The PRESIDENT (09:31): Does any senator wish to have that motion put? There is none.

Senator MUIR (Victoria) (09:54): Due to the confusion in the Senate in the lead-up to this sitting period there was uncertainty as to whether the Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) Bill 2016 was going to have an opportunity to be debated, so I would like to thank the chamber, and of course my parliamentary colleagues, for the opportunity to present my second reading speech today. Some would ask, why would the representative of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party be debating a bill in relation to type 1 diabetes? Well, the party may have a single-issue name, but we are all too aware that this position—my role—comes with a responsibility to all Australians. This is an important issue, and I am proud to be the one to bring it front and centre in parliament and for it to be debated, hopefully quite thoroughly.

Type 1 diabetes directly affects over 120,000 people in Australia alone, some of whom work right here in Parliament House. Type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune condition, is a non-choice disease that lasts for life. The Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) Bill 2016 will ease the impact of diabetes on individuals who are affected by the disease. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Social Security Act 1991 to give individuals with a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes access to the required medication and peripheral devices that the disease imposes upon them, 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 can create a significant financial and emotional burden for patients, their family and the community. Differing social statuses can result in an unintended disregard for an individual's care plan, leading to a higher risk of complications that require hospital admissions. As a result, it can impose a significant burden on the taxpayer.

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-diagnosis admittance is equal to expenditure on blood-glucose-lowering medications. This level of hospital admittance is a completely unnecessary burden on the taxpayer which could potentially be reduced should this bill be supported. This bill ensures that access to medication and peripheral devices that are required by individuals with a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes are accessible regardless of socioeconomic status.

I was approached by Dr Peter Goss of the Gippsland Paediatrics diabetes unit in Sale, in my electorate of Victoria, in October 2014. Dr Goss requested that I advocate for the age group of 18- to 25-year-olds with type 1 diabetes. At the time, he cited that this group has the highest rate of death from 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 of type 1 diabetes and death is between ages 16 and 25 years. Currently a child with type 1 diabetes often loses their Health Care Card at 16 years, which imposes a significant financial burden on the person with type 1 diabetes as they enter their most vulnerable period of life. There is also anecdotal evidence that young people are 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 imposes significant health and financial burdens on not only the individual but also the community. Given that type I 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 to make available to all those at risk a healthcare card to assist sufferers of type 1 diabetes in accessing the medical and peripheral devices required.

On 20 August 2015, I moved a motion in the Senate in relation to type 1 diabetes. The text was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus is an autoimmune (not lifestyle) condition which affects 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 affecting children in Australia, and

(iv) Type 1 Diabetes creates a significant financial and emotional burden for its patients, families 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 publicly released on 13 November 2015.

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 the 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

increase recognition of patient needs across the continuum of care.

More specifically, goal 3 of the Australian National Diabetes Strategy 2016-2020 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 …

Provide high-quality hospital care.

Many of these potential areas for action can be addressed directly and indirectly through support for this bill. More specifically, optimal diabetes care for children or adolescents in school is crucial to achieve the best possible diabetes control and to prevent any present or future risk 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 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 the 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 or cured. Type 1 diabetes creates a significant financial and emotional burden for patients, families 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.

I would also like to take this opportunity to inform the Senate that, since I introduced the Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) Bill 2016, I have received copious amounts of correspondence and support. It is moving that so many people have taken this opportunity to reach out to me, sharing their personal accounts of the highs and lows associated with the burden that comes with being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. These often saddening accounts have come not only from individuals who have been diagnosed but also from their loved ones: the parents who have to care for their child knowing that every decision they make will affect the future health of the life they created; the brothers and sisters who have to accept a feeling of helplessness when their sibling may not have the same support and health care as themselves for a disease which is not their fault; the extended family members and friends who can do nothing but sit back and watch loved ones doing all they can in an often disheartening battle.

I would like to share a couple of these messages from individuals who have made contact with me. Kyla sent to me on Tuesday, 8 March:

Dear Mr Muir

Thank you so much for addressing this vitally important issue.

My son was diagnosed with this horrific chronic disease a week after his second birthday. It has changed our life in every conceivable way.

There are of course the numerous finger pricks, insulin injections, set changes; the weighing and calculating of every gram of carbohydrate, fat and protein of every mouthful of food that passes his lips; the never ending night checks and constant zombie state of sustained sleep deprivation; and the unending worrying about how every bit of exercise or play or even a common cold will effect his blood sugars. There's the largely unspoken detrimental effects on partnerships and family relationships, the constant stress and fear of your child not waking up alive and the fear of every day childhood occasions like birthdays, sleepovers, and even just being away from you at school.

There is also a huge financial burden - even with a health care card.

… and all of this is just from a parents point of view.

My little boy will have to deal with this for the rest of his life. There is no way that this disease was his fault. As you know Type 1 Diabetes is not caused by eating too much sugar or not exercising enough. This is a life threatening autoimmune disease. He will have so much to deal with every hour of every day forever, and that's not counting any of the other everyday stuff.

Please, please, at least continue to allow him, and every other person with Type 1 Diabetes, fight this ongoing battle with the subsidised medical necessities they need throughout their lives.

