The PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (09:31): I am just wondering if I could get some advice from you here: was there a response to a return to order by the Senate in regard to the CSIRO? I understand it was due at 9.30.

The PRESIDENT: I cannot answer that question, but by leave you could ask the government.

Senator KIM CARR: by leave—I ask the government: what has happened to the return to order?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (09:32): I do not know. As you would appreciate, there are a range of returns to order and a range of questions on notice that are due from time to time. They are lodged in the ordinary course of events, and the minister at the desk would not necessarily be aware of what the status of any individual one of those is at any given point in time.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (09:32): by leave—I ask the minister if he could make inquiries as to why the return to order has not been complied with.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (09:33): As I say, I do not know what the status is, but I am very happy to check for you.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:33): by leave—On the same subject, is it possible to have a time set for when Minister Fifield will report that back to the Senate?

The PRESIDENT: Can we leave it with the minister? We might be asking the impossible to get a time from him, unless the minister can indicate a time frame.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (09:33): It is not my portfolio and I have no knowledge of the status of it. As a result of those two things, it is really not possible for me to state a time that I can report back.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:33): by leave—Could I ask that you, Mr President, have a look at this—it was due at 9.30—as to whether we could set a time for some news or some sort of feedback to the chamber about this.

The PRESIDENT: As desirable as that may be from your perspective, it is not up to me; it is up to the government. It is the right of all senators to inquire of the government as to why the government has not completed an order, if that is the case. I think the questions have been asked quite sensibly by Senator Carr and yourself. The minister has taken those on board. The minister can report back to the Senate as and when he can.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (09:34): Mr Deputy President, I rise to support passage of the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, a private senator's bill I introduced late last year.

In 1997, Kevin Andrews succeeded in pushing a private member's bill through federal parliament. It overturned the first legislation permitting assisted suicide in Australia, enacted in the Northern Territory.

Since then, not only does assisting someone to commit suicide remain a serious crime in all states, it is also a crime in the territories. Three states have life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, while in others the maximum penalty varies from five to 25 years.

This is extraordinarily cruel. The denial of the right to die at a time of our choosing can result in a lingering, painful death. It is also at odds with the fact that we have both a fundamental and legal right to choose whether we wish to continue living.

It is important to state this clearly, because people often forget suicide was once illegal and failed attempts frequently led to prosecution.

In medieval England, suicides were denied a Christian burial. Instead, they were carried to a crossroads in the dead of night and dumped in a pit, a wooden stake hammered through the body to pin it in place. There were no clergy or mourners, and no prayers were offered.

But punishment did not end with death. The deceased's family were stripped of their belongings, which were handed to the Crown.

This remained the case until 1822. Michael MacDonald and Terence Murphy, in Sleepless Souls: Suicide in Early Modern England, wrote: 'The suicide of an adult male could reduce his survivors to pauperism.'

This did not change because of a significant campaign for a change in suicide legislation. Instead, there was a gradual realisation that the laws of the day were at odds with society's view, and that care, not prosecution, was needed.

Dr David Wright, co-author of the book Histories of Suicide: International Perspectives on Self-Destruction in the Modern World, wrote:

From the middle of the 18th Century to the mid-20th Century there was growing tolerance and a softening of public attitudes towards suicide which was a reflection of, among other things, the secularisation of society and the emergence of the medical profession.

This freedom is now mostly well accepted. While suicide is often an occasion for sadness, there is also a recognition that people do not belong to their families or to the government.

An individual may have good reasons to take his or her own life. But even if they do not, it is still their decision to make.

But there is a catch. The law says we are only permitted to die by our own hand, without assistance. Indeed, in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and the ACT, reasonable force can still be used to stop a person from committing suicide. And if we are too weak or incapacitated to end our lives ourselves, we are condemned to suffer until nature takes its course. It is a serious offence for anyone to either help us die, at our instruction, or even to tell us how to do it ourselves.

One of the consequences of this is that it can compel people to end their lives sooner than they would like. Understandably, people prefer to avoid the risk that they will become incapable of committing suicide themselves, doomed to live out the remainder of their lives in pain and helplessness.

Most fair-minded people accept that painlessly ending animal suffering is an act of compassion. As a veterinarian, I have often had the decision to put an animal to sleep because animals are not people and cannot give consent. However, for us humans, even when we give consent and beg for help, the law prohibits the same compassion.

There is no better marker of individual freedom than the ability to decide what to do with our own body.

If the law prevents us from making free choices about it, then we are not really free at all; our bodies are not our own but are under the control of someone else who tells us what we can and cannot do with it. In reality, this is the state.

Yet bodily autonomy is well-recognised in other areas. Nothing prevents us from getting tattoos, dying our hair purple—if we happen to have hair—or sporting multiple studs and pierces. We are just not allowed the ultimate autonomy.

Legalisation of assisted suicide in Australia is long overdue. Opinion polls show that more than 80 per cent of Australians are in favour, across all political parties. It is high time governments accepted that on this deeply personal matter, their intrusion is not warranted.

Now, I turn to the inevitable objections.

Despite what some people think, this is not about bumping off granny to inherit the house. Assisted suicide is simply helping someone to do something that they would do for themselves, if they were not so ill or feeble.

The absolutely essential element is genuine, active consent. This is emphatically not merely implied consent or acquiescence. Ending someone's life when they have not given consent is murder. Nobody wants that.

Moreover, this is not about living wills or withdrawing medical assistance. Those are different issues.

Equally, those contemplating suicide should be made aware of the availability of palliative care to make their last days less agonising and should have treatment options in the case of mental illness. Indeed, the decision to die, with or without assistance, should be rational and well informed in all cases, including an awareness of the attitudes of loved ones left behind.

And of course, consent must be verified. I do not believe medical practitioners are any better qualified than anyone else to confirm this, but obviously the decision must be genuine. It is essential to ensure that the choice is made without coercion or pressure.

In the short term at least, the easiest approach to facilitate the path to legalising assisted suicide would be repeal of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997—the 'Andrews bill' I referred to earlier. It removed the power of each of the territories to legalise assisted suicide, with a specific focus on repeal of the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

While it is too late to simply reinstate the Northern Territory act, repeal of the Andrews bill would send a signal to states and territories that their legislatures may now turn their attention to this issue. As a bonus, it would support federalism in law making. For too long, the Commonwealth has waded into areas that are properly the business of the states.

Allowing the states and territories control over their own affairs—which is the point of federalism—also allows innovation in law-making. During hearings for the Senate 'nanny state' inquiry—of which I am chair—I learnt that the Northern Territory does not require cyclists to wear bicycle helmets on cycle paths or footpaths.

As a result, the Northern Territory has high cycling participation rates. And despite having the worst road accident injury rate in Australia, when it comes to cyclists the Northern Territory's serious injury rate is the same as the national average and better than several states where helmet use remains mandatory.

In other words, small jurisdictions can be innovative, and this should be recognised by the Commonwealth. Indeed, I suspect that in response to passage of this bill the territories will come up with better assisted suicide legislation than the Northern Territory's original Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

Whatever we might think of the decisions others make about their lives, it is their decision, not ours. The law should respect their right to make their own choices. Whether as legislators or private citizens, our approval is neither necessary nor relevant.

And the permission of the government should not be required, just as it is no longer required with respect to suicide.

Passage of my bill will set the territories free.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (09:45): I remarked to one of my colleagues somewhat earlier that I think this is probably the fourth or fifth time that I have managed to speak on a very similar bill which purports to restore the rights of the Northern Territory and the ACT or to give them rights to which they are simply not entitled. They are constitutional arrangements. The Northern Territory and the ACT are not states. In fact, the Northern Territory rejected what was seen as a fait accompli to become a state and chose to still be subject to federal intervention and the ability of the federal parliament to override the state and territory laws. I think the people of the Northern Territory have rendered their verdict, and they are absolutely delighted with their current state of play. So this is not really about our constitutional arrangements, because that would be a matter for the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory. It is not really about states' rights, because the two jurisdictions we are talking about are not states.

The Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 is just another vehicle to change how we treat and value life in this country. It is an ideological crusade for people who support euthanasia. I am not one of them. I respect that others have different views. We are going to hear them from some of my colleagues on my side of the chamber and the other side of the chamber. At its essence, this is about euthanasia.

Of course, Senator Leyonhjelm and others in this case always refer to the polls and how much widespread support there is for euthanasia. I can understand that, at any sort of superficial level, when people ask, 'Should you be able to relieve yourself or get assistance in relieving yourself of a terrible death or pain?' the instinctive answer from people is, 'Yes, yes, we should be able to do that.' But it is the same principle that applies if you ask people: should the death penalty apply in this country? Something like 70 or 80 per cent of the Australian people go, 'Yes, it should.' I am opposed to that as well. I think there is a serious and significant problem when we start asking the state to endorse the ability of individuals to take the life of other individuals in these sorts of circumstances.

In the case in point, when this was allowed in the Northern Territory, we had individuals who died who were not terminally ill. They were suffering from depressive illness maybe, but they certainly did not have a disease that was going to take their life. So we have a circumstance where, no matter what is said, the only evidence we have in this country is that it does not only apply to those who are terminally ill. In the only instance, which is in the Northern Territory, we found that a lady who had no significant illness was killed with the assistance of a medical practitioner. That, I think, proves the point that you cannot have absolute safeguards in introducing euthanasia into this country.

It strikes me as a little incongruous because I look at the example, say, of the Netherlands. The Netherlands was one of the first countries, if not the first country, in the world to introduce euthanasia. I think it was in 2001 that it was introduced. Of course, there were appropriate promises of safeguards then as well. There was never going to be any abuse of the system. It was only going to apply to those people who were truly terminally ill. Theo Boer, who was one of the advocates for it—in fact, he was a professor, I think, of ethics—in 2007 wrote:

… there doesn't need to be a slippery slope when it comes to euthanasia. A good euthanasia law, in combination with the euthanasia review procedure, provides the warrants for a stable and relatively low number of euthanasia.

Many of his colleagues drew a very similar conclusion. Indeed, for the first five years after it became law, physician induced deaths remained level. They even fell in some years. But Mr Boer went on to say how wrong he was—how terribly wrong he was—and that the stabilisation in numbers was 'a temporary pause'. In 2008, the number of cases started to grow and grow and grow. We now have circumstances in the Netherlands whereby children can request to be euthanased.

I find this quite extraordinary. There is no slippery slope, of course! We are told again and again and again that there are always going to be safeguards. We spend tens of millions of dollars dealing with mental illnesses and suicidal thoughts, preventing young people and adults and older people from committing suicide, helping them with treatment, and yet, in the place where physician assisted suicide was introduced in 2001, we now have circumstances where children can request to be euthanased.

It is strange that those who often are the strongest advocates for the intervention programs to prevent suicide in young people and adults are the same ones who are saying we should be allowing individuals to determine when they want to die. I just find that extraordinary. It is a duality that is not consistent. The evidence demonstrates, overseas, the slippery slope that does eventuate. As soon as you put a framework and a parameter around the ability for one individual to say, 'I have the right to die, and I want someone to help me die,' the boundaries upon which that is levelled are going to be continually challenged until we have circumstances, as has been demonstrated, like in the Netherlands, where children can be killed because they view a few people and say: 'I feel like killing myself. I don't want to live. I'm depressed. I'm ill.' We have circumstances where it is no longer physician assisted suicide; it is conducted, sometimes without reference to the patient, by nurses. The cases of that are legion.

I would say that, no matter what is implemented, euthanasia or any assisted suicide legislation can never be made safe from abuse. I note that Senator Leyonhjelm made the point that this is not about knocking granny off to get the family home or anything else, but it can place undue pressure on the elderly, who may feel they are a burden on their families and who may feel that they do not have a contribution to make anymore to society. I reject that in its entirety, but that is how some people may feel. They may feel despondent. They may feel that age has denied them of some faculties and they would prefer to die as a result. Do we really think it is right?

There was a case of 45-year-old twins in Belgium I think who were advised that they were going to go blind. They decided that they would rather die instead. If it is okay for 45-year-olds who are going blind to say, 'I don't want to live any more,' and die, what is the difference with a 30-year-old, a 25-year-old or a 22-year-old? Shall we continue down that path? When is it? Is it only 18-year-olds? Why then in the Netherlands are children allowed to make these requests?

The challenge for those who advocate in this space is to demonstrate that the slippery slope does not exist. The challenge for them is to explain to the Australian people why there is a divergence of approach. At what point does one have the right to die and at what point does society have a responsibility to help people get through whatever the issues are that are causing them to want to take their own lives? We need to protect the vulnerable. This suggestion, dressed up as territory rights legislation, does not protect the vulnerable. It makes them even more vulnerable—vulnerable to external pressures and vulnerable to their own weaknesses and health issues. It virtually says, 'We don't value your life because it may be impaired in some way, shape or form.' I think that is absolutely wrong because we can all be vulnerable.

We know that people's mental health issues can come and go. They can receive treatment and recover. We have seen that so many times. It is wonderful that we have the medical and psychiatric care and appropriate medications and we can help people through counselling. Yet what we are basically saying through legislation like this is: 'That might be too hard. It might not work.' At what point do we say, 'We are not going to try it'? Is it because the individual says, 'No, I don't want any help'? With mental health issues, depression and things like that you cannot help how you feel. If you feel like you want to die, it is up to us to help you through that and to try to stop that from happening because every person has a contribution to make and we should value their life just as we value our own.

I also make the point that this sort of legislation built around euthanasia causes an extreme mindset change for medical professionals. I am not a medical professional. I have tremendous respect for their integrity. I know there are many medical professionals who feel that being part of an assisted suicide program for an individual is something that compromises their medical ethics, and there would be others of course who have a different view. For the state to enlist the help of medical professionals whose Hippocratic oath is to do no harm and assist others, particularly in trying to help them recover from illness, is I think a direct challenge to what that profession has always been.

Medical professionals make many judgements, particularly when it comes to palliative care, where the treatment can often result in the death of the patient but it is done under the auspices of relieving pain and suffering. There are always opportunities. As palliative care has increased in its effectiveness I think a case for euthanasia is entirely unnecessarily and, quite frankly, dangerous over the course of time. The dangers are abundant for anyone who really wants to become aware of them. We have seen circumstance after circumstance where euthanasia has been applied under circumstances which would never be envisaged by this parliament.

A 44-year-old woman was euthanased because she had anorexia. We spend huge amounts of money on intervention programs to save people from anorexia. It is a debilitating illness. It is something you can recover from. We spend an enormous amount of support, time, love and compassion trying to help people recover from this. If a 44-year-old woman can be euthanased because she has anorexia, do you make the case for a 19-year-old, an 18-year-old or a 15-year-old if they have the same rights? This is the sort of slippery slope that comes on in.

In 2014 the Belgian Chamber of Representatives voted 86 to 44 to allow for children to be euthanased. Remember it was never going to happen. Go back to all the debates—'It is never going to happen. We are never going to allow this to happen.' But now it has happened. In Belgium, the number of euthanasia cases in 2012 increased by 25 per cent, and that was only after it was legislated and legalised in 2002. Seventy-five per cent of euthanasia cases in the 2011 to 2013 time period in Belgium were for cancer, seven per cent were for progressive neuromuscular disorders—Parkinson's disease et cetera—and 18 per cent were for other conditions. It sort of opens up a dystopian world view—'I've got an other condition.' It could be depression. It could be any other mental health issue—not feeling good, or, 'I've got anorexia.' They are other conditions.

So it was not just for terminally ill patients, just as it was not in the Northern Territory when euthanasia was legalised there. Sixty-nine per cent of euthanasia was performed on patients aged from 40 to 79 years, so only about 30 per cent was for that truly latter-stage demographic, the plus-79s—the 80-year-plus age group. So people aged from 40 to 79 were the bulk of them. A hundred and ninety-four cases over those two years, which is about nine per cent, involved patients whose deaths were not foreseeable in the short term, and two per cent of cases involved unconscious patients who had earlier signed advance directives. It is very easy to sign an advance directive and say, 'Well, if I'm unconscious I don't want to live,' until you are not given that choice anymore. Circumstances change. What happens if you have signed it 10 years before? Is there a time limit on it? What if your mental health condition is different from when you have signed those sorts of things?

When this debate is opened up—and it is a perennial debate that is going to continue, I am sure, many times—I am continually struck by the inconsistencies that are applied to the right to die but then to society's obligation to protect people from their wish to die, because they want to have it both ways here, and it does not work. I happen to believe, and quite passionately, that every life is precious. I think that we have an obligation to help people through troubled times, and I think we have an obligation to provide people with the best possible palliative care that we can. It is not through any cruelty. It is not through any wish to see people suffer. It is simply an awareness that, once we open this Pandora's box, we do not know what is going to come out of it. The examples internationally are there for all of us to see, and there is yet to be any definitive legislative instrument anywhere in the world that can safeguard against the progression of this sort of demand.

What strikes me is that when I was a young man—or younger, I should say—I used to see a show called Logan's Run, and it was about a society where people, when they got to 30, were deemed unnecessary and not worthwhile anymore, and their lives were terminated. Logan was the chap who managed to escape and run away, and they went hunting him and everything else. That is science fiction. It is a futuristic thing. It probably has no basis in reality, but the reality is that, if we start to say that just because you feel bad at a certain age or you might be a burden on the community or you feel you are a burden on the family and you feel, 'I want to die,' that sets the benchmark. We are never going to extend that benchmark. We are never going to make it harder to reach. History demonstrates again and again and again that, once you draw a line in the sand, there are always demands for that line to be moved, and it never makes it harder to reach that line; it always become easier and easier and easier.

That is the problem. That is the risk with human nature. People think they are doing the right thing by assisting someone and making the claim that it is only going to be nonagenarians or whatever that will be availing themselves of this, but it is not. It might start that way, but then we do not know where it is going to end. But the examples overseas provide us with a very clear indication of the types of risks we face: people not even consenting to euthanasia being killed by nurses, without reference to a doctor, and cases involving children, people with anorexia and people with depressive illnesses. Just because you say, 'I don't feel like living anymore,' the response is, 'Yes, it's okay; you've got the right to get someone else to kill you.' I just find that extraordinary, and yet that is the absolute lived example. It cannot be denied by those here. They might say it will not happen here, but they cannot provide any safeguards for it whatsoever.

So once again we are debating the merits of this bill. I understand that there may be these compassionate views, however they want to dress them up. They can say this is about states' rights for the territories, but the territories are not states, and the reason the states have not enacted this sort of legislation is that they know there is no protection for it. We have to protect the vulnerable people in our community.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory) (10:05): I rise to speak in support of the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, and I would also like to acknowledge at the outset Senator Leyonhjelm and his office for the work that they have done in bringing this bill to this chamber. I speak in support of this bill both as an ACT senator and as a former Chief Minister of the ACT. My support for this bill relates to my concern at the level of interference the so-called Andrews bill represents as to the appropriate level of responsibility which should be afforded to both territories in relation to their capacity to legislate on behalf of their constituents.

I believe the focus of the debate on this bill should and must be the restoration of the democratic rights of the territories to pass laws in the best interests of their citizens, which were trammelled so thoroughly in 1997 when the original Euthanasia Laws Act was passed by the federal parliament. I note that it is almost 20 years since this legislation was passed. In that time, both territory parliaments have continued to legislate as mature jurisdictions in our nation. There are some 630,000 people that live in the ACT and the Northern Territory, and their governments are responsible for running hospitals, schools, child protection, jails and multimillion-dollar economies. Much is made of the promise of northern development and the knowledge economy of the ACT, but at the moment both jurisdictions are barred from debating or legislating for the rights of the terminally ill. This is wrong in my view, and it is timely that we revisit this legislation. We now have the opportunity to reflect with the benefit of 20 years hindsight on what has changed in relation to our view of the democratic rights of the territories and hopefully come to a view that it is time to remove the constraints embedded in the Andrews bill, for the right to debate and legislate on an equal basis with the states.

