and we're not committing to Gonski.'

We saw cuts to SBS and ABC and we saw those ridiculous interviews with Prime Minister Abbott in which he tried to justify it, saying it wasn't quite a promise. The cuts were there. And then others were trying to break the bad news that it was a promise he should not have made. In fact, Mr Turnbull had to try and deal with that one. We saw the appallingly weak efforts of the Abbott government on climate change—introducing Direct Action. Not only was it a laughing stock in Australia—not supported by any kind of scientist or scientific body you would care to name—but now, after Paris, it is a joke among developed countries in the world. Was it any wonder really that backbenchers and those in marginal electorates got a little bit nervous and last year decided that Mr Abbott needed to go? So along came Mr Turnbull.

A lot is known about Mr Turnbull because he likes to talk about himself. He has been an absolute advocate for a republic. But are we going to see a republic? No, because, according to Mr Turnbull, who was the leading advocate when we had the referendum on becoming a republic, somehow things have changed. He was a leading sceptic on Direct Action and he has made well publicised comments about how useless Direct Action is and how it will not deliver, and yet what we see is that he is going to continue with that policy. It would seem that he is no longer a republican and no longer a supporter of action on climate change.

In his electorate of Wentworth there are a lot of same-sex couples, and he has advocated on their behalf as a supporter of marriage equality. But, no, he has decided—or Mr Abbott and his 44 supporters have decided—that we have to continue with this ridiculous plebiscite. Even members of the government cannot name it properly; we just heard it being called a 'referendum'. Perhaps those speaking notes that were leaked yesterday need to make sure that government backbenchers get the language right. Someone should tell Senator Macdonald that actually we are not having a referendum; we are having a $160 million plebiscite that means nothing.

What we have seen in the new year is Senator Abetz come out and say, 'We don't really care what the Australian voters think, because we're sticking to our guns and we will not vote for marriage equality'. We are a joke. There are many countries that are much more conservative and that have strong religious backing around the world who have moved on marriage equality, and yet we are dragging ourselves along, limping along. The plebiscite will deliver nothing. We do not trust the question; we have not seen it yet; we do not know when it is going to happen. There is still uncertainty.

So, for those couples who want to get married, who want to be like every other couple in Australia, it is those on the other side, it is the Turnbull government, it is Mr Turnbull himself, who are standing in the way of them and marriage equality. The time is long done. For a government that goes on and on and on about money, they are quite happy to throw at least $160 million at this ridiculous question, even though quite a number of their backbenchers have said, 'We don't really care what the plebiscite is; we are still sticking to our guns and not allowing marriage equality.'

Of course we have seen the attacks that former Prime Minister Abbott made on our health system and they have continued well and truly. In fact Mr Turnbull, who seems to think that women need supporting, over the Christmas break tried to put through changes to Medicare that would directly impact women: going after women's health, going after the diagnostic tools that are required to ensure that women are able to have pap smears so that cervical cancer is easily detected.

All of those are thanks to Mr Turnbull. They are his very own cuts. He has taken the legacy of Mr Abbott and moved it forward: Direct Action, poor policy, nothing on marriage equality, nothing on a referendum—supposedly things Mr Turnbull believes in, all crashed and burned. And now he is making his own draconian cuts that attack women directly.

I do not know how those opposite can think that it is okay to say to women, 'You will have to bear an up-front cost for a pap smear.' The thing they did not research—Turnbull government ministers do not really research very well—is that it says in the Medicare arrangements that if you are not bulk-billed for pathology and diagnostic services you have to pay up-front for them. That is a cost of thousands and thousands of dollars that they are imposing on every single Australian, particularly on women. That is who they have gone after. Is that any wonder? The Turnbull government seems to ignore women in its own cabinet and around the country. It might have put a few more women in, but it is a long way from being equal.

We saw the disgraceful behaviour of Jamie Briggs over the break. Some members of the Turnbull government tweeted, 'Never mind mate!', ignoring the fact that what he did was reprehensible and that no-one should have been supporting the disgraceful comments and actions of Jamie Briggs. Yet they did. A number of them came out in support of him. He has paid the price for that, as he should have. It is indicative of the Turnbull government, because women do not feature prominently anywhere on their agenda. Australian women, ordinary women, will pay dearly under the Turnbull government's cuts to health.