Yours in hope

Kyla

Juanita sent to me on Wednesday, 9 March:

I'd like to see ALL Type 1 Diabetics be included in this Bill. As a Type 1 Diabetic, the costs associated with this disease are high. It becomes a financial juggling act with the questions 'do I buy diabetes medication and peripherals or do I buy food' this week? The costs associated with Type 1 Diabetes are often subsidised, however, even with these subsides it is expensive and often we have to 'go without' necessary medications/insulin, test strips and other peripherals, simply because we cannot afford them. My council, has taken away all public sharps containers, it now costs $22 for every 2.5kg container $7.50 per container as well, so, that's around $30 per disposal. Add to that the cost of test strips, machines, insulins etc each week and that's before you even think about buying 'healthy' foods, such as fresh produce. We, as Type 1 Diabetics, get 5 free visits per year from the government, however, with Diabetes Educator, Dietitian, Exercise Physiologist, Podiatrist and Optometrists visits, that's just one visit each per year and I've have several visits alone, just with the Diabetes Educator in these last few months. That means no Dietitian, Podiatrist, Optometrist or Exercise Physiologists for me for another year and if I need to see my Diabetes Educator again, it will cost me around $70 per visit. I can't afford that. Type 1 Diabetes, is not a lifestyle disease, it's not something I brought on myself and it's hard enough to live with, without the costs associated with trying to maintain it to it's optimum level. It ends up being a choice between 'do I want to keep my blood sugars under control? Or do I want to eat this week?' Each week, I have to decide which Diabetes product I need the most, test strips? Or Insulin? Glycogen? Glucose? Hypo snacks? If I had a Health Care Card, I could afford to do what I'm supposed to do, with medications, etc and thereby, easing the burden on the health care system in the future. Unless there are changes to all health care cards, I'm a statistic waiting to happen, will it be Kidney failure and Dialysis? Or perhaps, Heart disease? Amputation of limbs? The list goes on. Give ALL TYPE 1 DIABETICS a permanent health care card. It will be cheaper in the long term!

Juanita

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Not one individual's situation is the same as another's. A doctor cannot simply look at an individual diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and say, 'Okay, you have diabetes; take this medication.' The healthcare plan required by each and every person diagnosed with type 1 diabetes is individually tailored to them by a team of healthcare professionals, including but not limited to endocrinologists, diabetes educators and dieticians.

I would also like to address some questions I have received from individuals in relation to my introduction of this bill. As mentioned earlier in my second reading speech, this healthcare card would only be applicable to individuals who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. This is due to the fact that type 1 diabetes is a non-lifestyle disease. There is no prevention for type 1 diabetes. There is no cure for type 1 diabetes. Unlike other forms of diabetes, there is no alternative to insulin injections for life for the individuals who fall into this category. As a nation we need to be looking at preventative health. Assisting individuals diagnosed with type 1 diabetes to maintain optimal health could significantly reduce future health costs associated with disabilities derived from diabetes related complications.

If there is the opportunity to ease the emotional and financial burden on individuals and families affected by type 1 diabetes, why would it not be considered? If there is the opportunity to make diabetes control more accessible to people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, preventing permanent damage, why would it not be considered? This is the first step in a preventative health approach, setting a positive precedent for the future of Australian health.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (10:12): I rise to make a contribution on Senator Muir's bill on diabetes—the Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) Bill 2016—and the topic of concession cards. I would like to talk a little bit about diabetes up-front—particularly for South Australia because it is a significant burden for individuals there. We actually have the highest rate of diabetes in Australia. I would also like to talk a little bit about the current process of how the government provides support to people who are suffering with diabetes. Lastly, I will talk a little about concession cards.

The framework of my points on this is that concession cards are something that the government targets to people on the basis of means and not on the basis of a condition. We have traditionally provided support for people with a medical condition to make those treatments affordable and sustainable. There are areas in that where I concur with Senator Muir that there are perhaps improvements to be made, but I would argue that it is within the established system that we need to extend those improvements, rather than crossing purposes, if you like, with a system that is designed to support people on the basis of income as opposed to their condition.

As I said, South Australia has the highest prevalence of diabetes of all Australian states and territories. The last quantitative report, of 30 June 2015, showed that 1.17 million Australians, some 4.9 per cent of the population, suffer with diabetes. In South Australia that rate is at 5.8 per cent, which means that over 98,000 people in South Australia are suffering with diabetes. The rate of diagnosis is estimated to be around 600 people every month in South Australia. That is approximately 20 people every day in South Australia who are diagnosed with diabetes.

It is Australia's fastest-growing chronic condition and it leads to quite serious complications, the consequences of which can include heart attacks, stroke, blindness, kidney damage and foot ulcers that in far too many cases lead to amputation. So it is a serious issue that we need to understand and manage and then, where we cannot manage pre-emptively and help people to avoid it—as Senator Muir has pointed out, type 1 is not necessarily something that you can avoid—then we need to make sure that people can adequately obtain the services, medications and items they need to live with the condition.

Part of managing and understanding is actually monitoring and looking at trends. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare there is actually no measurement data for monitoring trends in diabetes prevalence at the moment. There is a great deal based on self report, but even the self-reporting has doubled from around 1½ per cent in the early 1990s to around 4.2 per cent in 2011-12. As I said, now the national rate is some 4.9 per cent.

There are a few reasons for that. One is that with an increased awareness of diabetes, people are seeking diagnosis and then reporting for that. Also, with increased and improved management people are living longer and therefore there is a greater period where people who have diabetes are part of the population. But that does not mask the fact that this is, across both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, a growing problem in Australia that we do need to manage.

We need to manage it from two perspectives. Clearly, one is the impact on the individual and their family. As Senator Muir has pointed out—particularly from the letters from constituents that he has received—it does have a significant impact on the individual's lifestyle and on their family or carers. This is particularly where we see the incidence of things like overnight monitoring. We have had a young lady, tragically, pass away in Australia just recently because of the fact that her blood sugars dropped dramatically overnight and that was not picked up. So it does have a significant impact on people's lifestyles.

The other aspect that we need to address, though, is that the consequential costs to Australian society and to our economy are large in terms of the treatment that is required. In some cases—for example, post-amputation, if people lose a foot or more due to diabetes—the ongoing rehabilitation and care, prostheses and other services for those people are dramatic costs that our country can ill afford. So there are a couple of significant reasons why we should seek to manage and provide support for diabetes in the best possible way.