The objectives of the bill are fourfold. Firstly, it will reduce the extent of Commonwealth interference with the laws of the ACT and the Northern Territory. Secondly, it will contribute to competitive federalism by encouraging states and territories to legislate and refine and improve law-making. Thirdly, it will recognise the right of the ACT and the Northern Territory to legislate on euthanasia in their respective jurisdictions. Finally, it will also allow the Northern Territory parliament to revisit, at a time of its own choosing, new legislation which addresses, in a similar vein, the rights of the terminally ill as originally contemplated in the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

This bill is about restoring democratic rights to both the ACT and the Northern Territory parliaments to legislate in relation to euthanasia on their terms, in their words and on behalf of their citizens. It does not compel these parliaments to legislate; it merely restores the right to do so. It is up to them to legislate, not the federal parliament on their behalf. In supporting this bill, I am merely recognising that these two jurisdictions should and must have the right to legislate on their own behalf.

I also challenge senators who believe this legislation should be opposed because it could lead to either or both territories legislating to allow euthanasia to stop and consider what I believe is the overriding argument in favour of supporting this bill. The people of the Northern Territory and the ACT should have the same rights as every other Australian citizen, whether they live in Alice Springs, Tuggeranong, Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide. I suggest that if you vote against this bill you are in effect saying to all territorians, whether they are an SES officer in Forrest or a stockman in Katherine: they are, in your view, second-class citizens; the federal parliament wants to continue to treat them in a paternalistic way; they are not full citizens; and we know best what to let them and their elected representatives do in regard to the rights of the terminally ill. Or is your argument that we federal parliamentarians trust and respect the individual citizens of each territory but not their politicians or the maturity of their parliaments? On what basis and evidence would any of you come to that conclusion?

In asking you to stick to the big picture and to put aside the highly emotive issue of euthanasia laws, I am not being deliberately naive about either the emotional or the ideological baggage which comes with this kind of debate. Supporting this bill is not about whether or not you support the rights of the terminally ill to die in dignity and at a time of their choosing. I would contend that is a completely separate issue to the one we are debating today. Today is simply about the right of each territory parliament to legislate as they see fit in this regard. Surely, the debate about the rights of the terminally ill should be had in the jurisdiction which contemplates introducing laws to allow for some form of euthanasia. Given the seriousness of the debate around the right to die in dignity, we should expect a vigorous and exacting debate in each and every jurisdiction which contemplates legislating in this regard. Our citizens deserve and demand community consultation, debate and careful elaboration of the implications of the rights and protections which would be afforded to them in such legislation. But that is not what we are here to do today. Today we are debating whether or not to repeal an undemocratic law which restricts the rights of two parliaments of Australia and to restore those rights to citizens of the ACT and the Northern Territory, through their parliaments, to legislate as they see fit in this regard.

When you look at some of the material that was prepared for the Andrews bill in 1996, there was a current issues brief prepared for parliamentarians seeking to understand the issues raised by the Andrews bill. It outlines the impact of the bill, including the overturning of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, together with the impact on the territories' powers to pass other kinds of laws. The issues brief says:

These laws may include 'refusal of medical treatment' legislation of the kind that already exists in the Northern Territory and in the Australian Capital Territory, and legislation that clarifies the legal position of a doctor who administers palliative care that hastens a patient's death.

It goes on to explain the Constitutional effects:

Section 122 of the Australian Constitution confers a power on the Commonwealth to make laws for the government of any Territory. This is a plenary power, unlimited by subject matter. The Federal Parliament therefore clearly has the constitutional power to enact a law that has the effect of overturning the RTI Act. There may be some doubt, however, as to whether the way in which the Andrews Bill seeks to bring about this result is within the scope of the Commonwealth's powers under section 122.

The digest also points out:

The central constitutional question raised by the Andrews Bill is, however, political rather than legal. That question is whether or not it is acceptable politically for the Commonwealth to take back part of the legislative powers it conferred on the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and Norfolk Island at self-government.

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills reported on the Andrews bill on 18 September 1996. As senators would be aware, part of the watching brief of the scrutiny committee is to examine whether legislation breaches certain principles, including whether or not a bill trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties. According to the bills digest, the following matters were raised by the scrutiny committee in relation to the Andrews bill:

The Commonwealth Parliament having given the Legislative Assembly of each Territory the power 'to make laws for the peace, order and good government' of each Territory, would, by this bill, negate the valid exercise of that legislative power by one of them.

The Commonwealth Parliament, by this bill, proposes to intrude on the lawmaking function of the Territories not in accordance with a general principle but on an ad hoc basis. This threatens the certainty which ought exist for its citizens when any one or more of the Territories passes a valid law.

The Commonwealth Parliament, while undoubtedly having the power to pass this bill, would, by so doing, create a situation where some Australians are treated in a way different from other citizens because it curtails their present right to self-government in circumstances where, were they to live in the States, it could not do so.

It goes on to say:

The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 has now been in operation for a number of years and, up to the time this bill was introduced, people living there had the reasonable expectation that the statute would not be amended to deprive their Assembly of a power it had held for over a decade and a half. This bill now puts that reasonable expectation at risk.

The final point was:

This bill, if passed, would override the decisions of the democratically elected government of the Northern Territory when it appears that there would be no head of power or international convention by which it could override the same or similar legislation enacted by the States.

The committee also commented that the bill's provisions 'may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties', in breach of principle 1A(i) of the committee's terms of reference.

In April 2012, in my role as Chief Minister of the ACT, I made a submission on behalf of my government to the ACT Legislative Assembly's Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure's review of the ACT (Self-Government) Act. In my submission to the review, I drew attention to the comments of Professor Halligan's review of the application of the Latimer principles within the ACT:

The ACT remains in some respects a stunted system of governance that has been constrained by another level of government and lack of agreement on key strategic issues. The single most significant constraint on good governance in the ACT, apart from scale and resourcing relative to its responsibilities as a state and municipal entity, has been the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988, which has imposed severe limitations on the autonomy and power of the jurisdiction. The right of a federal government, whether by legislation or ministerial fiat, to veto territory laws has reduced the status of the ACT to that of a protectorate.

At the time, I argued that a preamble should be inserted into the ACT (Self-Government) Act which outlined the principle of the territory's democratic self-determination and explicitly set out the Commonwealth's legitimate interests and powers in relation to ACT, including reference to the fact that the people of the ACT give the assembly its political mandate to govern the territory. Pertinent to the debate today, I also noted that sections 23(1A) and 23(1B) of the self-government act prevent the ACT from making a law with respect to euthanasia. I argued that this constraint on the ACT's legislative power should be removed and that the government viewed its inclusion as an unnecessary constraint on ACT policy choice—a constraint that is not possible in the states.

Senators might also note the comments of well-regarded constitutional expert Professor George Williams of the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law, who commented in his submission to this review of the ACT (Self-Government) Act, of the conditions imposed by the Commonwealth:

This left the ACT system of government with several features more akin to a nineteenth century colonial possession than a modern Australian Territory.

Professor Williams recommended:

… provisions could simply deleted were they are obsolete or inappropriate—

including restrictions on the power of the legislative assembly in section 23.

In the final report of the review of the self-government act, a majority of the assembly's committee members voted to recommend that subsections 23(1A) and 23(1B) be removed.

In summary, it is clear that, in the ACT's recent review of the self-government act, expert witnesses identified subsections 23(1A) and 23(1B) as unnecessary constraints on the ACT's legislative powers, which the properly constituted parliamentary committee and government strongly supported.

It should also be noted that amendments made to the act in 2011 did not preclude the Commonwealth from involvement in ACT legislative processes. I am talking here about what existed prior to 2011, the executive veto power, which was used to overturn the ACT Civil Unions Act back in 2006. Of course, the executive veto provision no longer applies after legislation passed the Commonwealth parliament in 2011 which requires a vote by both houses of federal parliament before a territory law can be overturned. That reform added a refreshing element of transparency to the process in requiring that intervention be subject at least to debate in the upper and lower houses of federal parliament, rather than by just the swipe of a minister's pen.

When I was doing research for this debate, it was interesting to go back and look at the history of the Rights of the Terminal Ill Bill that came before the parliament of the Northern Territory. On 22 February 1995, the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory introduced the bill into the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly as a private member's bill. The bill was immediately referred to a select committee, which reported some months later. The committee received over a thousand submissions, took oral evidence and conducted hearings in Darwin, regional centres and a number of Aboriginal communities. The Bills Digest notes, of the committee:

Its report contained recommendations in relation to the Bill but made no recommendation on euthanasia per se.

In the Legislative Assembly, the vote was 13 to 12 that the Bill be read a second time. In the Committee stage of debate, 50 amendments were introduced. On 25 May 1995, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act … by 15 votes to 10.

As it goes on to say, that act provided a statutory regime which made lawful, in certain circumstances, physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia.

There were several subsequent attempts to repeal the act which were not successful. An amendment bill was passed in February 1996 which included an increase in the number of doctors required to examine and certify that a patient met the statutory criteria under the act, from two to three. The amending act also clarified the qualifications that doctors had to possess and amended the interpreter provisions. It was not until six months later, in June 1996, that Mr Kevin Andrews foreshadowed that he would introduce a private member's bill into the federal parliament to override that act, which had been democratically passed by the Northern Territory parliament.

The reason I reflected on that for a moment was to show that there was a process, a thorough process which surrounded the legislation in the Northern Territory—the opportunity for consultation, debate, amendment and, finally, the passage of that act. It was the Northern Territory parliament operating in exactly the way it was established to do. However, that act did offend some members of the federal parliament, and a legislative sledgehammer was brought down on that act and has remained in place for the last 20 years. It has certainly constrained the ability of the ACT and Northern Territory parliaments not just to pass legislation but even to debate it or have that conversation with their communities. Here in the ACT we are in a ridiculous position. If you live in Queanbeyan, your government at the state level is allowed to have that debate and that discussion, but if you live on the other side of the border, even three minutes away, you are not allowed to. That is the inconsistency that applies across the country.

It was sobering to remind myself when I was thinking through the issues raised by this bill that the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation was a world first. No wonder its passage and the subsequent reaction by opponents of this issue looked to federal parliament to block its path. What I am hoping for in this debate today, some 20 years on, is that time has helped us all to see a little clearer and better understand what was good and bad in the way our federal parliament approached the challenges thrown up by the Northern Territory parliament's groundbreaking legislation, and that we have all learned lessons about how we deal with such a matter in a way which could respect the rights of all of our citizens and that we are prepared to legislate to restore rights and act in a way which does not unduly interfere with the parliamentary processes of any other jurisdiction. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator DAY (South Australia) (10:23): Like any piece of legislation, the sensible place to start is with the facts, the definitions. What is euthanasia? What is not euthanasia? Herein, I believe, lies great confusion in the community, particularly when asked to consider opinion polls. Before considering what euthanasia is, let us begin with defining what euthanasia is not. The Australian Medical Association policy on euthanasia spells out what euthanasia is not. None of the following is euthanasia: not initiating life-prolonging measures, for example, using a heart defibrillator; not continuing life-support measures, such as turning off life-support equipment; not offering futile care, such as ceasing prescription medication; the administration of treatment or other action intended to relieve symptoms which may have a secondary consequence of hastening death, commonly known as the doctrine of double effect, such as the administration of strong morphine dosage.

Almost every Australian knows of a usually elderly relative, or perhaps even a close relative, who has died and the difficulty in seeing them die. That most likely informs their view on euthanasia. But no poll seeks to explain to them properly what euthanasia is and is not. People who are polled are also dismissive because they are not faced, at that moment, with an end-of-life decision. Lawyers tell me that, when preparing what are now known as 'advanced care directives', clients are, before proper advice, quite dismissive about their care options. 'Just flick the switch', they say. But when they or a loved one are faced with a situation it is not that simple.

The poll we so often hear is that 70 or 80 per cent of people support dying with dignity. Yet I wonder what the result would be if a different question were asked. For example, faced with a terminal illness, should we care for the patient, or kill the patient? I wonder what the result of that question would be? Progress can never be achieved if you are travelling down the wrong road. If this bill is successful, the nation will begin the long march. We will be moving forward but away from the truth. We will be moving into deeper error with every step.

Euthanasia is presented in many shapes and forms, but it is united in a single idea: the intentional, premature ending of life. Over the years this has been cloaked with many euphemisms—the 'right to die', 'mercy killing', 'dying with dignity', 'aid in dying' and so on. Yet behind this curtain is an increasing appeal to self-determination and autonomy. Around the world more and more people are asserting their libertarian freedom: 'I am the captain of my own ship and master of my own destiny', and 'If you have a right to life, then you have a right to determine when to end that life.' Although all euthanasia laws are introduced with supposedly rigorous safeguards, the reason they never hold is that, eventually, those safeguards are considered unfair, restrictive and even paternalistic.

Terminally ill people are overwhelmed, often depressed, easily influenced and extremely vulnerable. In truth, they have far less autonomy during this time than at any other time in their lives. It is very likely that they will require their families and friends to routinely assist in their care. Tending to the needs of sick loved ones and sticking with them to the end is a dignified display of love and selflessness. Most importantly, it is a witness to outsiders of sacrificial love and familial obligation. For those who do the caring it forges a character of resilience, enabling them to persevere in times of trial. For those who do the dying opportunities develop to reconsider past hurts and biases and for reconciliation and making peace. End-of-life moments can be the most powerful healing moments for the dying person and their loved ones.

Assisted dying offers an alternative—of evasion and abandonment. Family and friends cannot face the emotional investment or the painful reality of suffering. Even in the most loving of families, there are requests for doctors to refrain from dragging things out. It is often not the dying person but the family member who wants the suffering to end. In worst cases, there are ulterior motives for wanting the death of a relative. We are only beginning to understand the extent of elder abuse. We have to realise that in some cases what began as a well-intentioned exercise in being a carer for another person can become such a burden that dark thoughts and schemes develop, particularly where money is involved—be it real estate, funds, or the proceeds of a life insurance policy or policies. No matter how many safeguards, checks or balances you have, the hunger for power, revenge or money can steer its way around many hurdles.

Perseverance and patience have become scarce in our culture of rights. The emerging moral vacuum favours permissiveness before forbearance. Burdens are now felt as intolerable intrusions into one's life and happiness. Worldwide, doctors are feeling the pressure to conform to these new expectations. They are placed in an impossible situation, forced to reconcile their Hippocratic oath with a new-found directive to euthanise. Their great skill, developed over years of effort towards treatment, is now twisted by assisting death—or, more properly, killing.

As with many other emerging rights, conscience exemptions are reluctantly granted or refused altogether. A few years ago, the Royal Dutch Medical Association declared it a professional duty to euthanise by killing those who legally qualify or by referring them to another physician who will. Theo Boer, a Dutch professor of healthcare ethics, recently admitted that his country had got it wrong. He said:

Whereas assisted dying in the beginning was the odd exception, accepted by many — including myself — as a last resort … Public opinion has shifted dramatically toward considering assisted dying a patient's right and a physician's duty. … Pressure on doctors to conform to patients' or relatives' wishes can be intense.

Your complicity or your career. Enough is never ever enough. Perhaps that is why to date medical professional bodies' policies have been hesitant to endorse euthanasia. Why breach centuries of medical ethics?

There are alternatives to prematurely ending a patient's life, such as improving our already excellent palliative care. In fact, a greater presence of such care may have made the Northern Territory euthanasia bill of 1995 unnecessary. During an inquiry in 2009, Professor Ray Lowenthal said:

It is no coincidence that the previous Northern Territory euthanasia legislation was set up at a time the NT had no palliative care services whatever. The instigator of that legislation, Mr Marshall Perron, has even been quoted as admitting that when he introduced the legislation into the parliament he had never heard of palliative care.

Now that such care is widely available, the former act should stay where it is—dead and buried.

But it is too late for victims elsewhere. Both Belgium and the Netherlands started with compassionate intentions and supposedly rigorous safeguards when crafting their euthanasia laws. Like all nations travelling the wrong path, these assurances were proven all but false. Gradually, they have gone off the rails. In the modern and regrettable climate of censorship, it is virtually forbidden to raise concerns about slippery slopes. Following ideas to their logical conclusion is dismissed as fearmongering, exaggeration or cheap scare tactics. But we are not dealing with hypotheticals here. The gate has flung open and all of the so-called safeguards have been trampled under the weight of progress. Belgium has recently approved a request to die from a 24-year-old woman with mental health problems. Known only as 'Laura', her suicidal thoughts led her to declare: 'Life; that's not for me.' Despite all of the unknowns of the future, a negative prognosis has been given to her remaining decades. Hopelessness has been given the green light.

How does euthanasia interface with preventing suicide? If legislatures say it is acceptable for one person whose life has become unbearable to end their life, how does the suicidal person respond? In Oregon in the USA, where euthanasia is legal, the suicide rate has risen. And here is the great paradox in our community. On the one hand, we all applaud suicide prevention programs. Now, we applaud and facilitate assisted suicide. So at what age does a person no longer qualify for the suicide prevention program and enter into the suicide facilitation program? At what age? How do we define a person?

When does a person qualify or no longer qualify for support and assistance with suicide prevention and then get shunted off into the suicide facilitation program?

It is a perversion of the word 'treatment' to 'cure' a young woman's suicidal thoughts by ending her life. Since when was killing treatment? No matter how qualified, assisted death is now a state endorsed remedy for emotional and psychological hardship. And this is far from an isolated case. I quote once again Professor Boer:

Whereas in the first years after 2002 hardly any patients with psychiatric illnesses or dementia appear in reports, these numbers are now sharply on the rise. Cases have been reported in which a large part of the suffering of those given euthanasia or assisted suicide consisted in being aged, lonely or bereaved.

They were the symptoms that they suffered from: they suffered from being old, they suffered from being lonely and they suffered from bereavement. Are these the people who no longer qualify for suicide prevention program assistance? Are these the people we now move into the suicide facilitation program?

'Laura' is just one of the five people killed each day under Belgium's assisted dying laws. Further studies have revealed cracks appearing around consent safeguards. Professor Cohen-Almagor of Hull University discovered that life-ending drugs were administered to 30 Belgians in 2013 without—I repeat, without—explicit consent. Involuntary euthanasia appears to be emerging, despite strict provisions that were supposed to guarantee voluntary euthanasia. Tragically, even children are becoming caught up in cultures transformed by these laws. The Netherlands, for example, permits children as young as 12 to be killed, and there is public support growing to include those under the age of 11. Belgium has no age restrictions whatsoever.

The writing is on the wall: so-called 'safeguards' have not prevented a comprehensive weakening of medical and legal standards. What was intended for the elderly has now become available to all ages, including children. What was intended for physical illness is now for mental illness. What was intended for terminal illness is now for serious illness. What was intended to be consensual is now nonconsensual. Soon, euthanasia will be available for good reason, bad reason or no reason at all.

The weight of evidence is an embarrassing rebuke to advocates of so-called 'safeguards'. There are none. No safeguards are safe, nor are they guards; they have more holes than a Swiss cheese. The law will not stand still for very long. Once people have adjusted to a so-called 'new normal' the safeguards will be continually reviewed and seen as intolerant, dispassionate and cruel, and as something that should also be removed. We do not have to turn to other nations to see this in action. It has happened in our own country. Some of the people euthanised under the Northern Territory bill from 1995 were not even terminally ill. That is a shambles, considering there were only four in total.