It was Medicare's 32nd birthday last year, but we know that right from day one Liberal and National governments have opposed Medicare. They think that people should somehow be paying for their own health, that it is not something that we as Australians should hold near and dear. Under Mr Fraser they tried to knock it down. They tried and tried and tried, but it is in place. Generations of Australians have taken Medicare for granted. What Australians have now learned is that under a coalition government you cannot take Medicare for granted, that the only governments that protect Medicare, that do not seek to run it into the ground, are Labor governments. We understand that health should be universal, that you should have access to health regardless of your income.

These cuts to pathology and diagnostic services will hit those who can least afford it. We know that we need more investment for pap smears, because women are not presenting for subsequent tests. Mr Turnbull's government has made it worse by saying to women that they are going to have to cop out-of-pocket expenses. What would men understand about this? They never have to have pap smears. They never have to front for the sorts of tests and for the sorts of health issues that women have. For breast cancer it is not just one X-ray that you have; it is several. It is three, four, five or six, until we get to the nub of the issue. All of those will have to be paid for up-front because of the savage Turnbull cuts. So women again will bear the brunt of these cuts. We have seen the savage attacks on women, whether it is women in the Public Service or women on parental leave being accused of being double dippers. Now it is women's health that is right there, front and centre.

Guess what? Women in our country vote, and when they go to the ballot box they will remember. They will not support the Turnbull government, which has done nothing but make life much harder for Australian women. It was a disgraceful attack on women over the Christmas break.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory) (17:34): I am really pleased to be able to contribute to this matter of public importance debate on the Turnbull government. This is a debate about priorities. It is a debate about our government's priorities. Senator Lines spent a lot of time talking about a republic. Fair enough, I am a republican.

Senator Smith: Oh!

Senator SESELJA: I heard that phrase from my colleague Senator Smith, but I do not see a republic being the top issue for Australians. I do not see it as being the issue about which they are beating down our door. The priorities are somewhat different. Senator Lines just launched into an attack, and there was an attempt in question time: 'Prime Minister Turnbull said this three years ago. He said this five years ago.' I just don't think it is working.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator SESELJA: I don't believe it is. It is a little bit flat. It is little bit like they are going through the motions. They are saying, 'What about this you said about the republic? What about that you said about climate change and direct action?' I don't think the Australian people are interested, frankly. It is gotcha politics. If you go down to the pub and quiz people: 'Did you know that Prime Minister Turnbull said X on the republic five years ago and he said Y today?', you would find that most people would not care. What they would care about are the priorities of this government and, primarily, about the economy.

I will talk about some of those priorities and some of the things that we have delivered. It is a long list. I am not going to be able to get through it in the five minutes I have to speak, but I will do my best to get through some of the significant achievements and priorities of this government versus the Labor Party's priorities. Let us be clear, what are those? We know from its year of ideas what they are—more taxes. Those were the ideas it came up with. Bill Shorten said, 'I'm going to come up with all these ideas, this year.' What he came up with was that we will do more taxes. That is not a plan. It is not a genuine priority to say that you will tax more. You should be looking to tax less. That is my view and it is the coalition's view. You should be looking to keep taxes as low as possible. Deliver the services that are necessary and deliver them well, but try to keep taxes lower.

We have seen jobs growth in the past year. That is our priority. We have created something like 335,000 jobs since the last election—I think it is beyond that now. We have reduced Labor's budget deficit by tens of billions of dollars through savings we have made. We have seen female workforce participation at record levels. Is that not a great thing? We are seeing women coming into the workforce in record numbers, bankruptcy at the lowest level in 20 years and environmental approvals to projects valued at more than $1 trillion. Think about the great job opportunities that are there when we have an environment minister who will put on conditions but will not just mindlessly block projects at the behest of the Greens.

There is $50 billion in infrastructure—that is growing our nation and growing jobs. There are tax cuts for small business, which is just sensational. We have seen small businesses around this country getting some of the best conditions we can offer them and the lowest tax rates they have seen since the 1960s—that is a great achievement. And, of course, even as we have sought to get the budget under control, funding for hospitals is up over 25 per cent over four years and funding for schools is up 28 per cent over four years.