The other point I just want to raise on this is that if we look at diabetes as a whole, our Indigenous population actually has a substantially higher rate of diabetes than other Australians. If you look at the hospitalisation rates for both diabetes and renal diseases, it is some eight times higher for Indigenous people than for other Australians. And so this is something that we need to be very proactive about in our preventative and management work for people in those communities.

In South Australia, for example, one of the measures that the South Australian health department reports is that over a five-year period there were some 63,300 hospitalisations as a result of diabetes. Type 2 was the principal secondary diagnosis in many, but there were also 12,671 hospitalisations with type 1 diabetes being listed as the principal secondary diagnosis. Mortality attributed to diabetes has not changed significantly but it is a significant number, with an average of 280 deaths reported—106 of these over a five-year period attributed directly to type 2 diabetes and another 31 attributed to type 1 diabetes. A further 144 deaths were attributed to diabetes, but the records did not show whether it was for type 1 or type 2. Clearly, there is a significant impact on people and their families through this disease.

So what does the government do at the moment? I come here specifically to type 1 diabetes. Under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme we supply and support subsidised medicines. We also supply diabetes products through the National Diabetes Services Scheme, or the NDSS. Over the past five years there has been $1 billion supplied by the government into the NDSS to meet these support needs.

In 2014-15, expenditure on medicines for diabetes through the PBS was $526 million. That was for things such as insulin. Expenditure on products supplied through the NDSS was $185 million. That is on top of the $35 million that was provided to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation—the Australian Type 1 Diabetes Clinical Research Network—to help find a cure and to provide support and education for people suffering from this.

So the current agreement for the National Diabetes Services Scheme has been running since 1987. As I said, over the last five years that has had approximately $1 billion. That agreement is coming to an end during this year. That does not mean the funding is coming to an end; it means the agreement for the current service provision is. One of the changes that we are looking at there, which I think needs to be accelerated, is just like under the PBS, where providers can come to the government and say, 'We have a product that we wish to see listed,' and there is an independent body which assesses the efficacy of that product and the difference it will make in people's lives. I think we need the same kind of system in the diabetes space so that where we see, particularly, young people who have that very intensive daily routine, and there are certain technologies that can help them to manage that more proactively, that people could put forward their case to an independent body and say, 'This is why an investment in this technology, subsidised and provided to sufferers of type 1 diabetes, will be a saving to the government in the long run'. We could see that kind of support provided.

I come back again, Senator Muir, to the point that the way our system works is that we provide support through these kinds of schemes to people with a condition, as opposed to giving them a card for the condition. As we look at renewing the agreement the funding will continue; it is an uncapped scheme. I think it is important to note that it is uncapped funding for the NDSS. But as we change the agreement we need to look at that opportunity and ask, 'What are the other measures, technologies, services or support that would deliver long-term savings that we can bring into this scheme?'

The scheme is available to anyone who is a resident of Australia and has been diagnosed with diabetes. It is free and the products that are subsidised currently includes syringes and needles, blood glucose test strips, urine ketone test strips, insulin pump consumables et cetera. All of these are designed to help people to self-manage their condition in an affordable manner. There are also new services being developed through the National Development Programs which are targeted priority areas such as Indigenous health. I would like to see that independent body associated with the NDSS so that we can see the specific programs and products provided to people who need them.

The other program that is funded by the federal government is the Insulin Pump Program. That provides a means tested subsidy for insulin pumps and associated consumables for people under the age of 18 with type 1 diabetes. Again, the means testing in these programs is a way to address the concerns raised by Senator Muir, where those who can afford to pay for the service with some subsidy do so, but for those who do not have the means, the means testing is there so that this enhanced subsidy is available for them. The program is designed to increase the affordability of the insulin pumps for families, who do not have access to other means for reimbursement such as private health insurance. Subsidies are available for families with an annual income of up to $101,000 and that is indexed each year. There is an attempt there to address the point Senator Muir was talking about in terms of making sure those on a lower incomes do have access to subsidised services.

It is an area where, again, if you look at the cost of not managing diabetes, perhaps that program and those subsidies should be enhanced and I would certainly support consideration of that. But I think that is the mechanism to do it rather than a concession card, which is not something we do in our current system. Concession cards are provided to people on the basis of their income not on the basis of a condition.

The framework within which we can take some of these conversations forward is the Australian National Diabetes Strategy, which is over the period of 2016 to 2020. That was launched in November last year. It is a strategy that aims to have goals and areas for actions that cross different levels of government. It is important to realise that this does cross levels of government. It also includes private practice, it includes research and it includes not-for-profit groups who provide training and support for people with diabetes. All of those efforts need to be keyed up for this to work well.

The Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council has undertaken to develop an implementation plan for the strategy and, as always, strategies are not worth the paper they are written on if they just sit on a shelf. There needs to be an effective implementation plan that crosses all of those areas.

The Department of Health is also looking beyond diabetes to develop a National Strategic Framework for Chronic Conditions to update how we approach support for people suffering from chronic conditions in Australia. That was to provide an overarching policy framework for national and state based strategies. That will include disease specific strategies such as the Australian National Diabetes Strategy.

It is important that we do get alignment in terms of our approach to all chronic diseases because as bad as diabetes is it is only one of a number of diseases that are chronic and affect people long-term. We owe it to the people of Australia to provide the level of good governance that can see us working collaboratively not only on a bipartisan basis here but also across state and federal boundaries to make sure we have a coherent approach to providing affordable and effective care to people. To do that the cross-jurisdictional working group has been established, and that is officials from each state and territory and federal department. The key deliverable they have set for this year is the final implementation plan, which will identify short, medium and long-term goals.