I pause for a moment when speaking of the Northern Territory, to highlight its higher percentage of Aboriginal people—many of whom do not live near hospitals. The Aboriginal population is not fond of euthanasia at all, and legislating it will create an environment where they are disinclined to seek health treatment for fear of involuntary euthanasia. Many people believe in supernatural healing. For some, euthanasia is sorcery and against customary law. Submissions from Aboriginal people to the Northern Territory Select Committee on Euthanasia were overwhelmingly against euthanasia. One submission from a Yolngu woman stated:

We were and are nomads, hunters, food gatherers, ceremonial and cultural people who just, and will give, comfort and tender loving care to our terminally ill relatives.

I will say that again, 'We will give comfort and tender loving care to our terminally ill relatives.' She continues:

Because our terminally ill relatives know that they are dying they usually always want songs to be sung, they want to hear the last sound of their traditional songs and the sound of the didgeridoo and clapsticks.

In conclusion, euthanasia is more likely to reduce health improvements in the Northern Territory Aboriginal communities as they stay away from a euthanasia environment.

It is fashionable, I know, to talk of a dignified death. But death itself is a wholly undignified and tragic reality. It is a very personal reality, one that cannot be resolved by its acceleration. To burden our doctors— (Time expired)

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (10:43): This Restoring Territory Rights (Assistant Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 covers a range of reasonably complex issues that are not really related. I just want to give my thoughts on the separate issues that arise in this bill.

I listened with interest to Senator Day's speech. I have heard those sorts of comments before, at an inquiry which the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee conducted into a similar bill—a dying with dignity bill—some time ago. I also heard the other side of the story. At that committee hearing we had evidence from a youngish man, who was supported at the hearing by his wife and young children and who clearly indicated his wish to be able to get medical assistance to terminate his life when things got to a stage where his cancer was just intolerable.

I am a reasonable human being, I think. Hopefully it will never happen to me, but, if I do get to the stage that I have seen many of my relatives, I would want the right to make my own decision on how long I stay on this earth in absolute agony, without any friends and without any relatives—sitting there and more or less just waiting for the days to pass until I die. I would like to have the ability to make my own decision. In spite of what Senator Day and others have said, the bills that we looked at all had safeguards. It is not a matter of people killing people—and there was a lot of emphasis on the word 'kill'. It is about those who are able to make a decision getting a medical practitioner to assist with the termination of life without the medical practitioner being legally responsible for a crime.

If I did want to terminate my life, I would not need legislation and I really do not need a doctor. I do not need anything. There are lots of ways: you can slit your wrists; you can steal a gun and blow your brains out. You can do many things. This only applies to people who can make the decision. It does not apply to children or people who are of unsound or infirm minds. It is only where you can make the decision yourself. Some of the bills we looked at required one or two psychiatrists to certify that you were capable of making the decision. As I say, anyone can terminate their life, but, when that time comes, you would hope that you might be able to get some medical help to do it in a reasonably dignified way.

My views are of course my own, but they are reinforced by the instance of my mother, who was a wonderful person. She was a very Christian lady and was very helpful to her family and everyone else in the community. She had a stroke and one side of her body was paralysed. She could not speak and could not write, but she learnt to say a few words and learnt to write left-handed. She spent eight years in hospital fighting it. She got to a stage, though, where all she wanted to do was get out of this life, and she could not. It was almost funny: she would play hide and seek with the nurses. They would keep giving her pills every day and she would put them in her mouth until the nurse went away and then she would take them out of her mouth and throw them under the bed. Every week the nurses would do a search of her room and would find a little cache of pills that she was supposed to be taking to keep her alive. They beat her at that. She eventually starved herself to death, and that is not a nice way to go. She did not have any money and the family were all supportive, but she wanted to go and the only way she could do it in the end was by refusing to eat food, and that was an awful way to go.

In the last year I saw the same situation with my sister. I spent as much time with her as I could. She would often say to me, 'Ian, if only I could go; if only I could leave.' I used to encourage her the other way, but she wanted to go. I saw her go through this over a period of six or more months. I often said to my wife as we were going home from visiting my sister, 'We wouldn't do this to our cat.' In fact, we had a cat and we were very attached to the cat. The cat had very difficult diseases and we spent a fortune at the vet. Eventually we paid the vet to come and do a home visit. We sat with the cat on my knee while the vet terminated its life. We just could not bear to see the cat go through that sort of agony, and yet when it comes to people we tolerate it.

Everyone will have their own views on this. When this matter came before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, the only recommendation of the committee, apart from some technical legal things, was that, if this matter ever came to a vote in the parliament, party leaders should allow it to be a conscience vote. That was as far as the committee would want to go. For these reasons—and I have mentioned them in these sorts of debates before—I would favour some sort of legal medically assisted termination of a life with all of the safeguards. I do not share Senator Day's horrible thoughts about humanity and all of the issues: people wanting to 'kill', in his words, because they would get the property quicker or they would get the money quicker and they would not have to bother. I do not think most people are like that. I am sure there would be some like that in this world, but I think most people in the world would not fit that category.

I want to briefly go to the other aspect of this bill, which again causes some complexity. I think I was territories minister when the last referendum came forward for the Northern Territory. I think a lot of people in the Northern Territory wanted statehood, but I have to say that the government at the time—which was a government of my persuasion, and I think they confess this—completely messed up the process and, as a result, the referendum went down. So I have a bit of a feel for the Northern Territory. I would like to think that they could become a state and be like everyone else, but the total population of the Northern Territory is about 250,000, which is about the same size as the regional city in which my office is. Townsville has about 250,000 people. Can the Northern Territory afford to run a state? Can it afford to pay its own way? I doubt it. If that is the case and they continue to rely on Commonwealth finance, what is the purpose of it? There is talk that it would give them greater representation in the federal parliament. Instead of having two lower house members they might have more. Instead of having only two senators, they might have 12. It would be a state with 250,000 people having 12 senators. My town of Townsville shares 12 with the rest of the state and only has one based in the city, which is me. If it is going to happen in the Northern Territory, perhaps we should get 12 senators in Townsville as well. Whilst that is a ridiculous proposition, it does show the difficulties. On balance, I would be happy enough with the Northern Territory becoming a state, I guess, but I do not think it is really practical and I am not sure that in the end it is a result that most Northern Territorians would seriously want.

With the ACT I have a different view, and it is not the colour of the government I might hasten to add. I do think the ACT is the seat of the national capital of Australia. I do think that the Australian parliament should retain some sort of ability to oversight what happens in this city-state, city-territory, which is really not a state but a Commonwealth, a federal, institution which is the national capital. Of course, the founding fathers of the country in those early days thought long and hard about where the capital should be. Should it be in Sydney or Melbourne? Well, that could not happen. A lot of thought was put into where and how the capital of the nation should operate. That is why I always think that the federal parliament must retain some influence over where the governance of this territory is. I am very conscious that many Canberrans did not even want self-government. When you look around I can understand why because they used to get the taxes from the rest of Australia to pay for the building of infrastructure in Canberra. So, if you are Canberran, why would you want to take that on yourself? Canberra is a very favoured city. It is a very lovely life living here. It is a beautiful city built by the taxes of everybody else, not just taxes of Canberrans.

I do think there needs to be some Commonwealth oversight over the national capital. I remember the first election. I think there were three candidates elected, who were from the No Self-Government Party. I think there was a fourth who had a similar view. I have always thought that, in retrospect, perhaps the best idea for Canberra would have been to have a local government with some additional powers, but with the Commonwealth retaining a big influence in what happens in what is, effectively, the city of all Australians, not just of Canberrans.

With those few words—and I am conscious other people want to speak on this debate—that is the way I see this particular bill and other bills that have been similar to this. I guess it is a debate which will continue for a long, long, period of time into the future.

Senator DAY (South Australia) (10:55): I seek leave to incorporate the remaining few words I have in my speech into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

—agents of healing and life—by forcing them to participate in premature death, in killing, is a distortion of their vocation. Worse still, forcing them to do so against their conscience is a dangerous path indeed.

The law is a teacher. Returning Australia to assisted suicide will only serve to dull our collective conscience. Australia is not a special case. We are not immune from dehumanising cultural forces.

Far from trivialising the existence of pain and suffering, our institutions and laws need to be united in an affirmation of life. This affirmation is a powerful force for good; preserved by the sacred, immutable truth of human dignity. To conclude with the words of G K Chesterton,

"Think of all those ages through which men have had the courage to die, and then remember that we have actually fallen to talking about having the courage to live."

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:55): I am pleased to contribute to this debate. I never thought that I would ever stand up in this place and say that I agree with most of what Senator Macdonald outlined in his contribution. I also tend to agree with Senator Leyonhjelm with the issues that he raised, but probably not from the same philosophical basis.

Certainly, with this issue of restoring the territory rights, let me go first to the issue that Senator Macdonald finished on, which is the rights of the territories. I think what happened with the removal and the intervention by the Howard government into what was an issue that was debated democratically in the Northern Territory was not an act of democracy. It really was an act of ideological and some religious approaches on the legislation that was determined in the Northern Territory.

I think the territories should have rights. They should have rights to certainly deal with this issue of euthanasia. I note the name of the bill that Senator Leyonhjelm put up is the 'assisted suicide legislation'. I have some argument with that because I think there is a difference between suicide and euthanasia. Suicide, as I understand it, is the act of intentionally taking one's life. The definition of euthanasia, as I understand it, is the deliberate ending of the life of a person suffering from an incurable disease, so I think there are two completely different propositions here. Apart from the inclusion of suicide in this bill, I think it is a bill that should be supported.

I want to also indicate my strong support for palliative care. People are dying and we are spending money to assist people to die with some dignity through palliative care, which is appropriate. But I think you end up getting into a situation where there is some difference between the argument of positive or active euthanasia and negative or passive euthanasia. Palliative care does end up, in many cases, in euthanasia. That is the reality. It then becomes an issue of timing. How much pain and how much suffering should an individual go through?

I do not think you can take away this other argument about the effects on family of a person dying. It is quite horrendous to watch a loved one die a long, painful death. I have been unfortunate enough, as most people have, to witness loved ones and friends die long, excruciatingly painful deaths. I will not name names, but I had a very close friend of mine who died. He was a senior union official who had a full life ahead of him. He was about six foot two, weighed about 18 stone and was full of life. He was a great guy and he ended up with mesothelioma. Anyone who has ever seen someone die of mesothelioma would, I think, understand why I say there has to be some way of dealing with this agonising death that people go through. I spoke to him the day before he died. The bravery of people in this situation is unbelievable, but the death is so excruciatingly bad for people in that position. I witnessed this. He was a friend of mine who came to Australia from Scotland a couple of months after I did. I served my apprenticeship with this guy. He was not someone who I ever thought I would witness lying in Saint Vincent's Hospital in Sydney in a nappy, not knowing where he was and having no control of his bowels or anything. He was dosed up on morphine and still in pain. His family watched this day after day. I just do not think it is what humanity should be about.

Senator Day talked about sacrificial love. People here would know I am not religious. I am an atheist. But I do not think the concept of sacrificial love means that you should stand by and watch excruciating pain, excruciating agony and a death that does no good for either the individual who is dying or their family around them. I want to indicate that, if that is what people are arguing that it is about, from my concept and understanding of religion, I do not think that is what religion should be about. Senator Day argued that people comfort people with tender loving care. It does not matter if you are religious or nonreligious; surely, comfort and tender loving care is something you provide to your family or to anyone who you see in this terrible situation.

I do not think assisted death or euthanasia is killing in the concept that has been proposed here. I just do not believe that for a minute. I think every life is precious. You do not have to be religious to understand how precious it is to be alive. I accept that, but I think there is an argument and a proven proposition that you can relieve suffering and allow people to die with dignity. Senator Day dismissed this concept of dying with dignity. I think it is a very strong concept. I think it is a very powerful concept. I certainly would not like to die a death like three of my friends have done—one from pancreatic cancer and two from mesothelioma—and go through what they and their families did. That is why I support a proposition that under certain circumstances with appropriate checks and balances there is a way the suffering of individuals and their families can be alleviated through euthanasia.

I will not go through all the details of the law in Belgium or the laws in some states in the United States. Suffice it to say that there are checks and balances on this. I do not see that this would be about money-grubbing families out to put their parents down so that they can get access to the family fortune. I just think that is an overstated and naive proposition.

We need to be a community that cares about each other. If we are a community that cares about each other, we should care about how people die. We should care about the suffering of people who have mesothelioma, pancreatic cancer, other cancers or other diseases.

An issue was raised about a young woman in Belgium being killed—I think that was the word that was used—because she had anorexia. I have had a quick look at that. The Belgian law says that a minor can request euthanasia for a terminal illness. If they are an unemancipated minor—that means they still rely on their parents—then their parents have a say in what happens. They have to be suffering from an unbearable and untreatable somatic and psychiatric disorder for this request to be granted. These are not psychiatric disorders on their own; they are psychiatric disorders that arise from the unbearable death that the individual is going through. So I think we need to be careful when we run these arguments up.

I strongly support the legislation. I will be arguing strongly in the future, if I get an opportunity, that people should have the right to determine a dignified death and not be lying in a nappy with no control over their body and no understanding of what is happening to them. If someone says they want to put an end to that then they should be allowed to put an end to that under certain controlled circumstances. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:06): I am pleased to commence debate on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2015 in the Senate today. This is a bill which brings together a series of proposals designed to improve the operation of this significant joint statutory committee. The proposals are designed to make it more accountable and adaptable to the needs of the parliament and they are also designed to enable the committee to have a greater amount of discretion in the way it conducts oversight of our intelligence and security agencies.

At the outset I want to acknowledge the role of former Senator John Faulkner in initiating this bill. This bill is one legacy of Mr Faulkner's long parliamentary career and his determination to support and enhance parliamentary oversight of our intelligence and security agencies. Then Senator Faulkner first prepared this bill for introduction in 2014, presenting it to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for consideration and comment, but retired before he was able to introduce the bill into the Senate. As his successor as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I am very pleased to pursue the reforms contained in this bill.

John Faulkner was someone who served in the cabinets of two Labor governments, under three prime ministers and as Minister for Defence. He understood better than most the importance of being strong on national security. But he also understood that strength on national security does not come from tough rhetoric. It does not come from chest thumping or inflammatory statements. It comes from having intelligence and security agencies of the highest calibre that can be trusted to protect the rights and liberties of the Australian people without trampling upon them. John Faulkner also understood that effective and rigorous parliamentary oversight is critical to the maintenance of public support for our national security architecture, particularly in these times. This bill serves those objectives.

Effective scrutiny and oversight strengthen public support for our agencies and they also strengthen the agencies subject to oversight. As elected representatives gathered in the national parliament, we can never outsource our duty to ensure the security of our nation and the people who entrust us with the responsibility of governing. This is as true when we are in times of relative peace as it is when emerging and serious threats to our national security are apparent. This parliament ought not deny and must not deny our intelligence and security agencies the necessary powers and resources to protect Australian citizens and Australian interests. However, it must also recognise that these powers can impinge on the values and freedoms on which our democracy is founded—values and freedoms which the Australian people, correctly, expect parliament to protect. As with so many things, this parliament must find the balance between the security imperatives of our nation and the liberties and freedoms of our people. The central plank of the intelligence and security framework is strong and effective accountability. Enhanced powers demand enhanced safeguards. Public trust and confidence in our security and intelligence agencies can only be ensured fully through strong and rigorous oversight and scrutiny.

I want to talk now about the environmental that we are confronted with. We know that, over the last 15 years in particular, this parliament has scrutinised and passed many pieces of legislation which have contributed to the development of legislative architecture relating to our security and intelligence agencies. This has been in response to developments in the security situation, which has altered in new and significant ways over this time. It also reflects changes in technology, which means our intelligence and security agencies must operate with a higher level of sophistication and specialist expertise. There has generally been a high level of cooperation in the parliament to secure bipartisan agreement on the national security legislation. Of course, bipartisanship does not mean taking an uncritical approach to proposals for additional or amended national security language or legislation.

In order to ensure rights and liberties are protected, it is essential that all parties approach legislative proposals with a discerning eye. In the current parliament, this Senate has dealt with a number of very significant pieces of national security legislation and all have been subject to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Each piece of legislation has been amended as a result of recommendations of the committee, sometimes quite extensively. This is an example of the process of parliamentary scrutiny at work. Likewise, the addition of other perspectives in the Senate debate ensures all views are ultimately considered and represented before the legislation comes to a vote.

As agencies continue to seek and are granted additional powers to meet contemporary threats, so too must scrutiny and oversight keep pace. In recent years Australia has benefited from professional and well-run intelligence and security agencies, and I acknowledge their work. They have demonstrated respect and understanding of the role of the parliament, the government of the day and our laws. But the personal integrity and quality of the leaders of our agencies, important as this is, are not reliable, effective safeguards against the abuse of security powers. It is the responsibility of parliament to prescribe safeguards that keep pace with the expansion of security powers that have been deemed necessary.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the adequacy and effectiveness of parliamentary oversight of intelligence and security agencies is in keeping with the development of the enhanced and additional powers we have afforded to these agencies. It amends the Intelligence Services Act 2001, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 to change the membership, powers and functions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. As legislative changes extending the powers of security agencies are implemented, the requirement for reliable and effective external oversight becomes more critical. If these changes, which extend the powers of agencies, are given effect but are not accompanied by adequate safeguards, it will be more challenging to maintain an essential level of trust in the community about agency operations. Trust is essential if our agencies are to be effective.

Not only are these safeguards important to protect the public interest, they also create an environment that protects the agencies themselves, because it is to the parliament that the agencies are accountable and it is the parliament's responsibility to provide oversight of their priorities and effectiveness. It is not sufficient for the parliament to simply put in place a legislative framework for the oversight of agencies without conducting oversight itself. If the parliament is not a check and balance, it will not be possible to ensure agencies meet the requirements and standards the parliament itself has set. The parliament has no better or more authoritative forum than the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to do this job.

Just as legislation governing our intelligence and security agencies must be under constant review, so too must the legislation governing the operation of the committee. Just as we would expect amendments to be brought to the parliament to correct deficiencies and enhance the operations of our intelligence and security agencies, so too must the parliament assess the effectiveness of its own committee. My submission to the Senate today is that the legislation governing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security can be improved, and I present this bill as a means of doing so.

I want to briefly traverse the key measures in the bill. This bill removes current constraints on the membership of the committee to provide that, except for a minimum representation of one government member and senator and one opposition member and senator, the balance of the 11-member committee can be drawn from either chamber. Currently, the Intelligence Services Act 2001 mandates a composition of six House of Representatives members and five senators on the committee. Removing the current constraints will enable greater flexibility in determining PJCIS membership. I note the bill does not amend the requirement for the government to hold a majority.

In relation to this provision, there is no reason why senators should be in the minority, and I suggest to the Senate it should be left to the parties to draw members from the best available representatives. Because of the nexus that currently exists between the Senate and the other place, as well as between the parties, for example, I had to relinquish my place on the committee for a period in order to accommodate the necessity of including the shadow minister for communications on the committee's inquiry into metadata laws. The opposition found itself constrained both by the apportionment of membership between the Senate and the House and by a desire by the government to allocate its six members across the chambers in a particular way.