We are delivering on the key service areas, we are delivering on tax cuts for small business, we are delivering by signing free trade agreements with our major partners—Korea, Japan and China. Think of the possibilities, the endless possibilities, when we open up more and more trade with our major Asian trading partners. This is a government that is focused on the priorities of Australians. Australians want to see us focused on jobs and through our innovation package on growing jobs in new ways. We accept that, whilst mining will continue to be important for us and resources will continue to be important for us, we always need to be looking to grow new industries.

The service opportunities of even just our free trade agreement with China are phenomenal—that is where so many of our strengths are, of course. I know, here in Canberra, our export industries—our service industries, primarily—are the smarts of individuals and businesses coming up with great ideas that they can now have greater opportunities to deliver to the likes of the Chinese market.

We got rid of the carbon tax and that has saved hundreds of dollars a year on people's electricity and gas bills. They said we would not be able to do it, and we did, at the same time delivering Direct Action—that is, delivering on our targets but without a carbon tax, which the Labor Party would love to bring back.

National security and border security are the kinds of priorities we have that we know the Labor Party did not take seriously. They did not take it seriously because we saw the tens of thousands of boat arrivals, the thousands of illegal arrivals. Yet, when we said we would stop those unlawful arrivals, the Labor Party, the Greens and parts of the media said we could not do it. Well, we did. We said we would do it and we delivered on it and, as a result, not only did we save lives but also we restored order to our immigration process. Unfortunately, we have seen that other countries that do not maintain control of their borders suffer the consequences over time. Australians support an orderly immigration program. They support a strong immigration program, provided it is done according to the rule of law and according to our priorities.

So these are some of the achievements of this government; these are some of the priorities of this government. On the other side there are higher taxes, more wasteful spending and an inability to actually deliver on the promises they want to have the Australian people believe they will deliver on. (Time expired)

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:41): I rise to add my contribution to this debate, one that goes to the heart of decisions pending for the Prime Minister, Malcom Turnbull. Since taking over the leadership, there has been expectation and anticipation that perhaps we would see a change from the new Prime Minister, a departure from the harsh, cruel and blunt ways and policies of the previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. When it comes to the issue of children in detention, I am very, very interested in watching and listening to precisely what this Prime Minister does in this regard.

Today, as I stand here, there are 90 children in Australia who are anxiously waiting on the results of a High Court decision to be handed down tomorrow. The reason they are waiting anxiously for this decision is that only two weeks ago the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, directly threatened these children. He said that if these children and their families lose the High Court case tomorrow, they will be sent back to the hellhole of Nauru. These are children, many of whom have been transferred to Australia because of the damage that has been done to them in detention on Nauru; women who have been subjected to sexual abuse and assault that we know has occurred inside the Nauru detention centre and on that island—it is well documented by numerous reports, including the government's own Moss review; and children who have been subjected to abuse, intimidation and violence at the Nauru detention camp.

For example, a five-year-old boy, who was sexually assaulted and abused in Nauru, was sent to Australia to get the appropriate medical assistance. That boy's life now hangs in the balance as to whether he will be deported to Nauru, back to the place where he suffered such abuse and such inhumane treatment, or whether the Prime Minister will do the right thing and override his minister's call? Will Malcolm Turnbull stand up to Peter Dutton and ensure that this four-year-old-boy and the other 90 children here in Australia are not sent back to the detention centre and the prison island that is Nauru?

Many people have been watching and waiting for Malcolm Turnbull to show more compassion or empathy on this issue. Many have been waiting for him to stick by what he previously said which was that he did not believe that children belong in immigration detention. Well, this is the big test for Malcolm Turnbull tomorrow

His minister says these families and these children will be on the next plane to Nauru. Will Malcolm Turnbull let him be that cruel or will he step in and save them from that awful fate?

Only 2½ or three weeks ago I visited a family in Melbourne who had been transferred from Nauru to Australia because of the very, very severe impacts on their mental health as a result of their indefinite detention. They had been in detention on Nauru for two years. Their baby was born here in Australia. She is now almost one year old. That family are now going to sleep tonight with the fear that if the High Court case fails they will be sent back to living hell.