Prevention is also important. Again, for type I diabetes specifically this is perhaps not as applicable, but the prevention and management of chronic conditions is important. The Primary Health Care Advisory Group is looking at ways to get better prevention and connection between primary health care and hospital care. The Medicare Schedule Benefits Review Taskforce is looking to consider how services can be aligned with contemporary clinical practice to improve health outcomes for patients. The National Strategic Framework For Chronic Conditions is being developed to give an overarching framework.

The kinds of areas where these reviews could be of benefit are, for example, the Podiatry Association have come to me in the past seeking support for some of the work that they are doing where they have looked at the fact that there are some 10,000 hospital admissions nationally due to diabetes related foot ulcerations and in excess of 4,300 amputations every year due to diabetes. Each of the amputations alone costs the Australian healthcare system some $26,700, not to mention the after-care costs in terms of rehabilitation, prostheses and support for the person who has lost one or more feet.

Best practice research by the podiatrists indicates that improving access to podiatry services for patients with foot complications from diabetes can prevent future hospitalisations and amputations, which would well and truly recoup the cost of the services of the diabetes compared to the costs of the amputation and the follow-up support. Cost savings in the implementation of best practice research were estimated in 2012 of being in the order of $397 million annually. Whilst the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review sounds like something that is just another process, one of the letters that Senator Muir referred to referred to a lady who said there are only five services available—one visit to the podiatrist a year. However, it is this kind of review that has the potential to look at the cost burden of not providing these services and to put in place affordable access for people for those allied health services they need to better manage their health condition so that not only does the individual stay healthier but the economy overall has a better outcome in terms of a lower cost of providing the preventive care.

Even with type 1 diabetes, there are consequential effects so that, if we are more proactive and effective in our preventative measures—whilst we cannot change the fact that people have type 1 diabetes—we can pre-emptively put in place measures that will improve the quality of life for the individual, improve the quality of life for those who are caring for them as well has having long-term positive outcomes for our economy.

The contribution I have made to this bill, Senator Muir, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams, recognises the significant burden, as I say, in South Australia, where we are particularly affected in terms of not only our total population but also our Indigenous population. I support your call for affordable services for people to make sure they get the care that the need.

My contention is that the concession cards that the Commonwealth government gives out—such as the pensioner concession card, the health care concession card and the Commonwealth seniors health card—are more around people's financial positions as opposed to a specific condition. We already have schemes in place—whether it is the Medicare scheme and specific strategies such as the NDSS—to provide support to people with particular conditions. My advocacy has been in the past and continues to be that it is through those schemes and processes such as the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review that we need to be pushing for enhancements to see sufficient access to the right services that will make a difference to people—whether they are affected type 1, type 2 diabetes or other chronic conditions—that will not only improve their quality of life but from the taxpayers' and community's perspective deliver longer-term savings to the government.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory) (10:32): I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) Bill 2016 this morning. This bill will amend the Social Security Act 1991 to automatically issue a healthcare card to all Australians with type 1 diabetes and people with dependent children who have type 1 diabetes.

It would entitle those cardholders to diabetes services, including medical and allied health consultations and goods—for example, to administer insulin—regardless of their income. It would entitle those cardholders to other healthcare card benefits below certain income thresholds—$88,000 for singles and $176,000 for couples—and make other technical changes related to residency compliance penalties and indexation. This bill itself does not provide the funding for the increased expenditure associated with these additional benefits.

The issue in this bill raised by Senator Muir is a valid one. There is no doubt that people with ongoing health conditions have additional cost burdens placed on them to manage those chronic and ongoing health conditions. When we look at the statistics across the country, more broadly, around chronic disease, of which diabetes is one, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates that one in five Australians is affected by multiple chronic diseases. The leading one of course is cardiovascular disease: one in five. In cancer, it is one in two men over 85 or one in three women over 85. One in 10 Australians have chronic kidney disease. One in 19 Australians have diabetes. One in five are affected by mental health. One in four Australians have musculoskeletal conditions. In oral health, for example—something that not many people focus on in the area of chronic disease but it is a very important one—three in 10 adults suffer from teeth decay. Then there are the very large numbers of people who have asthma—one in 10—or other respiratory contributions, for example, COPD: one in 42 Australians.

There is no doubt for anyone who is interested in health care or understands the healthcare system that managing the ongoing human and economic costs of those chronic diseases is one of, if not, the biggest challenges facing the health system in the future. It is right up there.

The cost to the community is not only large in terms of expenditure from budgets and revenue raised through tax; it is also the economic cost of people not being able to work or having long periods of time where the management of their health condition is unstable. If you approach this bill from that point of view, the arguments that Senator Muir put forward are well understood and have merit.

I also think in relation to type 1 diabetes, particularly, its onset is often between the ages of 10 and 14. The human cost of managing a child who suddenly has a lifelong condition and the additional expenditure that comes with it are very difficult things for families to manage.

The information that the ABS and the AIHW collects shows us that the rate of type 1 diabetes in Australia is remaining stable but it is still not an insignificant number of people: in 2013, there were 2,300 with 23 new cases of type 1 diabetes in Australia, which equals 11 cases per 100,000 population. The incidence rate for type 1 diabetes is higher in males than females. It peaked at age 10 to 14, where 33 per 100,000 population were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. More than half of all new cases of type 1 diabetes were in young people under the age of 18.

When you look over the long term, from 2000 to 2013 there were 31,895 cases of type 1 diabetes diagnosed. This was around 2,300 new cases of type 1 diabetes each year, or six new cases a day. That incidence rate has remained stable over the last 13 years. That puts us in contrast with other countries that are seeing increases in the incident rate of type 1 diabetes. That is not being seen in Australia. One other interesting issue is the low rate of type 1 diabetes in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which is in stark contrast obviously to the rate of type 2 diabetes for those population groups.