I reiterate: the bill does not amend the requirement for the government to hold the majority, but it does mean there are fewer constraints placed on the choice of members for the committee based on the chamber in which they sit. I presume there would not be a senator who would object if this resulted in a greater number of senators on the committee! I note the continuing requirement that, before nominating members, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as appropriate, is obliged to consult with the leader of each recognised political party that is represented in the House or Senate, as the case may be, and does not form part of the government.

The bill also provides for the committee to conduct own motion inquiries after consultation with the responsible minister; authorises the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to provide the committee with a copy of any report on a matter referred to it by the committee; requires the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to give the committee a copy of any report provided to the Prime Minister or a minister within three months; gives the committee the function of conducting pre-sunset reviews of legislation containing sunset provisions; and adds the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the National Security Adviser to officers able to be consulted by the committee.

As the role of agencies and the power afforded to them develops, the greater the potential for that power to infringe upon individual liberties. In turn, the greater the need becomes for accountability in the exercise of that power. I do not in any way suggest that our security and intelligence agencies are acting otherwise than in accordance with the law. That is not my view. But, if powers were to be used inappropriately, there would be an erosion of public trust. Having appropriate and effective accountability mechanisms protects both the agencies and the public. As I said previously, it is the parliament to which the agencies are accountable, not the judiciary, and it is the parliament's responsibility to oversight their priorities and effectiveness and to ensure agencies meet the requirements and standards it sets.

I want to briefly turn to an international comparison. An increasingly complex and unpredictable security landscape in Australia and around the world means the powers of intelligence and security agencies have changed dramatically in recent years. This is as true in Australia as it is in many other similar democracies. The maintenance of public security in the current security environment has led to greater powers for the agencies charged with these responsibilities. However, the protection of democratic liberties and freedoms equally demands enhanced oversight of the exercise of these powers. This is the case at home and abroad.

As senators would know, Australia forms part of the five eyes intelligence and security network of nations, including the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and Canada. With the exception of Canada, each of these countries has at least one committee of the legislature that exercises oversight of that country's intelligence and security agencies.

In the United Kingdom, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament consists of nine members drawn from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The numbers from each chamber are not specified in the governing act. Similarly to our committee, the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of the United Kingdom are appointed by the House in which they serve, on the nomination of the Prime Minister in consultation with the opposition. Recent reforms provided that committee with greater powers and increased its remit, including to oversight of operational activity and the wider intelligence and security activities of government.

The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is established by resolution of the Senate and consists of 15 senators: eight from the majority party and seven from the minority. It meets roughly twice a week, generally in closed session. Most hearings involve appearances by senior intelligence community officials, who present evidence and answer senators' questions. There is also the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the United States House of Representatives.

The New Zealand Intelligence and Security Committee has a membership of five, notably including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Two of the remaining three members are nominated by the Prime Minister, and one by the Leader of the Opposition.

As I said at the outset, Canada does not currently have a parliamentary committee responsible for intelligence and security. However, the new government, during the election campaign, promised to establish an all-party national security oversight committee if elected. The new Prime Minister has instructed the relevant minister to assist the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons in the creation of a statutory committee of parliamentarians with special access to classified information to review government departments and agencies with national security responsibilities.

As can be generally seen, the legislative branch of government has a central role in oversight and scrutiny of the work of such agencies amongst our allies. Further, the membership of the parliamentary committees that I have outlined is generally more flexible than the situation that currently applies in Australia—something this bill is designed to address.

As a result of legislation that has recently passed the parliament, from 1 March the parliamentary joint committee has already had a number of additional functions added to its previously existing responsibilities. These include: monitoring and reviewing the performance of the AFP's counter-terrorism functions under the Criminal Code; reporting to the parliament upon matters appertaining to the AFP, or connected with those functions; reviewing matters relating to the retained data activities of the AFP and ASIO covered in annual reports on the mandatory data retention regime, including where this goes to operational matters, for the sole purpose of assessing and making recommendations on the overall operation and effectiveness of the regime; reviewing bills in relation to the mandatory data retention regime; conducting a review of a range of counter-terrorism legislation, by 7 March 2018; conducting a review of the mandatory data retention regime, to be commenced by 13 April 2019 and completed a year later; conducting a review, by 1 December 2019, of the new citizenship revocation powers contained in the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015.

This is in addition to powers in other areas. These include: reviewing the declaration of areas in overseas countries for the purpose of section 119.2 of the Criminal Code; reviewing the declaration of terrorist organisations for the purpose of section 35AA of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007; being provided with any reports produced by the IGIS or the Commonwealth Ombudsman in relation to data retention; being notified by the IGIS of any emergency ministerial authorisations for intelligence agencies under the Intelligence Services Act 2001, and being notified and briefed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in regard to all instances where citizenship is revoked under the new powers.

These are additional powers that this parliament has provided to this committee. What is demonstrates is the important role the committee plays in ensuring the expectations of the parliament are upheld.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to currently serve on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I do so alongside senators and members, including Senator Conroy, Senator Gallagher, Senator David Fawcett, and others, who seek to continue this committee's important role in balancing our security needs with the rights and freedoms that characterise our nation.

As I noted at the outset, John Faulkner first prepared this bill for introduction in 2014, and presented it to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for consideration and comment. As I am now bringing forward this bill for debate, I inform the Senate that I have again provided this bill to the committee to ensure all members are fully apprised of its purpose and have the opportunity to comment, or to consider the matter further in the context of the committee, if that is what is required. In terms of the context of this bill, I extend an invitation to all senators to consider its contents. I am aware that some have already made contact with my office, ahead of this debate today.

There is no greater or more important focus of political activity in this country than the parliament itself. The Australian Parliament has no better or more authoritative forum than the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, to provide oversight of our intelligence and security agencies. The bill before the chamber will enable the committee to undertake its responsibilities and fulfil what I regard, and I am sure this is shared, to be a critically important role. It will enable that role to be performed with greater effectiveness.

I express my hope that the bill will receive sensible consideration and in time, I hope, support from all parties across the chamber, recognising that this is a bill that is designed to enhance the ability of the committee to protect the interests of the parliament and, through us, the Australian people. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia) (11:26): I want to commence my speech here this morning, with respect to opposing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2015, by setting out firstly what appears to be the two principal aims. The first is to remove the constraints on the membership of the committee by, firstly, the removal of the requirement for the committee to consist of five senators and six members of the House of Representatives, and, secondly, to introduce a requirement that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate must be satisfied that members to be nominated to the committee are 'the most appropriate members available'. Secondly, enhance the powers and functions of the committee, including by, firstly, allowing the committee to conduct own-motion inquiries; secondly, requiring the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to provide reports of the committee within three months of those reports being provided to the Prime Minister or the responsible minister; and, thirdly, allowing the committee to conduct pre-sunset review of legislation.

The current requirements require the committee to consist of five senators and six members of the House of Representatives, pursuant to section 28(2) of the Intelligence Services Act. The bill proposes that the committee consists of at least two senators—one government senator and one opposition senator—and two members of the House of Representatives—one government member and one opposition member. The remaining seven members of the committee could be drawn from either the House or the Senate. These are very significant changes to what is—and I think was conceded by Senator Wong in her speech before me—a very successfully working oversight committee in a most important and sensitive area in Australia today.

There are significant concerns surrounding these proposed amendments. In particular, these amendments have the potential to compromise the real or perceived independence and effectiveness of operational activities, and on the independence of existing oversight bodies. I will explain that in detail in a moment. The appropriateness of parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies was examined in 2004 in the Flood inquiry. That inquiry found:

Just as the advice that officials provide to ministers is not disclosed in Senate Legislation Committee hearings, the judgments of assessment agencies should not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Opening assessments to scrutiny by parliament would also weaken the instinct amongst assessors to provide forthright advice for government, which is vital for good assessment.

The current role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor ensure that there is effective oversight of the functioning of all aspects of Australia's security and intelligence agencies, whilst minimising duplication and overlap. In short, the system in place is not broken and requires no fixing, and nothing in this legislation suggests or provides an example of a shortfall in the capacity of the functioning of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

The current division also respects the appropriate divide between parliamentary and independent oversight and has until this point done so on a bipartisan basis. For example, item 3 of the bill proposes to require the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to provide her reports to the committee. Currently agencies provide information on a voluntary basis to the inspector-general to assist her in her investigations. In addition to the inspector-general's powers to compel information, this can include highly classified and sensitive information which is provided to the inspector-general with the assurance that it will be treated with the utmost security—that is, Top Secret. The knowledge that any information that is Top Secret Australian Eyes Only. The knowledge that any information provided might be included in a report which would be required to be passed on to the parliament may limit the voluntary provision of information by Australian intelligence community agencies to the inspector-general. This is precisely what we do not want, and we do not want to blur the independence of the agency oversight. This bill does that. Knowledge that reports must be provided to parliament may also affect the contents of reports prepared by the inspector-general and may limit the frankness and openness with which those issues are discussed and disclosed.

Similar concerns arise in relation to item 7 of the bill, which proposes to enable the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to conduct inquiries into legislation prior to a sunset date. This is an unnecessary duplication of the role of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, who has been granted powers that are tailored specifically to reviewing the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia's national security legislation.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Bill 2015 seeks to provide additional powers to the committee and its oversight of our security intelligence agencies. It has long been the position in Australia that operational oversight of intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies is conducted by independent statutory oversight agencies rather than by the parliament. This is fundamentally for the benefit of the system of security of what those agencies are dealing with. Indeed, successive independent reviews have endorsed the existing oversight framework and have not proposed fundamental structural changes of the kind that this bill would deliver. The most recent review, in 2011, conducted by Mr Robert Cornall and Dr Rufus Black, found that the legal framework 'is sound and does not need any adjustment at present.' There is no review that I am aware of that advocates changes in the nature of those proposed by this bill. Indeed, our Australian model for oversight of intelligence agencies is respected and held up worldwide as one of the best models in existence.

Under existing arrangements the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor serve a very crucial role in overseeing and ensuring accountability for the operational activities undertaken by our security agencies and the legislation which allows for those activities both onshore and offshore. It is entirely appropriate that these functions be served by independent nonpolitical bodies. This is at the core of why our system is so successful—and nobody is saying that it is not. Again I reiterate: this is not broken, let's not fix it, let's not tinker with it. This bill has the potential to blur the existing divide between parliamentary and independent oversight. May I say that that blurring is extremely naive and fundamentally quite stupid.

Rather than providing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security with oversight powers that would duplicate and overlap those of the Inspector-General and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the government is focused on ensuring that our oversight bodies have the resources and tools they need to keep pace with the essential legislative changes and increased funding provided to our security agencies that make them effective and indeed world class. For example, in the past 18 months the government has significantly enhanced the powers and resources of the independent oversight bodies that supervise our law enforcement and national security agencies. We have increased the ongoing funding for the inspector-general, a body with powers akin to a royal commission, to increase her staff by more than one-third to enable greater oversight arrangements of Australian intelligence activities, and we have enhanced the annual reporting requirements of ASIO and law enforcement agencies, ensuring that the public and the parliament are better informed about the use of exceptional powers by those agencies. We have also introduced a system of special protections for journalists and their sources, including the requirement that agencies obtain a warrant prior to accessing journalists' metadata. We have also provided additional supporting resources to the office of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to assist with the increased volume and complexity of national security legislation being referred for inquiry. We have also significantly enhanced the powers of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to oversight access to metadata by law enforcement agencies. These enhanced powers have been supported by an increase in funding of $6.7 million over four years.

The current Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is the Hon. Margaret Stone, a former Federal Court justice. The current Independent National Legislation Monitor is the Hon. Roger Gyles, a former Federal Court judge. These people are of outstanding integrity, ability, skill and experience, and they are, most importantly, independent of the parliament and the politics they are under. This bill proposes to remove the current requirement that six committee members be drawn from the House of Representatives and five from the Senate. The bill also introduces a new requirement for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate to be satisfied that those nominated for membership are 'the most appropriate members available to serve on the Committee'. This is a very problematic legislative requirement.

Let us deal firstly, as lawyers ultimately will, with the requirement that the membership must be 'the most appropriate members'. This is a subjective test in an area where we need to have objectivity. How is one member of this parliament more appropriate than another member or 'the most appropriate', and who adjudicates that and upon what basis? This is a political test. We then have to have, from that point, availability. Availability is a contestable quality in terms of who is available. Is someone not available because they live in Western Australia? Is someone not available because they have other committee duties? Is someone not available because the bells are ringing and they are required to vote? This is a highly problematic definition introduced into what should be clear, simple, objective legislation.

The parliamentary joint committee is a highly functioning committee and has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to conduct insightful, thorough, skilful and very enhancing investigations in an area that is extremely sensitive. It is probably one of the most responsible things that any parliamentarian will do in this place. It is done, at this point in time and to the best of my knowledge, on a very bipartisan basis. While there has been no indication that existing committee structure is inappropriate or requires amendment, the government remains committed to ensuring that the most appropriate and qualified members of parliament are able to serve on the committee. But that does not mean to say that we require a legislative definition. If we were to get into that, the essence of the problem I foresee with this legislation comes straight to the surface: a subjective judgement.

Let us not forget what has happened in recent history. Five tranches of legislation have come through this parliament to strengthen the ability of our agencies to investigate, monitor, arrest and prosecute home-grown violent extremists and returning foreign fighters. Firstly, the National Security Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2014, which commenced operation on 30 October 2014, responded to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report entitled Report of the inquiry into potential reforms of Australia's national security legislation. So the committee itself did a report that talked about reforms that would improve and modernise the legislation governing Australia's intelligence agencies. To the best of my understanding, nowhere in that report were these amendments foreshadowed.

Secondly, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014 amended 22 pieces of Commonwealth legislation to respond to the threat posed by Australians engaging and returning from conflicts in foreign states. The key amendments made by that act were: to enhance Australia's control order regime, to provide additional powers for security agencies, to strengthen Australia's border security measures and to authorise the cancellation of welfare payments for persons involved in terrorism to ensure taxpayers were not funding terrorists or foreign fighters whilst they conduct those operations overseas.

Thirdly, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2014 sort to strengthen and enhance the control order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern, particularly the enablers of foreign fighters and terrorists—that is, those who recruit and facilitate those people who want to go away and fight overseas. It also amended the Intelligence Services Act, to facilitate ASIS providing timely support to the Australian Defence Force in military operations and cooperation with the Australian Defence Force on intelligence matters, which was logical, much appreciated and welcomed.

Fourthly, the data retention legislation, which I am sure we all recall, was enacted to ensure our security and law enforcement agencies continue to have access to information they need to do their jobs by requiring telecommunication providers to retain a defined set of data for two years. The parliamentary joint committee examined the bill at length and concluded that the bill is 'a necessary, effective and proportionate response to the serious threat to national security and public safety caused by the inconsistent and degrading availability of telecommunications data'.

Fifthly, through this chamber came the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) 2015. Those measures were introduced on 12 November. They have been informed by recent counter-terrorism operations and will further strengthen Australia's robust national security laws and counter-terrorism framework. The key amendments in that bill would: reduce the minimum age for imposition of certain obligations from 16 to 14; facilitate the monitoring of all individuals subject to control orders through targeted search, telecommunications interception and surveillance device regimes; and provide greater protection to sensitive information in control order proceedings by allowing the court to consider evidence that is not disclosed to the respondent or their legal representatives. These are very important and vital measures in this space.

There are many, many other safeguards that have been put in place, as I have canvassed and mentioned. There is the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the Hon. Roger Gyles, whose function is to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia's counter-terrorism and national security legislation on an ongoing basis. The parliamentary joint committee itself has a monitoring and oversight function, as we have already discussed. The Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments—the very able, skilled and effective Mr Robert Cornall, former Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department—provides an important safeguard and review mechanism for people who have been found to be owed protection under international law but are being held in immigration detention in Australia because of an adverse security assessment.

In closing, I make the very important point that the current provisions governing the operation of the parliamentary joint committee are specifically and properly intended to protect against the disclosure of operational matters, including the disclosure of operationally sensitive matters, to the committee. The provisions in this bill blur that, as I have said, and cause me great concern. The proposal to require the inspector-general to provide reports to the committee directly contravenes these principles. What does that mean for the bill before us? It means that the changes it proposes are not necessary.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (11:46): I rise with pleasure to speak on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2015 and express the Greens' appreciation to Senator Wong for introducing the bill into the Senate and bringing it on for debate today. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has been in its current form since 2005, following the passage of the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The current committee was preceded by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD, and the joint committee on ASIO.

This bill seeks to amend a number of pieces of legislation. Specifically, it seeks to amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 by removing some of the current constraints on the membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security which would change it from the current six members from the House of Representatives and five senators, to one government member and one government senator, and one opposition member and one opposition senator, with the balance of the committee drawn from either chamber.

I would like to flag right up-front in my contribution that we note that the proposed amendments around the membership of the parliamentary joint committee that are contained in this legislation do not specifically provide for a member of the Senate crossbench to serve on the committee, and I include Australian Greens senators in that definition of the crossbench. I flag on the record today that the Greens will be introducing an amendment to this legislation to provide for that to occur. It is important to understand that we are not asking for crossbench control of the committee or for a crossbencher to chair the committee necessarily but simply for a voice from the crossbench, including the Australian Greens, on what is a very important parliamentary committee—one that plays a crucial role in the oversight of Australia's intelligence and security agencies and also has a crucial role in scrutinising proposed legislation. But I think we can all agree that in recent years—and in that definition I go right back to 2001-2002—legislative changes have continually eroded and encroached on some of the fundamental human and civil rights that are quite rightly and quite understandably held so dear by so many Australian people.

We are very pleased to see that this legislation also provides for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to conduct own-motion inquiries.

I listened to the contributions from Senators Wong and Johnston, and I go firstly to the contribution from the senator who just resumed his seat, Senator Johnston. It is fair to say that one of the major planks of his argument against this legislation is that it blurs the lines between parliamentary oversight and independent oversight in the context of Australia's security agencies. We will take on board Senator Johnston's comments on that and have a closer look at that issue.

But I do wish to point out to the chamber that Senator Johnston quite rightly pointed to the role that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor plays in terms of independent oversight of our legislative frameworks around national security. I draw the attention of senators to a report tabled yesterday in this place, from the Australian Law Reform Commission, entitled Traditional rights and freedoms—encroachment by Commonwealth laws. That report said:

Counter-terrorism and national security laws that encroach on rights and freedoms should … be justified, to ensure the laws are suitable, necessary and represent a proper balance between the public interest and individual rights.

Of course, we in the Australian Greens agree with that sentiment. But I want to make it very clear that the Australian Greens remain unconvinced that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is adequately funded by government. We also note, as was made clear in the Law Reform Commission report, that Independent National Security Legislation Monitor recommendations do not currently receive a government response. That is unacceptable in the view of the Australian Greens. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor does a great job across a wide suite of legislation. It provides reports to this parliament, and it is simply not good enough that the government does not provide a response to the recommendations of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to this parliament.

It is crucial that the work that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security does in scrutinising legislation that relates to counter-terrorism and national security is robust to ensure that new laws do not unnecessarily encroach on rights and freedoms in this country. I have to agree with many of the sentiments expressed by Senator Wong in her second reading contribution on this legislation. Unfortunately, I have to point out that those sentiments are not always backed up in this place by Labor's position on changes to our legal framework that create more or enhanced powers for our police services, intelligence agencies and security agencies.