I find it extraordinary that we have a Prime Minister who talks about not wanting to see children in detention and talks about a fair and compassionate society. How can he stand there tomorrow and allow these families to be deported? Hundreds and thousands of people across the country today—as they will be tomorrow—are calling for the Prime Minister to do the right thing, and I hope that he does.

Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (17:46): I too rise to make a contribution to this matter of public importance debate. Whilst it is true that we have a new Prime Minister and that Prime Minister Abbott is no longer at the wheel, so to speak, it is important to put on the public record once again that Mr Turnbull sold out on climate change to get the top job, sold out his position on marriage equality to get the top job and has compromised and sold out his position on a republic to get the top job. That is not a bad trifecta! Things that he has had widely-held and deeply-felt views about have been put aside to take the top job.

It is very important to also put on the public record his public comments about the Abbott government. Prime Minister Turnbull has publicly supported the worst of the Abbott cuts and broken promises. He supported every measure in the Abbott and Hockey unfair budgets, with the comment:

I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the budget. Every single one.

He supported the GP tax. He said:

I support every element, of course, including the Medicare co-payment.

He supported the $100,000 degrees and cuts to university funding. He said:

I support the reforms to higher education.

He supported cuts to family payments. He said:

I support the changes to family payment reform.

He supported the $80 billion cuts to schools and hospitals. 'Of course, every single member of the government supports every element of the budget'—that was his public statement.

We know that as communications minister the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull delivered a slower, second-rate NBN process and doubled the cost. While we are at it, let's look at the promise of no cuts to the ABC or SBS. As minister he cut $254 million from the ABC and $25 million from SBS. So all of the work that Tony Abbott was castigated for which caused his backbench to revolt and overthrow him is being continued as we speak every day of the current Turnbull government.

We heard Senator Macdonald's contribution. I suppose on the bright side he went from the worst day of his life when Prime Minister Abbott dumped him to, in this last year of the government, probably sniffing an opportunity. If there is a coalition win, will he make a comeback? Will the worst day of his life when he was dumped as a potential minister mysteriously turn into someone recognising his talents and promoting him? His contribution certainly seemed to be in that vein. He was out here auditioning for a role in a future Turnbull government.

I want to go back to question time. If you listened to question time and this debate you probably think there are two parallel universes. In the debate on funding in education we are painting one clear picture and the government is saying something completely different. Senator Birmingham let his guard down a bit when he mentioned that money is not the only way of improving education. He almost came clean and said, 'Yes, now we are cutting,' but he did not quite. But the reality is the government's promises to every South Australian before the last election were very simple and very clear: 'Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.' That was abundantly clear in all of the electoral material that was distributed in South Australia. As I said in question time today, I will seek leave to table the document which underpins the veracity of that line of questioning. I seek leave to table this document.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ketter ): Is leave granted?

Senator Scullion: No.

Leave not granted.

Senator GALLACHER: It is not surprising that the government would not grant leave for something that hangs them or hoists them on their own petard. They said they would match the funding. The reality is they are chopping and cutting. They are going to be convicted in the court of public opinion in South Australia, because parents know that things are not right in their schools. They know that public schools need more resources, not fewer. If Senator Birmingham is underwhelmed by a public school, he ought to resource it better.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:51): I extend my best wishes to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, on the first day of our parliamentary year and, indeed, I extend them to all of my Senate colleagues. I pity, of course, my Senate colleagues on the opposite side. We saw today just how much of a struggle it is for Labor in 2016 to come to grips with the new modernity and leadership of our national leader in Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the coalition. They have struggled with the same story and message that they tried to prosecute last year on the first day of this new parliamentary year when we have a fresh, reinvigorated government and a fresh, reinvigorated Prime Minister.

Labor is confused. It is dazed. It cannot find its mojo under the national leadership of Malcolm Turnbull. When Labor talked today about the government's priorities, it was interesting to hear what they did not talk about. They did not talk about the success of the previous Prime Minister and, indeed, the coalition government, in abolishing the carbon tax. They did not talk about the success of the previous Prime Minister and the success of the previous coalition government in abolishing the mining tax. And they could not bring themselves to have a touch of graciousness when it came to the policy that has stopped deaths at sea. They could not bring themselves to even credit the coalition government with having stopped deaths at sea with its stronger borders approach.