There is no doubt that type 1 diabetes is an enormous burden on both individuals and the community. Those who have the condition require lifelong health management. It has associated health problems—in some cases disability and in other cases it certainly affects quality of life and can lead to premature death, particularly if it is not managed well in the primary healthcare system. The Incidence of type 1 diabetes in Australia says that the financial burden of type 1 diabetes is estimated to be $517 million annually. The incidence rate of type 1 diabetes amongst children and young people in Australia is relatively high when compared to other countries. Australia is in the top 10 countries in the world even though, as I have previously commented, this rate has remained stable over the last 10 to 15 years.

More broadly—and again the health economists can easily pull numbers together on what the direct and indirect health costs are—back in 2008-09 direct health costs to manage chronic disease in Australia were estimated to be about 36 per cent of all health expenditure. I would expect that, as that data is quite old, that percentage rate would have increased slightly with the huge growth we are seeing in the number of Australians experiencing and living with chronic disease. Of course, then there are the indirect costs associated with those conditions.

There is no doubt that the health costs associated with chronic disease management more broadly in Australia are a massive challenge for governments and parliaments when considering legislation that seeks to extend or increase the amount of support that is provided. Certainly in the states and territories the expenditure on health, mainly through the hospital system, is eating up increasingly large areas of their revenue base. Anywhere from 30 to 35 per cent—heading to 40 per cent pretty quickly—is being spent on health care. Whilst we have seen some reductions in the growth rate that the Commonwealth is prepared to fund, there is still a large amount of expenditure going into health from the Commonwealth as well. We would argue that the decisions around cutting back on the growth rate to hospitals in particular, the cuts that have been made, are making it increasingly difficult for people with chronic illness to manage their condition, as are the cuts that have been flagged and imposed in the primary healthcare system.

From a health point of view one of the great things about Australia is Medicare. Labor designed the Medicare system, and we will protect it as a priority. Medicare makes sure that health services are available to all people. Wherever you are in Australia you are able to access top-quality health care if you need to. That is a fundamental principle that underpins Medicare and it is why Labor will fight so hard to ensure that Medicare is protected. The minute you start tinkering with that we start walking away from that principle.

We also believe that people, particularly those on low incomes, must be able to afford the costs associated with accessing health care. That goes to some of the entitlements that are received through access to a healthcare card. That is targeted to income and access to that healthcare card does not specifically give additional entitlements for particular health conditions. The main focus must be that any decision government makes to provide financial support for people with ongoing health conditions must be targeted to those who need it and to all who need it. That is why the cuts to bulk-billing, the freezing of the indexation rates for GPs, the pathology changes and the pathology cuts are so critical in this space. They will mean that people, particularly those with chronic health conditions like diabetes, will end up having to pay a lot more money.

It is not just about meeting the costs or improving on the costs that they are currently experiencing; it is the fact that some of the changes being proposed, whether it be through the MYEFO or for decisions already taken, will mean that people with diabetes, for example, could be hundreds of dollars every year out of pocket for the cost of actually staying well—that is, going in for monitoring, for blood tests, for urine tests or for checking on the function of their kidneys. All of those tests that people who have diabetes must have to manage and keep their diabetes stable will potentially now cost a lot more money. Labor has been resisting and arguing against precisely that because: first, it will mean people who have already got additional health costs will have to pay more; and, second, it will potentially reduce the availability of those services to people who need it. There are enough service providers in the pathology industry saying that that will be the result.

Also, if those tests are not done and if people do not keep on top of the management of their diabetes in the community then they will end up in hospital. When they end up in hospital, the costs associated with that care are much greater. We would argue that this is a very short sighted save the government is proposing because it will provide a disincentive for people to actually proactively manage their disease well so that they do not end up in hospital. Once they enter hospital, there is a whole range of human costs and financial costs associated with that.

Listening to the debate this morning, the other issue that comes up from time to time is whether some particular diseases and illnesses should be treated preferentially to others—it is not an easy discussion—because some diseases and illnesses are the result of lifestyle factors and others cannot be helped at all; therefore because an individual did not, in a sense, bring it upon themselves, the entitlement to access financial supports may be greater. I think that is a very difficult argument to resolve because when you look at the expenditure in health care, an amount of it no doubt is expended because of choices individuals make about their lifestyles. There is obviously a whole range where that is not relevant but I think one of the fundamental strengths of a universal healthcare system is that there is not judgement attached to the particular illness that may require you to access health services. It is a pretty slippery slope that will act as a disincentive for people to seek treatment, to seek support. For the greater good of the community, we need to have those options available to people.

Whilst I completely understand and sympathise with families who are having to manage some of these costs, I think it is worthy of review. It is worthy of further examination across the board as to whether the current arrangements are adequate. Some would argue that the MBS review will allow that broader examination. I know that there are various health groups that have provided input into the adequacy of the current arrangements but I think that is probably a broader debate than we can pursue in relation to this bill.

I think the main focus for us as politicians who are interested in the future of the Australian healthcare system should be to ensure that we protect the fundamental principles of the healthcare system, which is Medicare for a start. It is appropriate to fund the primary healthcare system, the hospital system, the exit points from the healthcare system and to make sure that those who are unable to afford care still have access to top-rate, first-class, international quality health care. If you accept that those are the criteria for which you plan and fund your healthcare system then the flow down from that will benefit people who have ongoing chronic and lasting health conditions. There is no doubt if we can better manage people in the primary care system, if we are able to put the focus on preventative health care—and that will not affect people with type I diabetes; I accept that—and if we can lessen the burden of disease in other lifelong and chronic health conditions then resources will be freed up to plug into other areas of demand within the healthcare system.