We seem to have a very strong bipartisanship in this area that the Australian Greens suspect is driven more by political considerations than anything else. Neither Labor nor the coalition while in opposition want to appear weak on national security issues, because they can then be attacked by either Labor or the coalition when in government. Unfortunately, it seems that both the coalition and Labor have decided that, for political purposes, they are not going to have a breadth of distance between them on national security issues. So it has fallen to the Australian Greens, in the main, to point out that, while there have been many changes that create new, or enhance existing, powers for security, intelligence and police agencies in this country, on many of those occasions the case has simply not been made that those changes make Australia any safer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The time for this debate has now expired.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (11:55): by leave—Can the minister advise the Senate as to whether it is the government's intention to respond to the order regarding the CSIRO's Oceans and Atmosphere division, which was due at 9.30 this morning.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (11:55): I will seek advice and I, or another representative of the government, will come back to the chamber on that. I have just come into the chamber for this particular session. I am not familiar with your query, off the top of my head, but I will seek advice.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (11:55): I asked the same question at 9.30 this morning, and I think it is pretty ordinary when there is still no response from the government 2½ hours later.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (11:55): Not having been here when you asked the first question, I appreciate the point you make. I will endeavour to get you an answer as soon as I can.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (11:56): by leave—On a separate matter, there was a second order for the production of documents with regard to electoral law changes—communications and minutes—and that too appears not to have been complied with. Is it the government's intention to comply with that return to order?

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (11:56): Senator Carr, I have just received some advice on your first query, if I may turn to that. Your query has been passed to the minister representing, who I believe is Senator Sinodinos. It has been passed on. With regard to your second query, I will seek to get advice and come back to the chamber as soon as I can.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (11:57): If the inquiry has been passed on to Minister Sinodinos, when can we have a reply?

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (11:57): The message I just received was from the minister representing Senator Sinodinos. I am not sure if someone is representing him today, or if he, off the top of my head, represents that particular portfolio. I will endeavour to come back with further information on those queries as soon as I can.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (11:57): Senator Sinodinos represents Minister Pyne in this chamber. I would have thought we could have had a reply by now.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (11:57): I will endeavour to get some advice and come back to the chamber as soon as I can—I will be here for the next hour. If not, I will make sure that the person coming in after me is aware of your query.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (11:58): by leave—I wish to make a further inquiry about the second issue that Senator Carr raised: the order for the production of documents relating to electoral law changes—communications and minutes. We are very keen to get hold of that particular set of documents and, if we do not get them, we will be raising further questions later in the day.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (11:58): In response, as I said to Senator Carr, I will make inquiries as soon as I am able to. If I am not in the chamber, I will make my successors in the chamber aware of the inquiry, and I appreciate your heads up for later in the day.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:59): by leave—I might just chime in and add that, given that both orders for the production of documents stand in our name, we too are very keen to get them. They are quite a few hours overdue. I apologise, Minister, that I missed the first few seconds of your contribution, but I am flagging that we too will have much more to say about this should the documents not materialise.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (11:59): I understand the points made by senators in the chamber, and I appreciate the notice that you have also given, Senator Waters. I will progress and make the query, not having been aware of the earlier query.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think the points are now all well made.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (12:02): I present the third report of 2016 of the Selection of Bills Committee.

Ordered that the report be adopted.

Senator BUSHBY: I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 3 OF 2016

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 at 7.18 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a) the provisions of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 May 2016 (see appendices 1, 2 and 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2016 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 June 2016 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(d) the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 June 2016 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016

Tax Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island CGT Exemption) Bill 2016

Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2016

Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2016.

The committee recommends accordingly.

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

Automotive Transformation Scheme Amendment (Securing the Automotive Component Industry) Bill 2015

Corporations Amendment (Publish What You Pay) Bill 2014

Law and Justice Amendment (Northern Territory Local Court) Bill 2016

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016

Registration of Deaths Abroad Amendment Bill 2016

Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2016

Restoring Territory Rights (Dying with Dignity) Bill 2016

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Caring for Single Parents) Bill 2014.

(David Bushby)

Chair

3 March 2016

APPENDIX 1

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To enable the Senate to examine the detail of the Bill including the repeal of the '75% audience reach' rule, the 'two out of three' rule and the proposed new local content requirements..

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Commercial television broadcasters

Commercial radio broadcasters

Newspaper publishers

Australian Communications and Media Authority

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

12 May 2016

(signed)

Senator Fifield

APPENDIX 2

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Thorough investigation of the impact of proposed changes to media regulation on the community and public interest is required.

Impact of proposed changes on coverage of local stories in rural and regional Australian to be further investigated.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of Communications

Australian Communications and Media Authority

Media organisations

Academics

Interested members of the general public

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

12 May 2016

(signed)

Senator McEwen

APPENDIX 3

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The bill proposes significant changes to the Australian media landscape including media ownership & concentration, reach and 'voices', and will also impact on local content and the quality of regional and rural broadcasting.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Representatives from major commercial media organisations

ABC

SBS

Independent media outlets; Buzzfeed, Junkee, Pedestrian

Public Interest Journalism Foundation

Australian Press Council

Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance

Communications Alliance Limited

Community Broadcast Association of Australia

Australian Communications Consumer Action Network

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

April dates to be confirmed depending on committee scheduling and witness availability

Possible reporting date:

12 May 2016

(signed)

Senator Siewert

APPENDIX 4

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2016.

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To assess the possible consequences for donors, recipients, the AEC and other relevant regulatory bodies.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

AEC

Dr Joo-Cheong Tham

Professor George Williams

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

9 May

Possible reporting date:

17 June

(signed)

Senator Siewert

APPENDIX 5

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Examination of the impact of Government income support measures on community members.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

ACOSS, NWRN, and other interested organisations.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

Dates to be determined by the Committee.

Possible reporting date:

20 June 2016

(signed)

Senator Siewert

APPENDIX 6

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Examination of the impact of Government income support measures on community members

Possible submissions or evidence from:

ACOSS, NWRN, and other interested organisations.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

Dates to be determined by the Committee.

Possible reporting date:

20 June 2016

(signed)

Senator Siewert

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:04): Does any senator require the question be put on that proposal? There is no such request.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (12:04): by leave—I move:

That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public hearing today, from 3.30 pm, for the committee's consideration of the 2015-16 additional estimates.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN ( South Australia — Opposition Whip in the Senate ) ( 12:06 ): I, and also on behalf of Senator Xenophon, move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) on 17 November 2014 the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents directed at the Minister for Defence for ‘any documents produced by Macroeconomics.com.au Pty Ltd as a result of tender reference DMOCIP/RFT 0315/2012, including economic modelling and other examination of the potential economic impact of the SEA1000 submarine project on the Australian economy, among other subjects’,

(ii) on 23 February 2016 the Minister for Defence rose in the Senate and made a ‘Cabinet‑in‑Confidence’ related public interest immunity claim with respect to the documents ordered, and

(iii) on 16 July 1975 the Senate laid out by resolution its position with respect to public interest immunity claims—where paragraph 4 of that resolution makes it clear that, while the Senate may permit claims of public interest immunity to be advanced, it reserves the right to determine whether any particular claim will be accepted; and

(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence, no later than 15 March 2016, the independent legal advice which grounds the Minister’s public interest immunity claim made in the Senate on 23 February 2016 in relation to the Senate resolution agreed to on 17 November 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator MUIR (Victoria) (12:07): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Social Security Act 1991, and for related purposes. Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) Bill 2016.

Question agreed to.

Senator MUIR: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator MUIR (Victoria) (12:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard and to table an explanatory memorandum.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Type 1 diabetes directly affects over 120,000 people in Australia alone, some of which work right here in Parliament House.

I would like to note that type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition which is a non-choice disease that lasts for life.

The Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) Bill 2016 I present to the Senate today will ease the impact of diabetes on individuals affected by the disease.

The purpose of the Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) Bill 2016 is to amend the Social Security Act 1991, to give individuals diagnosed with type 1 diabetes access to the required medication and peripheral devices that the disease imposes upon the individual regardless of their geographic location or social status.

Type 1 diabetes is a form of diabetes marked by a complete lack of insulin, therefore insulin replacement is required for survival. Type 1 diabetes creates a significant financial and emotional burden to its patients, family and the community. Differing social status' can result in an unintended disregard of an individual's care plan, leading to a higher risk of complications requiring hospital admission, and can, as a result, impose a significant burden on the tax payer.

The more time people with type 1 diabetes spend outside the normal range of blood glucose levels, the greater their risk of serious health complications.

Currently the cost of hospital admitted patient services, as a result of diabetes diagnosed admittance, is equal to expenditure on blood glucose lowering medications. This level of hospital admittance is a completely unnecessary burden on the tax payer which could potentially be reduced should this Bill be supported.

This bill ensures access to medication and peripheral devices, required by individuals diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, are accessible despite their socioeconomic status.

I was approached by Dr Peter Goss of Gippsland Paediatrics Diabetes Unit, Sale, in my electorate of Victoria, in October 2014. Dr Peter Goss requested that I advocate for the age group of 18-25 year olds diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, at the time citing that the 18-25 year old age group with type 1 diabetes has the highest rate of death in diabetes.

With such a substantial number of Australians being directly and indirectly affected by type 1 diabetes, this was something I was more than happy to discuss further and support unconditionally.

Type 1 diabetes is an unwelcome and unwanted intruder into the life of an individual and their family. It is an autoimmune disease that cannot be prevented or cured.

Before the discovery of insulin in the 1920s, type 1 diabetes was a fatal condition. Although type 1 diabetes is now manageable, it places an enormous burden on families by requiring them to enter a daily and relentless grind of blood testing and insulin injections.

There is solid evidence that the peak risk of poor control and death in type 1 diabetes is between ages 16 and 25 years. Currently a child with type 1 diabetes often lose their Health Care Card at 16 years, imposing a significant financial burden on the person with type 1 diabetes as they enter their most vulnerable period of life.

There is anecdotal evidence that young people are also more likely to skimp on the essentials of diabetes care, such as insulin scripts, glucagon scripts, blood glucose and blood ketone test strips, insulin pump consumables and even quality food because of the cost. This lack of attention to scripts, doctors' visits, diabetes education visits and devices due to lack of financial assistance can create long term complications and possible hospital admissions which impose a significant health and financial burden on, not only the individual, but the community

Given that type 1 diabetes is a lifelong autoimmune disease, it is not unreasonable to not only try to ease the pressure on such a high risk demographic, but make available to all those at risk a health care card to assist sufferers of type 1 diabetes in accessing the medical and peripheral devices required.

On August 20 2015 I moved a motion in the Senate in relation to type 1 diabetes, the text was as follows;

1. That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

   (i) Type 1 diabetes mellitus is an autoimmune (not lifestyle) condition which effects over 120,000 Australians,

   (ii) people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes require insulin to manage their diabetes for life,

   (iii) Type 1 diabetes is one of the most common chronic diseases effecting children in Australia, and

   (iv) Type 1 diabetes creates a significant financial and emotional burden for its patients, family and the community; and

(b) acknowledges the importance of access to optical medical management for people with type 1 diabetes regardless of geographic location or social status.

This motion was passed in the Senate unopposed.

In addition to this, I note that the Australian National Diabetes Strategy 2016-2020, which was released to supersede the National Diabetes Strategy 2000–2004, was endorsed by the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council on 2 October 2015, noted by the COAG Health Council on 6 November 2015, and publically released 13 November 2015.

So since I moved my motion I am pleased to note that the Australian government has developed a new National Diabetes Strategy, to update and prioritise the national response to diabetes across all levels of government.

I appreciate that there are current government initiatives in place, in addition to the recently developed Australian National Diabetes Strategy 2016-2020, such as the National Diabetes Services Scheme and chronic disease management assistance to assist individuals.

I strongly believe that the Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) Bill 2016 can work in collaboration with these key government initiatives which are essential for individuals diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.

I also believe that the Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) Bill 2016 can support some of the key purposes outlined in the Australian National Diabetes Strategy.

The purpose of the Australian National Diabetes Strategy 2016-2020 is "To prioritise Australia's response to diabetes and identify approaches to reducing the impact of diabetes in the community. It recognises the social and economic burden of the disease and provides action areas that:

prevent, detect and manage diabetes;

improve diabetes services and care;

recognise the different roles and responsibilities of all levels of government and the non-government sector;

promote coordination of health resources across all levels of government;

facilitate coordinated, integrated and multidisciplinary care;

improve use of primary care services; and

increase recognition of patient needs across the continuum of care."

More specifically, the Australian National Diabetes strategy 2016-2020 goal 3 aims to: "Reduce the occurrence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality of life among people with diabetes."

The potential areas for action addressed with this goal are:

Develop nationally-agreed clinical guidelines, local care pathways and complications prevention programmes;

Expand consumer engagement and self-management;

Develop and implement quality improvement processes;

Use information and communication technology;

Improve affordable access to medicines and devices;

Improve workforce capacity;

Improve funding mechanisms;

Provide mental health care for people with diabetes;

Strengthen and expand transition from child to adult services;

Make preschool, school and child care diabetes safe environments; and

Provide high-quality hospital care.

Many of these "potential areas for action" can be addressed directly and indirectly through the support of this bill.

More specifically, optimal diabetes care for children or adolescents in school is crucial to achieving the best possible diabetes control and to prevent any present or future risks of harm to their health and wellbeing. This will give affected children and adolescents the best opportunity to concentrate, participate and learn whilst at school.

Children with type 1 diabetes should have the same educational and social opportunities as children without diabetes. Every child has the right to participate equally in all school activities, including outdoor activities and sponsored events away from school and to receive support for diabetes care.

Ensuring the implementation of accessibility to diabetes care from a younger age will carry over into better diabetes care practices into adolescence and adulthood.

In closing I would like to readdress importance of awareness surrounding type 1 diabetes.

Not one person who has type 1 diabetes had a choice in their diagnosis; it cannot be prevented, nor cured.

Type 1 diabetes creates a significant financial and emotional burden to its patients, family and the community

This bill will ensure medication and peripheral devices that are required by individuals diagnosed with type 1 diabetes can be accessed regardless of one's socioeconomic status.

If we are in any way serious about improving the quality of life of people with type 1 diabetes; I suggest all Senators support this bill.

Senator MUIR: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:11): At the request of Senator Dastyari, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham), the Minister for Finance and the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Cormann), no later than 3.30 pm on Tuesday, 15 March 2016, all documents prepared since 15 September 2015, relating to the indexation of total school funding by the consumer price index with allowances for changes in enrolments from the 2018 school year onwards, as referred to in the measure contained in the 2014-15 Budget ‘Students First’—indexation of school funding from 2018.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:12): At the request of Senator Collins, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Special Minister of State, no later than 2 pm on Thursday, 3 March 2016, documents recording the agreement between the government and the Australian Greens relating to changes to Senate voting.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:13): Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator DI NATALE: I am very pleased to be able to outline the details of the agreement with the coalition. The agreement is as follows: the Greens have had a longstanding position to see Senate voting reform implemented. We put that to the government, and the government agreed.

It is interesting, though: I have another agreement here. It is an agreement from 2010, and it is an agreement with the Labor Party. In fact, it is a written agreement. And in that written agreement we have a commitment from the Labor Party to support the Greens policy of campaign finance reform—political donations reform: lowering the disclosure threshold, prevention of donation splitting and preventing foreign donations. In fact, there is also an agreement to reform electoral voting in the Senate.

When it comes to a written agreement, we have the Labor Party walking away from the agreement on Senate voting reform and on campaign finance reform. The Labor Party need to recognise that their enemies are over there, not over here.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (12:14): Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I note that in saying so, neither the Greens nor the government have actually provided the full detail of this agreement. There are all sorts of claims circulating in the press. In the media today we heard that the 'senator for half measures' has prevented half of the potential double dissolutions but not the other half.

No wonder his colleagues are still backgrounding the media and raising concerns about their long-term future. If Senator Di Natale had gone full measure, he would have made sure that the requirements of the Australian Electoral Commission—who were before us in the hearing earlier this week and have a full three months after this legislation is proclaimed by the Governor-General—were being met. But, no. Again the 'senator for half-measures' has provided far less than the full three months. You ask: where does that leave other senators? That leaves other senators— (Time expired)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, you need to refer to senators by their proper titles and not speak to senators in that manner. I ask you to withdraw those comments.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I apologise, Deputy President. Senator Carr was distracting me for a moment. What was your question?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I remind all senators that they need to refer to senators in their place by their proper title and not refer to senators by other means. I ask you to withdraw those comments.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Indeed, I will withdraw.

Senator DAY (South Australia) (12:16): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave has been granted for one minute.

Senator DAY: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The motion today seeks disclosure of the communication between the government and relevant departments about their radical and rushed changes to Senate voting. In question time yesterday highlighted to the minister the contradictions between the public statements of 15 and 18 February that the government had not yet made a decision and the provision of the bill to the Australian Electoral Commission on 11 February. I have a great interest in exactly what the government decided to and when. This is a matter that says full transparency and exposure after we have seen an incredible rush and a sham of an inquiry that shut down senators who had valid questions to ask. As Senator Collins has observed, it was the worst she had seen in decades in the Senate. It was certainly the worst and most chilling period of evidence taking I have experienced in my relatively short time here. Most telling was the government's refusal to allow the Department of Finance to give evidence to the inquiry.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question before the chair is that general business notice of motion No. 1070 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (12:18): These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (12:19): I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

AGED CARE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INCREASING CONSUMER CHOICE) BILL 2016

I am pleased to introduce the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016.

This Bill creates the legislative framework for a more flexible, consumer driven aged care system that will support older people to remain living at home.

The Bill gives effect to the first stage of the home care reforms announced in the 2015-16 Federal Budget. These changes will provide consumers with more choice and control over their aged care services and will reduce red tape and regulation for aged care providers.

The Government has a strong track record when it comes to aged care. The changes announced in the Budget will build on our successful record and set the platform for future reform.

The 2011 Productivity Commission Caring for Older Australians report identified a number of key weaknesses of the system including that:

it is difficult to navigate;

services and consumer choice are limited; and

coverage of needs, pricing, subsidies and user co-contributions are inconsistent or inequitable.

The Government has implemented a range of measures to address these weaknesses. Some were started by the previous government but this Government has landed those changes and is going further - moving the system more in line with the Productivity Commission's recommendations.

In January this year, the Government transferred responsibility for the aged care complaints scheme from the Department of Health to the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner creating a more independent and robust approach to complaints.

The My Aged Care Gateway is now supporting people to find their way through the aged care system and, despite some initial difficulties, is now undertaking assessments for those people who need low level care at home. It is increasing its role as the one identifiable place to go for information and support to access aged care.

There has been significant work on addressing inconsistency and inequity in the pricing and consumer contributions to the cost of their care.

The Productivity Commission's report also stated that competition, rather than extensive regulation, is the key to delivering innovative, quality services and an efficient and sustainable system.

The Government maintains a crucial role in setting policy and in ensuring safety and compliance in aged care services. It will be there to promote equity of access, support vulnerable consumers and address market failures.

But it has to be acknowledged that market based solutions and consumer choice will increasingly be the driving force for quality, value and performance of services.

Moving to a market-based system, giving consumers choice and allowing providers to run their own services, is central to the Government's plan for the future.

The aged care system in Australia is world class and well respected, with high quality services that reach and meet the needs of a very diverse population.

However, as people are living longer thanks to better health and better health care, the demands on Australia ' s aged care system are changing. Older Australians want more choice and control over the care they receive. This demand will only increase as the " Boomers " and future generations require aged care services.

The Government ' s home care reforms, announced in last year ' s Budget, place a priority on ensuring choice and flexibility for older people.

At the same time, the reforms will strengthen the aged care system to provide high quality and more innovative services through increased competition.

These reforms will occur in two stages.

From February 2017, home care packages will be allocated to assessed consumers who will be able to direct Government funding to the provider of their choice. Even more importantly they will have the flexibility to change their provider if they want to or if they move to another area or state they can take their package with them.