I want to touch briefly on the suggestion that this government, as we approach the election this year, in some way or in some form, has the wrong priorities. The government has stopped the carnage on the high seas by halting the flow of boats, meaning that people are no longer drowning when they try to travel to Australia illegally. How can that be a wrong priority?

There are more Australians employed today than ever before. Month after month, Labor come here trying to predict doom and gloom in the unemployment figures, but unemployment is heading down under the coalition. There were over 300,000 jobs created in 2015—the largest number since 2006, easily surpassing anything Labor were able to achieve in office. How can that be a wrong priority?

Indeed, on issues important to my home state of Western Australia, the government has concluded free trade agreements with Japan, South Korea and China—agreements that Labor were good to talk about but bad in bringing to a conclusion when they were in office. They were all talk when it came to free trade agreements; there was no ink on the final agreements. These agreements, as we know, will create significant new export opportunities for Australian producers and might be part of the reason consumer sentiment continues to be on the rise in our country even as it declines elsewhere in the world. How can these be wrong priorities?

We have heard Labor and, indeed, the Greens very predictably try to prosecute arguments about the republic, try to prosecute arguments about same-sex marriage and try to prosecute arguments about climate change. I am tired of having to come to this place and say, 'While those are issues of some importance and relevance to ordinary Australians, they are not issues that are "top of mind".' Let me tell you what issues are top of mind for everyday Australians. They are: keeping our borders strong, generating jobs growth and, importantly, from my home state of Western Australia again, tackling this big, bold dream that we have always had in our country to develop northern Australia.

Let me briefly, in the time that is available, reflect on the government's success in keeping borders strong but also, importantly, in making sure there are no unfortunate deaths at sea. Just last year, in December, the immigration minister reflected on the achievement of the government. Over 1,200 people drowned when Labor were in government. Five years of Labor mismanagement meant that people lost their lives at sea. In the two years since, no-one has died risking their lives to come to Australia. Since commencing the turnback policy, more than 20 boats carrying 650 passengers—people who are paying people smugglers—have been returned to their country. There is no excusing the fact that Operation Sovereign Borders is a tough policy; it is tough on people smugglers. But it is a great virtue because it saves people's lives. There has been nothing from Labor about the important policy priority of protecting our borders. It is worth reflecting on what happened under Labor. Labor opened 17 additional detention centres. The coalition has closed 13. Around 9,000 people who arrived illegally by boat were in detention when Operation Sovereign Borders commenced. We have reduced this to just 900. Most importantly, we have reduced the number of children in detention. More than 8,600 children were detained during Labor's two terms, peaking at nearly 2,000 in July 2013. We have reduced that number to fewer than 100 today. No-one likes children in detention. Senator Hanson-Young is right: 80 is too many. But the clearest dividend of the government's success in regard to Operation Sovereign Borders is the government's generosity in addressing the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Iraq by resettling 12,000 additional refugees here. These places are for the most vulnerable people: persecuted women, children and families with the least prospect of ever returning to their homes. There has been nothing from Labor in regard to the important priorities of protecting our borders, reducing loss of life at sea and, as a dividend, being able to bring 12,000 refugees to our country to give them a better opportunity at a new life.

The government has made it clear: jobs and growth are its mantra; jobs and growth are its priority. It is worth reflecting briefly, in the time that is available to me, just how successful the government has been so far in its first term. The government has a strong record when it comes to jobs with 427,200 jobs created since we came to office. It is worth comparing that with Labor's last year in office. In 2013, employment growth was just 1,900 per month—an annual growth rate of just 0.2 per cent. Over the past year, jobs growth has been more than 10 times that amount with more than 25,100 jobs created per month—an annual growth rate of 2.6 per cent. The government's priorities are right. The government's priorities reflect the priorities of ordinary Australians, and that will be reflected later in the year at the general election.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! The time for consideration of the matter of public importance has expired.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (18:06): The last batch of documents I called were government documents 29 to 42 on page 10; 43 to 49 on page 11. Reports of the Auditor-General, documents numbered 50 to 57 on page 11.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:11): by leave—On behalf of Senator Conroy, I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 61st Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Stavanger, which took place from 10 October to 12 October 2015.