The healthcare system is going under such huge transformative change at the moment that the opportunities to reallocate should be real. The government has not helped here with the cuts to the Preventative Health Agency or with the cuts to the National Partnership on Preventative Health, which go precisely to that point. Early investment in this area will actually deliver long-term benefits if we are able to stop the amount of escalating cardiovascular disease, respiratory illnesses and mental health conditions. If the investment goes in early, the benefits are there for all of the community including for those who have ongoing health conditions that cannot be addressed by a change of lifestyle.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:52): It is with pleasure that I rise to contribute to the debate on the Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) Bill 2016. Issues around diabetes are very dear to my heart. It is an issue that I have worked on extensively in this chamber, particularly as diabetes relates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, because we know that they are disproportionately affected by some of the end-stage kidney diseases that are related to diabetes. I am also very passionate about issues for young people with juvenile diabetes. It is an issue that we all need to be paying attention to. The fact that this bill is being debated will highlight the issue extensively and I do congratulate Senator Muir taking up this issue. This debate helps to bring this very important issue to national attention and to the attention of the government so that they know there is a lot of public pressure and commitment from many of us in this chamber to addressing this issue. We know diabetes is recognised as a national health priority due to its significant contribution to the burden of chronic illness in this country. It is a very significant chronic illness and it is a significant contributor.

Australia has, unfortunately, one of the highest rates in the world of type 1 diabetes, with over 130,000 Australians living with its effects. It is the fastest growing chronic disease in Australian children. There is much that can be done in the management of type 1 diabetes that would prevent serious consequences from progression of the illness and there are new techniques that can help to avoid hospitalisation and debilitating or even life-threatening events. Those developments are there in part because of the ongoing advocacy on this issue. Many of these management approaches and technologies would relieve the considerable stress on people with diabetes and their families and save money in the acute aspects of the budget. As with most things in health, prevention, early intervention and good management is better all round for patients, for their families and for the health system.

Senator Muir's bill would provide an automatically issued health care card to those who suffer from diabetes mellitus—I usually just refer to it as diabetes type 1, its common name—who meet a means test of up to $176,000 for a member of a couple or $88,000 from an individual. This bill cannot appropriate funds, as we know the issues around that in the Senate—to actually make a payment an appropriation is needed. The bill would introduce an anomaly into concession card arrangements providing concessions for those with a specific health condition. While we congratulate Senator Muir for picking up this issue, we think there are some issues around this particular mechanism. I know that we do need a mechanism, but it is a different approach to the way that we make arrangements for concession card arrangements. The card would also be anomalous, in that it would entitle holders only to concessions relating to diabetes treatment, management and for those who only qualify through HHS under the proposed conditions. It is unclear how this would apply in the case of the Medicare safety net concession thresholds—for example: would the concession thresholds apply only to diabetes related services? I understand very clearly—and I am sure many of us do—the predicament of advocates for people with type 1 diabetes, who are keen to see more support from government, and we share that very strongly. They, obviously, would see the bill as a way of doing this. I know of the work of the Danii Foundation, which was set-up in the name of Danii Meads Barlow, who tragically lost her life to type 1 diabetes at the very young age of 17. Having done a lot of work in this area, I also know of other young people who have lost their lives at a very early age to type I diabetes. I am aware of the Danii Foundation's submission seeking a program to subsidise 4,000 continuous glucose monitor sensors for high-risk children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes who have impaired awareness of the warning symptoms of severe hypoglycaemia, yet can be protected from seizure, coma and potential death through these CGM sensors—hence their importance.

I also believe they would be happy with other strategies such as funding through the National Diabetes Services Scheme—known as the NDSS. I understand that Minister Ley's office is looking at whether they can add new devices to the NDSS, but, as usual, they are under financial pressure. Of course, we believe that we need to be putting more effort into making sure that people have access to this vital equipment.

Much like the rest of the world, Australia's health system is facing rising costs and uneven quality. The system is also facing rising public expectations for new treatments and technologies to be made available as they come to our attention. The health system adopts these technologies, but the bureaucracy of the health system has been slow to figure out ways in which they can respond to these new technologies and to funding for these new technologies advancements. There is a relentless public debate about the state of the government's finances. The debate shifts from fiscal crisis to a crisis in growth or productivity at the government's political convenience. So we have this conundrum of rising health costs, a pipeline of innovation, rising expectations, growing inequality and a paralysis on revenue generation. The Greens believe that health spending is a reflection of our values. It is a choice. It should not be seen as a drag on our economy. Better health outcomes are good for labour force participation, for productivity, for families and, of course, for our wellbeing. We know from the now extensive literature on the social determinants of health that poor health outcomes do have a significant impact and we know that inequality has an impact on our health.

The Greens have the courage and the vision to see that we need to spend more on our health rather than spending less. We have a suite of tax reform measures that will generate additional revenue, that do this in a fair way and that direct investment towards more productive areas of the economy and, in doing so, enable us to make better choices about how to use our collective wealth. Just this morning we released costings from the Parliamentary Budget Office that show we can raise an additional $4.1 billion over the forward estimates from making the deficit levy permanent and introducing a new marginal tax rate for the people who earn over a million dollars a year. That kind of money can help to pay for vital health care, education and infrastructure. These are choices that the government could be making.