Once these changes come into effect, providers will no longer have to apply for home care places through the Aged Care Approvals Round, significantly reducing red tape for businesses. The changes will also establish a consistent national approach to prioritising access to care.

This major policy change has received widespread support and the implementation arrangements for these changes have been developed in close consultation with stakeholders, including the National Aged Care Alliance and groups representing consumers, carers and providers.

Building on this first stage, the Government has also clearly signalled its intention to move to a single, integrated care at home programme. The second stage of home care reform, will further simplify the way that services are delivered and funded, and will commence from July 2018.

This next stage provides an opportunity to explore different funding and service delivery models, including activities that promote restorative care and firmly put the consumer in control.

The integration of the Home Care Packages Programme and the Commonwealth Home Support Programme in the second stage will be informed by extensive consultations with stakeholders.

This Bill implements stage one of the reforms and will amend the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 in three main areas.

Firstly , funding for a home care package will follow the consumer, rather than be allocated to an approved provider in respect of a specific location or region.

This will mean that the consumer will be able to take their package to any approved home care provider – consumers will no longer be restricted to providers that hold an allocation of places. Put simply, a consumer will be able to choose a provider that is suited to them. For example, a consumer may seek a service that specialises in providing linguistically and culturally appropriate care.

A home care package will also be portable for the consumer, if they wish to move location or change to another provider. The package, including any unspent funds, will move with the consumer to their new provider.

Approved providers will no longer have to apply through the Aged Care Approvals Round to receive home care places. This will reduce red tape and also increase competition in the sector by allowing more consumer focussed and innovative providers to expand their businesses to meet local demand and consumer expectations, including the needs of consumers with dementia and other special needs. The current Aged Care Approvals Round is expected to be the last round in which home care places are allocated to approved providers.

Secondly , there will be a consistent national system for prioritising access to subsidised home care. Currently, w aiting lists for packages are managed by individual providers. There can be significant variation in the waiting periods for packages across Australia with no systematic way of measuring or addressing the variation.

Once these changes take effect, there will be a national system to manage eligible consumers ' access to packages within My Aged Care (the aged care gateway). An effective national system is important to ensure there is equitable access to care, as the total number of home care packages will continue to be capped in line with the aged care planning ratio.

A prioritisation process will take into account the relative needs and circumstances of consumers, determined through the comprehensive assessment undertaken by an Aged Care Assessment Team, and the time that a person has been waiting for care. A consumer who has been assigned a package will be supported by My Aged Care with referrals to approved providers, but the consumer will be able to choose which provider delivers their care.

There will be close monitoring of the new arrangements to ensure that all consumers, including people with special needs and those living in rural and regional areas, are able to access care in an equitable manner.

Thirdly , the Bill will reduce the red tape associated with providers becoming approved under the Aged Care Act 1997 .

Increasing the number of approved providers able to provide home care will support greater choice for consumers, but importantly, new providers will still be required to demonstrate their suitability to become an approved provider. All approved providers will need to meet the Home Care Standards and will be subject to independent quality reviews.

The legislative criteria for assessing the suitability of a person to become an approved provider will be streamlined and made more contemporary. This will encourage new providers, including some current Commonwealth Home Support providers, to enter the home care market, expanding the choices available to consumers.

Existing providers of residential and flexible care will also be able to become providers of home care through a simple ' opt-in ' process. This recognises that these providers have already been tested against the standards required to become an approved provider of aged care.

Further, an organisation ' s approval to provide home care will commence as soon as the approval is granted and will not lapse. Currently, approved provider status lapses after two years if the provider does not hold an allocation of places. To streamline the approved provider arrangements, the lapsing provision will be removed across all care types – home care, residential care and flexible care.

The changes proposed in this Bill are an important step in reforming the home care system so that older Australians have more choice and flexibility to receive care and services at home.

The changes also lay the platform for future aged care reforms, which will be informed by, and developed with, the Aged Care Sector Committee Roadmap for Reform.

TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (NORFOLK ISLAND CGT) BILL 2016

This bill amends the income tax laws to implement improvements to Australia's tax laws.

This bill will provide a full capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on assets held by Norfolk Island residents, to assist the Norfolk Island community in transitioning into Australia's mainstream taxation system.

On 14 May 2015, the Parliament passed the Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment Act 2015 ending decades of uncertainty for the residents of Norfolk Island. The Australian Government will integrate Norfolk Island with mainland social security systems, including access to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Immigration, customs and quarantine services will also be extended from 1 July 2016.

Norfolk Island residents will begin to fully apply the mainstream taxation system to all of their income for the first time and gain access to a broad range of Australian Government programs to help improve vital infrastructure and other community assets.

Following further consultation with the community, it was found that a historical lack of formal documentation for asset sales, as well as cultural practices relating to inheritance assets, are likely to inhibit the legislated application of CGT in some instances. To address these concerns, this bill will provide a full CGT exemption on assets held by Norfolk Island residents prior to 24 October 2015, the day after the exemption was announced.

This exemption will apply to those Norfolk Island assets that were exempt from CGT before Norfolk Island was fully brought within Australia's mainstream tax system. Similar to the treatment of assets when CGT was first introduced in Australia in 1985, these assets will continue to be exempt until a CGT event happens (for example, the asset is sold).

The CGT exemption demonstrates the Government's commitment to actively and regularly engage with the Norfolk Island community to ensure all residents have significant input into their future governance including through the Norfolk Island Advisory Council.

This exemption is part of a broader reform package which addresses longstanding issues facing Norfolk Island, which were explored in a Royal Commission, numerous reports, twelve Parliamentary enquiries and submissions over a 35-year period.

The Australian Government is committed to delivering the broad reform package with a focus on economic growth and prosperity for Norfolk Island.

Unlike any other community of its size, Norfolk Island has been required to deliver its own local, state and federal services since 1979. Asking a community of around 1800 people to deliver federal functions (such as immigration, quarantine and customs, social services and taxation), and state and local government services, is neither appropriate nor sustainable.

The reality is, much infrastructure on Norfolk Island is in poor condition, the health system will be improved by better delivery of health and aged care services and many laws will be modernized to reflect those in other Australian jurisdictions.

This is why the Government is putting in place the necessary structural reforms to improve service delivery and boost economic growth, whilst preserving the island's culture and local representation through concessions such as the CGT exemption in this bill.

We look forward to continuing to work with the Norfolk Island community to progress these important reforms.

Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (12:20): I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (12:20): I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 3) 2015-2016

Today, the Government introduces the Additional Estimates Appropriation bills. These bills are:

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016; and

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016.

These bills underpin the Government's expenditure decisions.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 seeks approval for additional appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $1.3 billion.

I now outline the significant items sought in the bill.

First, this bill would provide the Department of Immigration and Border Protection with just over $447 million, this reflects additional funding for enhancing the management of the onshore Immigration Detention Network; further support for refugee resettlement arrangements; and additional support for the accommodation and processing of asylum seekers.

Second, the bill would provide the Social Services portfolio just over $277 million. The Department of Social Services would receive just over $102 million primarily to provide support services to resettle an additional 12,000 refugees who are fleeing the conflict in Syria and Iraq. The bill would also provide the National Disability Insurance Agency with just over $108 million for the transition to the full National Disability Insurance Scheme, as agreed with New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. The Department of Human Services would also receive just over $11 million for Addressing Welfare Reliance in Remote Communities, which will provide increased incentives for job seekers to work and to strengthen the mutual obligation framework in Community Development Programme regions.

Third, the bill would provide the Department of Defence with just over $186 million, largely reflecting supplementation for foreign exchange movements and the net effect of the reallocation of funds between operating and capital costs.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements tabled in the Parliament.

I commend this Appropriation bill to the House.

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2015-2016

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 which was introduced earlier, are the Additional Estimates Appropriation bills for this financial year.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $905 million for

2015-16.

I now outline the significant items provided for in this bill.

First, the bill would provide the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development just over $385 million reflecting, primarily, additional funding for the Roads to Recovery programme to help local government and councils maintain Australia's roads.

Second, the bill would provide the Department of Health with $125 million to be used as capital by the Biomedical Translation Fund following its establishment. The fund will be used to invest in promising medical discoveries and will complement the Medical Research Future Fund through the commercialisation of health and medical research.

Third, the bill would provide for the Australian Taxation Office just over $74 million largely for implementing single touch payroll reporting and for improvements to data and analytics infrastructure.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedules to the bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements tabled in the Parliament.

I commend this Appropriation bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (12:21): I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (12:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SINGLE APPEAL PATH) BILL 2016

I am pleased to present legislation that will give effect to one of the Veterans' Affairs 2015 Budget measures.

Since coming to office, the Government has honoured its commitment to recognise the unique nature of military service.

The amendments made by the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Single Appeal Path) Bill will simplify and streamline the appeal process under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act by changing to a single appeal path.

Currently, a claimant may seek a first tier right of review through either, but not both, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission or the Veterans' Review Board.

They then have a second tier right of review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Following the changes in this Bill, the first tier right of review will be to the Veterans' Review Board.

The second tier right of review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is not changing.

The Chair of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission has given a written undertaking to the Senate that upon an application to the Veterans' Review Board being received, there will be an internal Commission review under section 347 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The internal review will operate in the same way as the section 31 review process under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, which is well understood by ex-service organisations and has been operating successfully for nearly two decades. This undertaking has been described in Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill.

The purpose of the change to a single appeal path was to avoid the complexities that claimants currently face relating to different time limits for the submission of appeals, different times taken to determine the review and the choice they make impacting on entitlement to legal aid and the awarding of costs for appeals that progress to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The original proposal to change to a single appeal path has been modified so that the Tribunal will have, under certain circumstances, the discretion to order costs in favour of the claimant in relation to proceedings before the Tribunal in respect of reviews of Veterans' Review Board decisions.

By limiting the circumstances under which the tribunal may award costs in favour of the claimants, the amendments also seek to ensure that this extension does not discourage the presentation of evidence at the earliest possible opportunity and the full participation and cooperation of claimants in the decision-making process.

Over the years ex-service organisations have sought an increase in the prescribed maximum amount, currently $467.50, for re-imbursement of medical reports obtained by applicants seeking review by the Veterans' Review Board. Acknowledging this amount has devalued since its introduction in 1994, I commit to review this amount to a more realistic level.

Since 1 January 2015 the Veterans' Review Board has been conducting a trial of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the NSW/ACT registries. The initial results have been positive. I am now looking to fully evaluate the trial and examine the potential for a national roll out of Alternative Dispute Resolution at the Board.

These amendments will introduce a single pathway of appeal under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act but will also ensure that the right decision is made at the earliest possible time at the lowest possible appeal level.

I want to acknowledge the very strong support for these changes from the veteran and ex-service community.

Debate adjourned.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (12:23): by leave—I seek an explanation as to why the minister has not provided the documents required by the Senate under the orders agreed to by the Senate on 24 February, 29 February and 2 March. I note, as Senator Ryan indicated, that Senator Carr previously made queries with respect to one or two of the matters listed on the Notice Paper at page 13. I am specifically enquiring in respect to item 111:

Senate—Electoral law changes—Communications and minutes—Order for production of documents

By the Minister for Finance and the Special Minister of State, by 9.30 am on Thursday, 3 March 2016, documents recording all communications, and 'round table' meeting minutes in relation to Senate electoral law changes.

In fact, that one is more of a summary I think of the full motion. I should, perhaps, for the benefit of Senator Ryan, read the full motion that was passed by the Senate where it was requested:

That that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance and the Special Minister of State, no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 3 March 2016:

(a) documents recording all communications with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) by:

(i) the Minister for Finance,

(ii) the Acting Special Minister of State,

(iii) the Special Minister of State, and

(iv) the Department of Finance;

relating to proposed changes to the Senate voting system, including the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, since 1 September 2015; and

(b) the minutes of all 'round table' meetings that have taken place in which the AEC participated.

Senator RYAN ( Victoria — Minister for Vocational Education and Skills ) ( 12:25 ): Senator Collins, I did ask whether this was a matter that was raised by Senator Carr, earlier. He raised two issues earlier and this was the second one he raised.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator RYAN: Can I just inform the chamber about some facts. I said I would bring information back into the chamber and I have. With respect to No. 107 and No. 109, which were two queries related to the CSIRO, I do not know the content, but some documents were received by the Table Office at 12.09 pm, today. I table documents relating to the orders for the production of documents concerning the CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere division restructure. I hope that addresses one of your concerns, Senator Carr.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:27): by leave—I ask the minister to clarify whether the documents that he has just tabled, which we look forward to receiving shortly under OPD No. 107 and No. 109, are the complete list that was requested under each of those orders or are they simply a subset?

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (12:27): I honestly have just received the documents, Senator Waters, and you will receive a copy. You are probably more informed on the detail of the request than I am, to be honest. The documents are now with the attendants so we may hear more from you about that. I have also received some advice from the Office of the Special Minister of State. There has been a bit of work involved and a response will be tabled shortly.

Senator DAY (South Australia) (12:28): by leave—What was most telling was the government's refusal to allow the Department of Finance to give evidence to the inquiry when it was quite happy for its other constituent parts, the Liberal Party's national director and the National Party's federal director, to take up time giving evidence on something that they actually helped construct and clearly agreed with. The government is clearly in a rush with this legislation. I have to leave to one side, given time limitations, the amazing about face of the Greens in that they would, it seems, support gagging debate to ram this legislation through in the next sitting week. My question is: why is the government deploying the big guns, sealing the mother-of-all backroom deals built on the mother-of-all captains calls by the Greens leader, by using the mother-of-all gagging approaches for the next sitting week to ram this legislation through. Why the rush?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (12:29): I seek leave to move a motion to take note of Senator Ryan's explanation.

Leave not granted.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: The traditional response to a matter such as this is for me to seek leave to take note of the minister's response—

Senator Ryan interjecting—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: and I have done so—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am happy for some discussion across the chamber if it actually helps the chamber move forward, but we need to limit that.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (12:30): I seek leave to make an explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator RYAN: These queries were raised with me 40 minutes ago. In that 40 minutes we have tabled a response to two of the queries raised by Senator Carr. I have informed the chamber, Senator Collins, that with respect to this query officials are checking documents. I have said a response will be provided shortly. With respect, we were not provided notice of you seeking to move a motion. I have sought to answer you and gather as much information as I could in less than 40 minutes while I was in the chamber. I think, in that case, the government have responded to these queries particularly rapidly.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (12:31): I thank Senator Ryan for anticipating what my statement might be, but I simply want to respond to the explanation that he has provided us with respect of dealing with this order for the production of documents which was required by 9.30 this morning. So I, again, seek leave to move a motion to take note of the explanation.

Leave not granted.

Senator Ryan: We won't grant leave for the motion but we will for a five-minute statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am getting an indication from the Government Whip that leave will not be granted for you, Senator Collins, to move a motion, but leave may be granted for you to make a five-minute statement. If you want to readjust your request for leave, it is a matter for you, Senator Collins. I am happy to put whatever question you want again for the government and see if leave is granted.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (12:32): Mr Deputy President, I appreciate your attempts to facilitate this. If it helps the government that I seek leave to make a five-minute statement rather than seek to move a motion, which is the traditional response in respect of an order for the production of documents, I do not see that that limits my capacity to speak. I would like to clarify, because I know other senators—Senator Day was one, but I think there may be others—want to know the situation on this matter, whether they would be able to also make a motion or a statement on this.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will have to deal with that as it arises. You now need to make a request to do something.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (12:32): Okay, Mr Deputy President—I will assist you with a request to make a five-minute statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for five minutes.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I would like to make a statement in respect of not so much Senator Scott Ryan's response to our queries on the order for production of documents that moves are still afoot to bring this information forward. I thank Senator Ryan for that explanation and appreciate that hopefully that will be fairly soon. 'Shortly' can be a somewhat vague term. I would instead like this opportunity to bring to the Senate's attention that the next item of business on the red is the bill that these matters relate to. Resumption of the second reading debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 is the next matter in the Order of Business. The information that we are seeking here is very important information that has still not been provided on the Senate committee that reported yesterday at eight in the morning and which the government very promptly responded to by noon! I would like to know when the government actually met. Where was this cabinet meeting that met to consider the recommendations in the committee's report? That is what is before us without the information that the committee discussed in the hearing. Indeed, we were advised that the AEC could not provide it but that the Department of Finance could.

Again, to give yet another example of the haste in which this process has proceeded, today I sought out—and this might benefit other senators as well—the answers that the AEC gave to the committee in the hearing. Unfortunately, the procedures of this joint committee through CommDocs were a bit fraught. I mentioned the other day that I had difficulty accessing the chair's draft because I was not in the building at the time. Unfortunately this committee did not advise senators that answers had come in either. So today I went hunting for the answers from the Australian Electoral Commission and, indeed, I discovered that a little time back the AEC had actually responded to our questions but that the response was very limited. For instance, on my question around the role of the Department of Finance and what had occurred there, the AEC's response was, 'The development of legislation was managed'—and this might assist other senators—'by the governance and public management division of the Department of Finance.' So we know that much now. We know which element of the Department of Finance was working on this matter, not that the minister or the committee would allow them to appear at the hearing. Unfortunately, the next point from the AEC was that the AEC could not comment on the considerations of the government, which is why we are waiting for the answers from the Department of Finance before we can promptly consider this legislation.

I know Senator Carr and other senators have revisited this but, seriously—and this is a message to the Australian Greens—this is basic governance 101. When you are considering complex, detailed legislation and its implementation, the committee needs to talk to the relevant department.

Senator Siewert: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Could you please remind Senator Collins that she is to address her comments to the chair.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Of course. Senator Collins, please address your comments through the chair.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I am thankful for the reminder that I should direct my comments to the chair, because I know that the Greens have raised that they are particularly sensitive about senators looking at them in the chamber. We cannot look at the Greens in the chamber as it seems at the moment they are so sensitive about this backroom deal.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Mr Deputy President, if I am not to look that way, could you please protect me from the interjections, because I am being tempted! I am being provoked to look that way!

Senator Siewert: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps if Senator Collins had not made a mistake in her recollection that it was Senator Ludwig who raised this issue in the first place when I was speaking—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think you are now debating. Senator Siewert, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. I remind senators that if they are going to interrupt another senator speaking they should do so to raise a point of order, not simply to engage in further debate.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Let me conclude, since I only have five minutes at this point, on the critical point here: we are being asked to consider this significant electoral reform legislation—the first of its kind in 30 years—which is based on backroom discussions between the Australian Greens, Senator Xenophon and the government, with no information. But, for the first time in my parliamentary experience, we have been shielded from the department. The committee and the government would not allow the Department of Finance to appear before the committee, and we are waiting for this information so that we can give proper consideration to what the government took into consideration. (Time expired)

Senator DAY (South Australia) (12:38): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave has been granted for five minutes, Senator Day.

Senator DAY: Why the rush? Where was the public outcry? Where was the harm and the imminent risk to the Australian public to justify getting this legislation through in the next week? The Australian Electoral Commission appeared before the hearing. We did not get the opportunity to question the Department of Finance, because they were not permitted to attend. We asked the Australian Electoral Commission about their capacity to educate the public and what their likely success would be in educating the public in voting 1 to 6 above the line, and they could not say. In spite of prompting and saying, 'What about the New South Wales experience?' and asking, 'What is the likely result? What percentage of the population are likely to vote 1 to 6 above the line?' they could not say. But I think we all know what will happen: the majority of people, over 90 per cent, will simply put a 1 above the line—and their votes will die, make no mistake about that. Their votes will exhaust.