I am not saying that there is no need for improvements in our health funding. We can always be more efficient, and we should target our spending better. We are a wealthy country and we can afford to deliver better quality health care for all. But we are concerned that this bill, which would amend the Social Security Act, is rather clunky. It creates a precedent for a single health issue but does not actually appropriate funds to cover costs, and for this reason we have some serious concerns about the bill. I also work in a number of other areas that address issues round health. This bill deals with a single health issue. Do we start addressing this issue by making the same sort of concession for each particular health issue and chronic condition? I have just articulated some other ways that we could be addressing this issue, because we are very committed to making sure that we are helping those with type 1 diabetes. There is some concern about this amendment to the Social Security Act. Being the spokesperson on social services for the Greens, I am very aware of the overall clunkiness of this legislation and the extreme complexity of the act.

People have raised with me their concerns about the cuts to health which will result in people having to pay for certain pathology tests and other procedures. I have, quite frankly, lost count of the number of emails that I received. They number into the thousands, and I am sure all my colleagues are getting the same sorts of emails. People are deeply concerned. In fact, when I was out in the community during the weekend, the one issue that people raised with me on an ongoing basis was the additional cost for pathology that people will have to pay and the fact that, because of this additional cost, people with chronic conditions who require access to things like pathology tests on a very regular basis will delay some of their test requirements, endangering their health even further. On that, I share the concerns expressed by Senator Gallagher and others in this place who are concerned about those particular proposals by the government.

We add the voice of the Australian Greens to call on the government for action to ensure vital healthcare and health technologies with proven benefits and safety make it to Australians in a timely and affordable manner. This bill has enabled us to have this debate and, hopefully, to provoke the government into taking this issue seriously. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:05): I am so proud to be standing here today to debate the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013, and proud to be a member of a loving same-sex couple who was legally married in Australia. Voting for marriage equality is well overdue. We need to achieve a vote on marriage equality to achieve equality and to stop discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.

My marriage to Penny is so central to my life. I cannot imagine life without her, and I am so proud of being a legally married same-sex couple in Australia. We became that in 2003, 13 years ago, when Penny transitioned to Penny and became female, and suddenly our life changed. Suddenly we went from being a normal heterosexual couple to a same-sex couple. Then, in 2004, the change to the Marriage Act, introduced by John Howard, meant that our marriage was no longer a legal marriage in Australia—that is, if Penny's recognition as a female was changed on her birth certificate.

In 2004, with the change to the Marriage Act, we were placed in the position that, if we wanted to stay married, Penny would not be able to change her gender on her birth certificate. So we entered this netherworld of discrimination. Penny absolutely wanted to change her gender on her birth certificate but we absolutely did not want to get divorced. So we have chosen to stay married and in this netherworld—a world which has been there for far too long. We need to be acting on this. We have been debating marriage equality in this place and in the other place for far too long. Since 2004, when the Marriage Act was changed, the debate has continued.

Penny and I have been lucky. We have been very lucky. Everybody should have the opportunity to marry the person that they love, but, right now, same-sex couples in Australia do not have that opportunity. I spent some time on the weekend at the ChillOut Festival in Daylesford, surrounded by friends, surrounded by lots of people celebrating their life as LGBTIQ people. There was my friend Sean, who is engaged to his partner and who would dearly, dearly like to be married. He cannot be married. There was Rachel, the person I travelled in the car with; similarly, she is in a same-sex relationship with her partner. I do not know whether Rachel wants to get married, but she wants to have that choice. There were the two women that I danced with who were dressed as brides. They said it was lovely to be there in this celebration at ChillOut, to be able to be celebrating. They said it was almost like a wedding—almost. But there is the sadness that they are not able get married.

We have fallen behind the rest of the world. Twenty-one other countries now have marriage equality. Australia is the only developed English-speaking country where loving couples are discriminated against simply because of their gender. Not only has the time for marriage equality come in Australia, but it is so long overdue. For the couples who are being denied the right to marry, it breaks my heart. Now is the time. It falls to us. We have the opportunity to change that. We have the opportunity to change the law. We have the opportunity to vote and change the law today. It was in 2004, after the change to the Marriage Act, that the first bill to legalise equal marriage was introduced into the parliament by the Greens' first member of the House of Representatives, Michael Organ. In 2007 former Senator Kerry Nettle introduced a bill; in 2008 Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett introduced a bill, and Sarah Hanson-Young's bill, the bill that we are debating today, was introduced in 2009.

This is going to continue until we vote to legalise same-sex marriage, because this is the last state sanctioned discrimination against same-sex attracted and transgendered people, and it is the most important state sanctioned discrimination that still exists. Now in 2016, after 17 bills in the parliament—17 bills since 2004—and after countless hours of debate we can take a crucial step on the path to equal love right now. We are now debating Sarah Hanson-Young's bill, but we have had enough talk. Let's bring on the vote. It is long past time. If we ring the bells now we can be hearing wedding bells in no time. We do not need extra time for debate. The Labor Party was confident that the numbers were there earlier this week, so let's get this long overdue reform through the Senate and get it through today. We need a vote this morning. Labor, it seems, want to vote to keep on talking. We want to vote to change the law.

If Labor's position on same-sex marriage were motivated by a genuine desire to win the vote, not to sabotage Senate voting reform, then there is no reason why we cannot just vote on the bill this morning, without delay. We are ready to vote. We are ready to vote 'yes'. But we are not going to be bullied on unrelated pieces of legislation. We have got time this morning to vote and we can do it, so I am calling on Labor. Labor are saying that they are committed to equal marriage. Labor are saying they want to have a vote on equal marriage, so I am calling on Labor to allow it. Labor, we can do it this morning. There are people's lives that are dependent on this. There is Penny's and my life, there are other people in this parliament's lives, there are the lives of the people that I have talked about this morning.