I heard Senator Fawcett last night saying that people voted for him once when he lost and isn't that the same thing? It is clearly not the same thing. It is totally different. People backing the wrong horse and the horse losing is completely different to not putting any money on a horse at all. If the person who you put a 1 alongside has no chance, your vote dies. The great feature of the Australian electoral system is that every vote is precious. We have a preferential system. If the person you vote for as number 1 is not successful, then your vote transfers to your second choice. There is an obsession with these best-on-ground performances. Look at how many first preference, best-on-ground votes Senator Muir got. He did not get very many, but so what? Senator Muir may be the best back-pocket player in the world. He may never get a best on ground or even a second best, but could get, time and time again, one point every week. Our votes all add up. Preferences all add up.

These changes to the voting laws are a sham. The minor parties and Independents being wiped out is not going to be a consequence; it is an objective. That is the objective. The Liberals, the National, the Greens and Nick Xenophon want it for the next election—what it is looking every day more and more like a double dissolution. This Senate is supposed to be a house of review. Senator Xenophon and the Greens have regularly pontificated about the dangers of rushing debate. I have not been here all that long, but I have seen so many mistakes being made and having to be corrected. Why? Because things are rushed. My father used to say that it is more important to do something right than to do it quickly, and we should pay heed to that.

This order is about getting the facts on the table immediately as to how this legislation was put together and, more importantly, when. When was it agreed to? What were the dates that it was agreed to and, indeed, what are the steps that have led to it being amended already by the government? It has not even passed yet and there have been amendments. I support the motion.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (12:42): I seek leave for to speak for just under three minutes until 12.45 pm.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted.

Senator RYAN: As I said earlier, when I was presented with their queries after I entered the chamber at 11.45 am, I made some queries, as I promised the chamber I would. With respect to the first two, orders for the production of documents regarding the CSIRO, they were provided to the chamber earlier this afternoon. With respect to the third request from Senator Collins, I have made it clear that officials are finalising that proposal and they will be presented shortly. I take Senator Collin's comments that 'shortly' can have an elastic meaning. Indeed, when I was sitting on the other side of the chamber I do recall it having quite an elastic meaning. I understand that 'shortly' will be in the common use of that terminology, as in 'sometime soon'.

I know that those opposite's spiritual political cousins in the US are the Democratic Party, but their attempts at Strom-Thurmond- and Richard-Russell-like filibustering over the course of this bill over the course of the last few days have brought this chamber, quite frankly, to a new level. I have never, in my nearly eight years in this place, seen a debate that went for more than a day on a message from the House of Representatives. At every single opportunity that has been presented to this chamber, those opposite have sought to prevent deliberation on this bill. They have sought to prevent debate on this bill. And I say particularly 'those opposite', because the filibustering, Senator Day, in response to yours, was driven by those opposite. The point is that this is a bill that reflects the findings of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and it reflects those findings that were signed off by the Labor Party and indeed submitted by the Labor Party.

Senator Kim Carr: No, it doesn't.

Senator BUSHBY: The filibustering techniques undertaken by those opposite will not prevent Senate deliberation on the bill. We will not descend to the juvenile tactics shown by those opposite, which seek to prevent debate and deliberation.

Debate interrupted.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (12:45): I rise to speak on the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. This bill amends the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme to provide a higher payment to people with disability who were paid an unfair wage under the previous tool. This issue, as most people in this chamber know, has a long and quite complex history. It is important, when we go through the process to pass this bill, that we understand some of that history.

The Business Services Wage Assessment Tool, otherwise known as BSWAT, has been used to determine the wages of people with disability working in Australian disability enterprises. There are about 20,000 Australians employed at Australian disability enterprises. Supported employees working at these organisations are paid a pro rata wage, calculated using a number of different wage assessment tools, of which BSWAT is one. About 10,000 workers with disabilities were assessed using BSWAT. So, on the figure of 20,000 in total, 10,000 is a significant number.

In 2012 the Federal Court found that this particular tool indirectly discriminated against people with intellectual disability. This was because BSWAT assessed the competency as well as the productivity of the employee, meaning a person with intellectual disability was paid a lower wage on the basis of their intellectual impairment. Following this ruling, a class action was brought against the Commonwealth on behalf of supported employees seeking back pay for the wages they had been underpaid as a result of being assessed under a discriminatory tool.

While this class action was underway, the government introduced legislation to set up this payment scheme. The scheme offered back pay worth 50 per cent of the difference between what workers actually received under BSWAT and what they would have received if the competency component of the tool had not been included. Labor opposed the original bill, not because we do not support a payment scheme—we actually do and are on record as doing so—but because the Federal Court found that these supported employees were indirectly discriminated against because of the type of their disability. They were paid a wage that was based not on productivity and performance but on ignorance. Of course we support justice for them. Ms Macklin, in the other place, has made it quite clear that the focus is fairness and justice. Of course we support a payment scheme to help compensate for the wages that were lost.

Labor opposed the original bill because it unfairly silenced people with disability. It meant that people who accepted a payment under the scheme were precluded from pursuing further legal action for lost wages. As we said in this chamber, it was wrong for the government to deny the legal rights of people with disability at exactly the same time as the class action was underway. People with disability denied justice and denied wages deserved their day in court. Labor came to this position after listening to the views of people with disability and their advocates and as well as after an extensive Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry hearing on the legislation, where we were able to hear a range of evidence which looked at the issue of exactly what was fair.

People with disability did not support the original scheme and the onerous conditions it placed on them. So Labor opposed it. We were guided by what people with disability wanted. It was true then and it is true today. This important legal process has now been completed. Labor welcomes the settlement that has finally been reached between supported employees and the Commonwealth. The settlement means that thousands of workers with disability will get fairer back pay for the wages they were denied—a much better deal than would have been the case if this class action had not proceeded and the original payment scheme had been left in place.

Under the settlement, people with disability who were originally paid wages under BSWAT will be paid 70 per cent of the difference between the wage they received and the wage they should have received. The original act needs to be amended to reflect the agreement that has been reached. The Federal Court will then be in a position to approve the mediated settlement, and that is the purpose of this bill today.

Now that people with disability have reached this settlement—an agreement that I am assured they are happy with and an agreement that actually involves them—we support this legislation to give effect to the settlement. Once this happens, those who were involved in and supported the class action can apply for payment under the scheme. Those who have already received a payment under the existing scheme will receive an automatic top-up to reflect the better deal reached under this settlement.

Importantly, the registration period for the scheme will be extended by 12 months to give people more opportunity to apply for a payment. This was a really important element of our concerns with the original legislation when it came into this place. We were deeply concerned about the time people had to make such an important decision which would impact on their lives. This is an issue that was raised by many families as well.

Labor is pleased this issue can finally be resolved and that people with disability can receive a fairer wage for the work they performed. These payments will reflect historic indexation and will not be assessed as income for social security purposes—another point raised in previous debate about whether any payment would then count as income for social security purposes. So the department and the ministry have clarified that.

On behalf of the opposition, Ms Macklin and I want to pay tribute to the two individuals who initially challenged the validity of this wage assessment tool and the thousands more who subsequently joined them in the fight for fairer pay. Always, it seems, there need to be some individuals who have the courage to step forward, and in this case we deeply appreciate their work. I also want to acknowledge the many organisations and advocates who stood with the employees and supported their cause. We can now move on from what has been a very difficult process over very many years and we can focus on the other issues in this area that are yet to be properly addressed.

While this bill goes overdue justice for some supported employees with disability, it does not end the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the future of Australian disability enterprises and the very cause of supported employment. The government is developing a new productivity based wage assessment tool to replace BSWAT. We have been waiting a while this tool. I understand this work is still being progressed through the Fair Work Commission. Again, it is important that this work is finalised as quickly as possible. I urge the minister to make it a personal priority. The sooner we can get an unambiguously fair assessment tool that will ensure that people with disability are being paid a proper, non-discriminatory wage, the sooner we can end the financial and legal uncertainty that is shrouding this sector. This will be better for people with disability and their employers.

The government must also address the concerns regarding wage supplementation for Australian disability enterprises. Opposition members have received several troubling reports from our local organisations, reporting that this process is unwieldy, lengthy and inadequate. Alarmingly, some Australian disability enterprises have told us that they are hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket after their wage supplementation payments. This is placing some of these enterprises in immediate financial jeopardy. We know this because many of them have come to visit us to talk about the issues they are facing. Some of these organisations have been working in local communities for many years. There is a particular relationship between some of the enterprises and their local communities, and there is a sense of ownership in many areas. In my own part of the world, on the Darling Downs, there are a number of these enterprises and they are part of the make-up of the community. We know that they are in serious financial stress in some areas.

Labor believes that government can do more to support and reassure the sector, and that more must be done. The interests of people with disability are best served by having a sustainable Australian disability enterprise sector capable of paying fair wages. This is what the government should aim to achieve. The truth is that we can do more to ensure that people with disability are full participants in the community. Too many people with disability want to work, and can work, but are just not given the opportunity to. From OECD statistics we know that Australia continues to have one of the lowest employment rates of people with disability. We know that we can do better. It is just not good enough, both for the people with disabilities and for their families—or in fact the message that is being sent to the wider community.

Too many people with disability live in poverty and disadvantage. As you know, over many years our Community Affairs Committee has held various hearings and inquiries. Consistently, when we are speaking about disadvantage people with disabilities tend to suffer greater in regard to the lack of opportunity for education and employment. In fact, the poverty statistics are alarming, and they continue to be. Too many people continue to live on the margins of society, isolated and alone. We know we can do more.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a big part of this. I want to acknowledge the work that my friend Senator McLucas has done over way too many years on both the development and the implementation of the scheme. We know that that will be only one part of the area around support for people with disabilities. While the NDIS will transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians, many more people with disability will still need our support as they too can reach their full potential so that they can have the opportunities that are available, and should be available, to all Australians. It is for this reason that Labor believes the National Disability Strategy must be reinvigorated to ensure its goals reflect the goals of Australians living with disability; to ensure our efforts stretch across every area of policy-making; and, to ensure we implement these strategies and not just continue to talk about them. No, I think we in this place should continue to talk about the issues around disability as many times as we can to ensure that people with disability do not feel either forgotten or marginalised.

It is important that the wages that people with intellectual disability deserved but were deprived of will finally be received. In the final analysis, this issue is about much more than a wage. It is about respect. It is about whether we can respect the capabilities and contributions of people with intellectual disability. It is about whether we value their work and whether we recognise them as equal members of society. It is also about whether we engage with them on issues that impact on them. Again, the ongoing motto of the consumer network can be repeated: 'Nothing about us without us.' With this settlement we can go some way to restoring not just the wages but the respect that people with intellectual disability have been denied. It is a good time that we are able to say that this particular piece of legislation will be passed in this place. But, it is only a step towards the ongoing work that must be done in this space. It is a good time to pass the bill. We can say that we are willing and happy to ensure that the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill will be passed into law.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:58): It is with pleasure that I stand to speak on the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. I too will refer to it as BSWAT from now on. This issue has been ongoing for a long time—in fact, for too long a time—which means that people with an intellectual disability who have been underpaid under successive governments have had to wait to get this back-pay and to get their issues around underpayment addressed.

Workers with disability have been underpaid and they have been trying for many years to get this issue remedied and addressed. In fact, they have had to take the matter to court to have it addressed. Personally, I think it is a great shame that they had to take it to court. It should have been dealt with a while ago. We have debated the previous bills, and I will come back to those bills in a minute.

People with an intellectual disability are significantly underrepresented in the workforce and it is important that we address this issue. Inclusion Australia has said that workers with an intellectual disability face large gaps in support for helping them to move into open employment, earn a real wage, and reduce their reliance on the pension. It is my contention that if they had been paid appropriate wages, and not underpaid, that would have helped people move into open employment. We do need structural change to the system and we need significant changes that will genuinely help workers with an intellectual disability. Increased participation should not occur because of reduced wages. This discrimination is unacceptable, and I am glad to see that the court system found that the BSWAT wage was discriminatory for workers with an intellectual disability.

We are deeply concerned that it has taken some time to work through various processes to get to the point that we have, but I am glad that we are finally there. Concerns were raised by a number of stakeholders, including Inclusion Australia, People with Disabilities and the AED Legal Centre about the process and about the tool being fundamentally flawed. That is why I am glad we are debating this bill today, which addresses issues around the previous bill. The earlier bill, the BSWAT Payment Scheme Bill 2014, was unacceptable. As we have just been discussing, and as Senator Moore has just been saying, people would have been forced to waive their legal rights to access payments. The bill only covered people with an intellectual disability, not other workers who might have been underpaid in the same ADE. It only offered up to 50 per cent of what was already owed. I spoke strongly against this in the parliament, and I outlined then how it was not supported by workers and advocates, who were strongly urging us not to pass that bill.

Fortunately, those fighting for justice on this issue have now been successful. The changes in this bill—given it is non-contro I hope it will succeed and pass through this place shortly—can provide the basis for a settlement. There are some key differences in the current bill from the previous version passed by this place. Payments will be calculated at 70 per cent, not the full 100 per cent but an improvement on the 50 per cent that the government previously tried to impose. This is supported by stakeholders. The bill extends the date for registering, applying and accepting under the payment scheme by 12 months, to May 2017; the payments will be provided in a lump sum which is exempt from social security income tests; and a tax offset will be available. This means that people who have been discriminated against will receive the payments they deserve. I am glad to see that the government is extending the date by which people have to enrol in the scheme. This was one of our concerns with the previous bill. Under the government's previous bill, people would not have been able to take as much time to make a careful choice, so we think extending the time frame is a good step. It will give people a little more time to make their choice.

I am also glad that people who previously received the 50 per cent payment can obtain a top-up. We understand that because of the uncertainty involved in the court case, some people accepted the government's 50 per cent payment offer—which of course was the government's intent. Fortunately the findings of the court have required a different approach. I am glad that people who received the 50 per cent payment will be able to receive an increased payment to reflect the 70 per cent rate in the settlement. The measures in this bill will depend on the terms of the settlement being agreed by the Federal Court. After this bill passes the parliament, if the Federal Court agrees, the parties can reach a settlement. This is an important step in resolving this issue. This is not the final step in the process, but it is a very important one and I am pleased the government has acted in a timely manner and that therefore we can deal with this matter in this place in a timely manner also.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, who have been running this case, have urged the parliament to support this bill. Disability Advocacy Network Australia is supportive of the bill, and People with Disability Australia said:

People with disability Australia … and the AED Legal Centre have warmly welcomed this decision by the Federal Government and hailed it as a win for employees with disability.

Samantha French from PWDA said:

We would have preferred the Government came to the table a lot sooner, rather than drag this through the courts, but we are pleased to have an outcome which sees wage justice for these employees.

The AED Legal Centre said they welcome the Commonwealth's offer, and they go on:

We think this is a great outcome for all supported employees eligible for a payment under the BSWAT Payment Scheme.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the people who have pursued this case to this point and who have put up such a strong case and kept fighting for this outcome. It has been a long and difficult court process for the employees, the lawyers and the advocates. They have done important work in supporting people with an intellectual disability through this process and in continually raising the profile of this issue. It is disappointing that governments took so long to reach this point. People who have been underpaid should not have been made to wait this long. They should not have had to fight their way through the courts. Because the government held out on paying people what they deserved, they have missed out. As I have said in this place before, imagine how much better people's lives could have been if they had had access to their proper wages, to this money, earlier. I must say this is not the only example in this country of, in effect, stolen wages—it is a bit different from stolen wages but it has the same impact on people's lives. It has taken years for the government to take action and people have had to face many challenges to recover this money. It is a very good example of when people see an injustice and discrimination and they keep fighting they get a resolution. I think people should be very proud of the work that has been undertaken and the collaborative approach that has been taken in getting this outcome.

I share concerns about progress in developing the tools that will replace BSWAT. We need to make sure that they are there for people with an intellectual disability. We will continue to keep a close eye on the process. It is good to see that people will be getting the wages and the back pay they deserve. We strongly support this bill and commended it to the Senate

Senator McLUCAS (Queensland) (13:06): I too want to join this debate on the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. I do so on the back of some comments that were made yesterday in this place, where Senator Fifield, as a former minister with responsibility for this area, implied that it was only he and Senator Siewert who knew anything about the way the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool works. I say to Senator Fifield that I think Senator Moore has quite a bit of experience in dealing with this issue, but, without trying to self-promote, I think I have been around it for a while as well.

I want to join this debate to say that this is the end, hopefully, of a very long story that has its origins back in 2004, when I think it was Senator Patterson who was the Minister for Family and Community Services—and I am not saying I am blaming Senator Patterson by any stretch. There was a need for an assessment tool that would assists the about 20,000 people who work in disability enterprises in our country to ascertain their productivity, so the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool was born. The problem that we made then was that there was an assessment of the productivity of a worker but the one element that was added into that was that the worker had to prove that they themselves understood all of the occupational workplace health and safety requirements of that business workplace. That is the crux of what went wrong then. We have not resolved that, but today we are fixing up what has happened since 2004 to date.

When Mr Nojin and Mr Prior, supported by AED, the legal service in Victoria, took the matter to the Federal Court, initially they were not successful. But on appeal they were successful in making the case that there was discrimination in the way that this tool was employed to ascertain their productivity. In many respects I have a lot of sympathy with the case that was made. In what workplace in Australia is it the responsibility of the worker to prove that they understand the rules about occupational workplace health and safety? In what workplace in Australia is it not the responsibility of the employer to ensure that they have a safe workplace? That is the crux of what the matter was about. When Mr Nojin and Mr Prior won that case, there were implications.

Let us recall what we are talking about when we talk about Australian disability enterprises. Under the former Howard government ministry they were called business services. During that time, it was very hard for these business services to promote themselves. People did not know what they were, but the organisations were then called Australian disability enterprises, which allowed the community to better understand but also allowed those organisations to better promote the services that they offer. They are services that have been around in Australia's disability service system and employment system for a long time, and they are a growing and changing part of the employment system for people with quite severe intellectual and physical disabilities. About 20,000 people work in these places of employment. They range from packing businesses, mowing and garden maintenance. A lot of them run plant nurseries and screen printing. Laundry services are very popular. Food service is a growing area of activity. There are also some very creative business services or Australian disability enterprises in our country, and we can be very proud, in most part, of the work that they are doing across the country. I commend those that have been courageous and gone into the area of arts development. There is a wonderful place called Arts Access Victoria. They are doing amazing things with a tiny little bit of federal government support and supporting far more people than the little bit of funding that the Commonwealth, under both governments, give them.

As I said, it is an industrial instrument. It went to court and then it was beholden of the government back in 2013 to do something about it. At that time we were coming very close to the 2013 election and at that point a holding pattern was put in place to say that our government, as it was at the time, would begin the process of establishing an alternative wage assessment tool that would not offend the Disability Discrimination Act and that we would work with Australian disability enterprises to ensure that there would be some certainty about their ongoing activity.

There is some controversy in the country around the future of Australian disability enterprises, but it is my very strong view that they are very well supported and very desired by almost all of the people who work in these enterprises and their families. They provide a marvellous service for those who wish to work in these businesses, and I personally support them very strongly.

I commend Mr Nojin and Mr Prior for the work that they have done and for the leadership and the strength that they have shown in taking a matter through the court system on behalf of their coworkers. This is no easy task, as we all know, so they have done a great job.

There is another person that we need to commend very, very strongly in this whole process, and that is the former Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Graeme Innes, who assisted in negotiating between the disability sector, the workforce and their families, and government to find a solution to this complex and difficult situation that we all found ourselves in. It does go to show, though, why having a Disability Discrimination Act Commissioner is so essential to ensuring that people with disability in our country do have a voice and, in this case, a voice that can negotiate the very, very complex—historically complex, legally complex and emotionally complex—set of issues that was placed before us all.

This bill has appeared before us on a number of occasions, as senators will recall. But I am very pleased to say that Labor can now support it. We have been trying to negotiate, along with others, to get the government to a point where we have a set of principles that we as a nation can agree are just and fair. It is good to see that the elements of this bill are supported by the workers and their families, Australian disability enterprises themselves and, now, hopefully, the parliament.

I think the significant difference is that this bill increases the one-off payments from 50 per cent to 70 per cent of the difference between the actual wage paid to the eligible person and the amount they would have been paid had the tool productivity-only component been applied. So, if you look at the productivity-only component and remove the element of proving your understanding of the workplace health and safety rules, that is how you can get to an agreement about productivity.

The bill provides a top-up payment for persons who have already received a 50 per cent payment under the BSWAT Payment Scheme. It removes the current compulsory requirement to obtain legal advice before any payments are made. It extends all relevant scheme dates by 12 months. It clarifies certain administrative arrangements and enables a deceased person's legal personal representative to engage with the payment scheme on their behalf. On that basis, Labor can agree to this bill.

I agree with Senator Moore's statements about the impact on the business arrangements of Australian disability enterprises. These are not highly profitable companies. They are organisations for which, if they turn a profit, that is a good year. They work hand-to-mouth. They struggle hard for a regularised business outcome. So any hit to their bottom line is terribly concerning. I do commend to the government a way forward that will ensure their longevity into the future.

Finally, I urge the government to continue to work, but much faster than it could be—this started back in 2013—to find another wage assessment tool that can be registered with the industrial relations commission, does not offend the Disability Discrimination Act and is fair to these 20,000 people who are working in ADEs in our country. Thank you.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for Immigration) (13:18): I thank senators for their contributions and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ) (13:18): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for Immigration) (13:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (13:22): I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island CGT Exemption) Bill 2016. But first I want to look at the Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which ended the island's self-governance in exchange for access to Australian government services and programs, and why that original proposition was put.

Norfolk Island used to have a tax-free regime, which was part of the old British and Australian colonial system. Like the Cayman Islands, where tax rorts can take place, rich people could access a magnificent lifestyle, and, as long as they could pay for their own health, their children's education and get out of the place if they needed to, then everything was okay. But if you are a worker on either the Cayman Islands or Norfolk Island you have a completely different lifestyle. You have no access to a social safety net of any significance, or, in some places, no access to any. You are in an area where the day-to-day costs of living are higher. When something goes wrong for a worker, without access to medical attention and a proper education system, the whole community framework falls apart for that individual. It was okay if you had plenty of money. It was okay if, in the past, you were using Norfolk Island to dodge tax. You were okay, but the ordinary worker had no backup.

There was a long debate leading up to the passage of the Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment Bill where the Norfolk Island elite—if I can put it that way—were in this place lobbying to maintain a position of independence from Australia in various health and education systems and their governance system. When they came to see me I was not convinced that this was an appropriate thing to do. I do not think that their lobbying exercise, which was full-on, convinced anyone in the chamber that this was a good thing.

Some of the more extreme, right-wing members of the coalition would argue that government should only provide defence and a court to look after property rights—the old Hayekian approach to economic policy—but that does not work in practice. Norfolk Island was a clear example of where simply allowing the rich and powerful to have a standard of living that was beyond the wildest dreams of anyone else, but where there was no access to health, education and social services for the rest of the community, does not work in practice. It just shows that the argument that the market will look after everyone is an absolute nonsense. That is why the majority—Labor unanimously—supported this across parliament, and a new, local-government-style council replaced the old governance regime that was in place. The New South Wales government now delivers state based services to Norfolk Island.

A bipartisan report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories entitled Same country: different world—the future of Norfolk Islandfound that infrastructure on the island was run down, the island was indebted to the Commonwealth by approximately $11 million and the federal government had spent tens of millions of dollars keeping the island's government running. It was not feasible that some multimillionaires could live on Norfolk Island and could access medical help by simply jumping on a plane and heading to the Australian mainland, while workers on Norfolk Island had substandard health, substandard education and substandard infrastructure to carry out their day-to-day living. Despite the theoretical views of some in the coalition that the market would fix these problems, it was clear that the market was never going to and that the government had to intervene to resolve them.

The Tax Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island CGT Exemption) Bill 2016 amends the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act to give capital gains tax exempt status to assets held by Norfolk Island residents prior to 24 October 2015. This is akin to the pre-CGT exempt status applied to assets purchased before 20 September 1985, when capital gains tax was introduced into the Australian income tax system. This small amendment remedies concerns raised by Norfolk Island residents about the tax treatment of capital gains in the original legislation, bringing the island into Australia's tax regime. The change will not apply to assets held by Norfolk Island residents who would not have been exempt from CGT before Norfolk Island was fully brought into the Australian income tax system. Assets acquired by Norfolk Island residents on or after 24 October 2015 will be subject to the normal operation of the capital gains tax rules from 1 July 2016.

It is a little ironic that this government is moving to make changes to the capital gains tax rules specific to Norfolk Island while squibbing the much more significant question of Australia's unsustainable settings on the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing. As I think I have said before, I live in the Lower Blue Mountains in New South Wales. I have family who live around the Parramatta area. I have had a look at some of the house prices around Parramatta. In the past, if you were a young couple brought up in the eastern suburbs, or one of the more salubrious suburbs in Sydney, you may have found that, to bring up a family, you had to move out west, as many families do, to get a great lifestyle out in the western suburbs of Sydney. If you wanted to move out there, you could do it and you could actually afford to buy a house to start your family's life in the western suburbs of Sydney, and many people would commute into Sydney to carry out their daily work. But now, if you look at the suburbs surrounding Parramatta, a three-bedroom, tarted-up, ex-housing commission, fibro home costs $905,000. How can any young family afford that?

Part of the problem is that, with many of these houses, the prices are being driven up by property speculators, overseas investors and the white shoe brigade moving in to try to make a profit on capital gains from those homes. That simply means that young families that have used the move to the western suburbs of Sydney to start their married life and to start their families are priced out of the market—priced completely out of the market. If you want a newer, modern home close the Parramatta CBD, you are looking at $1.2 million or $1.3 million in that area. This is just speculation-driven costs.

The difference between Labor and the coalition on this issue is that we do not want to reward the speculators. We want a proposition where young families can actually go to a suburb and go either to a real estate agent to buy direct or to an auction and not be in a position of being totally disadvantaged—where the auction outcome is skewed because of the capital gains tax advantage that speculators have, because of the overseas investors or because of the advantage of negative gearing that people have. We take the view that we want to focus on building new homes in the Sydney basin and around the country. We want to ensure that a young family can actually make a decision and have a vision that they will be able to afford a home in the Sydney basin—from my point of view, coming from Sydney. And this applies, I think, in most other areas around the country and in the big Australian cities. So this is an issue for us. Young Australians need to have hope for the future. People's grandkids and kids need to be able to access housing at a reasonable cost.

We are not arguing that those who are already investing through a negative gearing process would be disadvantaged. We have said we would red circle those investors so that they know where they stand—they would get certainty. There would be no retrospective taxation of those investors. But we want to ensure that those people who are actually battling to get a deposit for a house are not set against investors who are wealthy, the overseas-financed or those in there just to make capital gains over a period of time. The existing scheme gives an unfair advantage to the wealthiest people in the country—an unfair advantage over current homebuyers. So, investors, if you are rich, if you are powerful, if you get plenty of money, you have a significant advantage through negative gearing and capital gains tax gains.

The top 10 per cent of high-income earners receive nearly 70 per cent of all the capital gains tax subsidies. We hear the nonsense from those opposite that these are people who are on $70,000 and $80,000 taxable income. The reason that many of these people are on taxable income is that they are on their seventh, eighth, ninth or 10th—and for some people, scores—investment property, where they are writing their tax down. So when you hear the argument from the government that these are people on $80,000 and that they are just the battlers who are out there trying to get some advantage through the scheme, understand that the figures those opposite quote are the figures that are designed to protect their mates, who put money into their election funds—the big end of town, the white shoe brigade and the foreign investors—at the expense of ordinary Australians who are trying to pick up a house, even in some of the more affordable areas in Sydney.

So we want to make sure that we have a strong and sustainable budget. We do not want to end up like Norfolk Island, where the budget could not provide hospitals, could not provide roads, could not provide schooling and could not provide any social welfare approaches. We do not want to end up like Norfolk Island. But if we take the approach that the coalition takes, that we have to have a small government, then we need to understand what small government means. Small government means that those who can afford to will look after their own private health and their own private education—those who can afford to get around the country with no problem—because they are highly-paid executives. They will be okay.

But when government expends money, predominantly it is spent on those who cannot help themselves. It is about making sure that we have a decent health system, it is about making sure we have a decent education system and is it is about making sure that there is some brake on the inequality that is taking place, not only in this country but all over the world.

What we have done on capital gains tax and on negative gearing will improve the budget bottom line by $32.1 billion over the decade. That means more hospitals, it means more schools and it means more roads. It means the things that ordinary Australians need to carry out their day-to-day lives. If you are rich, it does not matter if the public schools are decaying. So they can argue against Gonski. They can argue against all these issues.

Senator McKenzie: That is actually not the case!

Senator CAMERON: It really is good to hear the National Party actually engage. We have the National Party who, when they go back to the regions, talk out of this side of their mouths but when they are here they talk out of the other side of their mouths. The message they give here is a completely different message to the one they take back to the regions. They simply cave in on all the propositions that the coalition puts up.

Senator McKENZIE: That is not the case! You wish it were the case!

Senator CAMERON: And for Senator McKenzie to be here interjecting—I am happy to take the interjections from Senator McKenzie—

Senator McGrath: Go back to the tarted up fibro homes!

Senator McKenzie: What does 'tarted up' mean?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ): Order! The speaker needs to be heard without interruption!

Senator CAMERON: I can understand why the Liberals and the Nationals are so concerned about the truth coming out here. They talk through one side of their mouths when they are here and they out of the other side of their mouths when they get to the regions. That is if they ever go—

Senator McKenzie: I'll put my diary against yours any day. You wouldn't know that the regions exist!

Senator CAMERON: That is, Senator McKenzie, if they do not go back to their inner-city apartments and never go to the regions! They go to their inner-city apartments in Melbourne and pretend that they are out there, shooting grouse at the weekend with a gun cocked over their shoulders! They are never in the regions! What a joke that is!

Anyway, I take the view, and Labor takes the view, that it is absolutely important that young families get a fair go in this country. That means that we have to stand up for the regions and we have to stand up for rural Australia, something that the Liberal-National Party, or the National Party—whatever they call themselves—are incapable of doing. All they want to do is protect those who give electoral funds to the Liberal and National parties.

This is the problem we have with them: they do not understand. How could the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, ever understand what it is like for a worker to battle? How could he ever understand, in his $50 million mansion overlooking Sydney Harbour? What a joke it is—$50 million! He does not know what it is like to try to buy a house in Parramatta, and he would not care. All he is interested in is his future and no-one else's.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for Immigration) (13:43): I would particularly like to thank the senator for his comments, some of which were relevant to this bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ) (13:43): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for Immigration) (13:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:44): I rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016.

Labor is supporting this legislation as it is essentially the next logical step in the reforms of aged care which, when we were in government, we did all the heavy lifting for when it came to having a forward plan and laying out the foundations for the future direction of aged care in this country. This is consistent with what we envisioned would happen and it was supported by the sector. We consulted widely with them when we were in government and were developing the Living Longer Living Better reforms.

Like those in the aged-care sector, I am pleased to see the government are continuing to roll out our Living Longer Living Better reforms. The bill before us is making further changes to the way we allocate home care packages, and we all know how important it is to ensure that we give older Australians as much support as they need to be able to deliver on them being able to live in their own homes for as long as possible. For them to be able to do that they need to have support, and this is a further step in assisting them. This measure is in the spirit of Labor's Living Longer Living Better reforms. I trust the minister will have accountability and transparency, as well as an independent process for evaluating this rollout. The measure will give the consumers of aged-care services—older Australians, their carers and their families—greater choice and control of the services and support they need to remain as independent as possible within their own homes and, just as importantly, within their own communities. That is what the desired outcome is all about.

Labor supports these measures, but the real test is the government's ability to implement and regulate the changes. We know that over the last 2½ years, since they came to government, those opposite have failed older Australians miserably. They have never had their eye on the ball. When Mr Abbott was elected, he never appointed a minister for ageing. That was completely overlooked. Then we had a change of Prime Minister and, when he announced his ministry, once again ageing and aged care in this country was overlooked. It was an afterthought. Now we have a Minister for Aged Care and aged care has been put back where it should always have been, with the Department of Health.

The unfortunate thing is that, with the good things that we are supporting in this piece of legislation, the government does not demonstrate the sort of respect and support that older Australians deserve. We need to address the ageing of our population. This is not something that is going to go away. This is not a fad. This is not a political opportunity for me to stand up and talk about it. This reality is not only facing Australia; it is international: how do we support our ageing population?

Senator Bilyk, who is behind me, and I represent the state of Tasmania. We have the fastest ageing population in the country, followed by South Australia. In the next five years—in fact, even less than that—we need to see an increase of 5,000 additional people being trained and skilled up to work in the aged-care sector. These are big challenges for us—huge challenges. I hope—I am even praying—that the government will finally see the light and realise that our older Australians deserve to have a minister for ageing. The issues confronting older Australians go right across all departments, whether you are talking about insurance, employment or the support that we want to give people so that they can stay in their own homes, but we also need to look at investment in infrastructure when it comes to residential care. The difference that we are now seeing is that people are fortunate enough to be able stay at home for much longer. They can remain independent for much longer. When people end up going into residential care, their health issues are far more complex and expensive. Therefore, there is a lot more that this government should be doing to support older Australians. Just as importantly, we need to ensure that the sector has support and leadership from the government. We know—because I have spoken about it numerous times in this place—that the government has failed to show any leadership in this area.

The first part of a two-stage plan will change the way home care services are delivered for older Australians. The first stage is addressed in the legislation before us today. It will allocate packages directly to consumers from 27 February 2017. Home care packages would follow the consumer. Consumers—that is, the older person and their family—will be able to choose who their provider is and change their provider if they are not happy with the services that are being provided. The other extremely important aspect of this legislation will ensure that consumers can take the package with them. For instance, if someone in Hobart is receiving a package, has a provider and their partner passes away and they choose to live with their son or daughter interstate, they will be able to take the package with them. That is an excellent step forward. As I said, the change in the legislation has been borne out of the Living Longer Living Better package.

The second stage would integrate the Home Care Packages Program and the Commonwealth Home Support Program into a single Home Care Program from July 2018. This will require additional legislation from whoever forms government after the next election. The legislation will make amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 in three main areas. Firstly, funding for home care packages would follow the consumer rather than the provider. This measure, which, as I outlined before, is transportable to wherever you are living, would remove the Aged Care Approvals Round, ACAR, process for home care packages. The 2015 ACAR saw the final allocations of home care packages to providers. This would remove considerable red tape for aged-care providers, who would no longer be required to make these applications. Providers would be approved as long as they met the accreditation and quality standards.

Secondly, this legislation will create a nationally consistent approach to prioritising access to home care packages through myagedcare. This measure would remove the regional ratios as well, with a prioritisation process to take into account an individual's needs, circumstances and waiting time, regardless of their location. This measure would allow more accurate data on the demand for home care packages which would actually produce some very good data for us to continue to plan. Specifically, it will allow myagedcare to capture how many people are waiting for a package, how long they have been waiting, what part of Australia they reside in and much more meaningful data. The third change is the reduction of red tape for providers to become approved under the Aged Care Act 1997.

The quality standards will remain the same and it is important to reiterate that. The quality standards will remain, but the criteria for assessing suitability will be streamlined. This is a very lengthy process that has been based on key personnel rather than capacity. Providers need to have an allocation of places in order to retain their status as approved providers. The legislation will allow providers to retain their status as long as they meet the quality processes and maintain accreditation.

Labor have always—as we know on this side—led the way on aged-care reform in this country. Some 11½ years ago we had the previous Liberal government of the Howard years, who already knew the issues around aged care and the sort of reform that was needed, but the best that they could come up with was that in 2½ years they had five ministers for aged care, and they still could not consult with the sector and come up with any real reform agendas. It is a bit like what they are suffering from now when they cannot come up with any taxation reforms. They have no idea of how to plan for the economy and how we are going to grow opportunities in this country. We recognise, on this side, the challenges and opportunities that there are in the ageing area. As I have said, there is enormous potential for employment in this area, for people to retrain and re-skill themselves. It is not just us on this side of the chamber telling the government how desperate the situation is and to recruit more people into the workforce, it is the sector telling them. The people out there providing services, providing infrastructure, have been saying to the government—although it has been falling on deaf ears—that they need to have some leadership in how they are going to develop and sustain an extremely high level of skills when it comes to the aged-care workforce. Once again, this is a workforce that is predominantly women. Some of the lowest paid workers in this country always seems be women. It is always women, whether you go to the retail sector, whether you go to aged-care sector, or whether you go to the disability sector.

This government has the opportunity to do something that can have a real impact. But it has taken this government 547 days to deliver a stock take of government funded, aged-care workforce initiatives which were intended to inform the development of an aged-care workforce strategy. We have still seen no sign of that at all. So those on the opposite side of the chamber, and the responsible minister, have failed yet again to listen to the sector. Shame on those opposite, shame on this government.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:56): I will keep my contribution on this short because I realise that we can run out of time very quickly. The Greens support this bill. We recognise this is another step in the process of reforming aged care and the Living Longer Living Better program. I note that we are supporting this bill as non-controversial because it has the support of the key stakeholders, consumers and providers, therefore we think it is worthy of support. The implementation of this is in the guts of what comes next, and we will be watching that very closely.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for Immigration) (13:57): I thank senators for their comments and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The PRESIDENT (13:58): As there have been no amendments to the bill circulated, unless any senator wishes to have a committee stage, I intend to call the minister for the third reading.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for Immigration) (13:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Special Minister of State) (13:58): I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning electoral law changes and Senate voting and seek leave to make a brief statement of less than two minutes.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for two minutes.

Senator CORMANN: Shortly after 4.25 pm yesterday the Senate agreed to an opposition motion that ordered the production of documents relating to electoral law changes, but that motion ordered that documents be tabled no later than 9.30 am this morning. Labor senators have questioned, today, why the documents sought were not tabled by the designated time. Senator Ryan explained that officials have been working without delay to search for any documents potentially covered by the order and he informed the Senate that the response would be tabled as soon as possible today, which I have now done.

This afternoon, at 12.17, the Senate also agreed to a motion that ordered the production of documents recording the agreement between the government and the Australian Greens relating to changes to Senate voting. This order required the documents be tabled no later than 2.00 pm today. There are no such documents recording such an agreement. I have now tabled my response to both orders, which includes those documents relevant to the first of those orders.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:37): by leave—I thank Senator Cormann for tabling, in part, some of what he ought to have tabled earlier. In the ordinary course of events, we would seek leave to take note of the documents. Given that it is question time, I have discussed with Senator Cormann that we will seek leave on the next day of sitting. He asked me to give an indication that any such taking note would not take longer than half an hour, and I give that undertaking. If we could have some cooperation on the next occasion, we would appreciate it.