I am calling on Labor to support this bill going to a vote this morning. If Labor do not support this, maybe it is because they are not confident of getting the outcome, and they are not confident in their numbers. If Labor do not support bringing on a vote this morning then maybe it is just a cynical exploitation of an issue that means so much to so many. And if Labor does not allow a vote today then they are going to be responsible for missing an historic opportunity to vote on this issue. We are ready to bring on a vote today, and we can guarantee with a vote today that every one of our MPs will vote unanimously for marriage equality, because we have done that—every vote, every MP, every time. Every time there has been opportunity to vote on marriage equality the Greens have done it—17 bills in this parliament. We will continue to vote for marriage equality because it is so important for ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.

We want to see marriage equality. We need to see marriage equality. Now is the time. We can vote on this today, and I call on all people in this place today to be voting for marriage equality, to be voting for love, to be voting for those wedding bells to be ringing as soon as possible.

Senator IAN MACDONALD ( Queensland ) ( 11:13 ): In my long time in this chamber I have heard a number of speeches that were dripping with hypocrisy and insincerity, but the one I heard this morning from the Leader of the Opposition on a formal motion—a procedural motion relating to the same subject—just about took the cake. I want to explain to those who might be listening to the debate what the coalition's position is. It starts from the premise that, if you are a member of the Liberal and National parties, you go to an election and make a promise, and you make the promise intending that promise to be kept. This subject of same-sex marriage is one that I know raises a lot of emotions on both sides of the debate, and I understand the emotion that is engendered on both sides of the debate.

But this is an issue that has been around for some time and the coalition have a policy on it. We went to the last election saying that the definition of marriage would stay the same as it is in the Marriage Act for this term of parliament, and that is the commitment we took to the Australian people. I remember that, at the time, the coalition thought long and hard about that policy. We were petitioned by the church groups, if I can loosely label them as that. They had very, very strong views on it and they made a point which resonated with the coalition as a whole. We decided to go to the last election with this commitment to retain the definition of marriage as it is in the Marriage Act.

I know Labor senators find it hard to believe that a political party would make a promise, intending to keep it, and then actually keep it. I know that is foreign to the Australian Labor Party. We all remember the promise by the Labor Party: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Having been elected on that promise, what was the first thing that an Australian Labor government did when it took the reins? It introduced a carbon tax—the direct opposite of what they had promised before the election. That is not a one-off.

In the last few days, I have raised a number of times the Keating Labor Party's l-a-w law tax reductions. Remember that? Some senators might have been around then, as I was. Thinking they were going to lose the next election, Mr Keating and the Labor Party actually legislated for tax cuts before the election. It was passed and Mr Keating said: 'It's l-a-w law. These tax cuts will happen. They have been legislated.' Low and behold, unexpectedly, Mr Keating and the Labor Party won that election. What was the first thing that they did, the first legislative program that they indulged in on being returned to government? It was to renege, to cancel, to abolish that bill giving what was then called the l-a-w law tax cuts.

The Labor Party have form when it comes to making promises and then doing the exact opposite when they come to power. Take the current issue of electoral reform. Two years ago, I sat on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and we looked at the issue of the rort—the dishonesty of the Senate voting system at the time. That committee travelled all around Australia. It took evidence from everybody who wanted to have a say and it took evidence from some very clever academic people, people who understand the voting system.

The committee deliberated long and hard and it came to a unanimous conclusion. Firstly, I will just explain that the committee comprised Liberal, National, Labor, Greens, Xenophon and anyone else who wanted to go along. I was not a formal member of that committee but, under the rules we have in the Senate, any senator can become a participating member, with all the powers and privileges of the committee. I put myself onto that committee because I was interested in the issues. As a senator who has been around for a while and as a Queenslander, I wanted to make sure that when the people of Queensland cast a vote for the Senate, they were actually making the choice themselves, not putting 1 in a box and then letting the various political parties to determine where the preferences go.

I well recall at the time Mr Katter, the member for Kennedy—who had been a member of the National Party but had left the National Party and become an Independent—telling people that he was still our way inclined, that he did not like some of the things that were happening so he had left the party to became an Independent. But he indicated to people, 'If you vote for me, I'll be okay and my preferences will go to my old party'—by then the Liberal National Party of Queensland. We then looked at the Katter Party voting ticket that he had registered and, low and behold, who got the preferences?

Senator Williams: Labor.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Yes, Labor got the preferences. In good faith, people said: 'We'll vote for Mr Katter for old time's sake. He's not very effective but at least we know him. He's a nice enough guy. We'll vote for him and we'll vote for him in the Senate because our preferences will flow on to the LNP'—because that is what he had indicated to them. But when you looked at his card which is registered and locked up in the AEC vaults in Brisbane, you found that the preferenced the Labor Party before he preferenced the coalition.

Now, we do not want that sort of thing to happen, not because we did not get the vote—and he did not get many anyhow, so it did not have a great impact—but people should be given the chance to make their own decisions on where their preferences go. If people want to vote for Mr Katter's party in the Senate, fine, that is great. But if they want to give a No. 2 preference to the Labor Party, that is fine; they can put a 2 next to Labor.

If they want to give their preferences to the LNP then are able to do it themselves, making a conscience vote when they go to fill in their ballot paper, and it will not be very hard anymore when this legislation comes in. People will be able to vote 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 above the line, if they are the political parties they want, or they will be able to vote 1 to 12 below the line. It is simple, anyone will be able to do it. I have always voted below the line. But I can tell you that when you get up to 103, you start to wonder whether you have left out a number or not.

The committee that looked at this voting came to the conclusion that the voting system in the Senate, for various reasons, one of which I have mentioned, had to be changed. Who voted for that?

It was a unanimous decision of senators from all parties; that is, senators from the Liberal Party, senators from the National Party, senators from the ALP, senators from the Greens and Senator Xenophon. I emphasise: senators and members from the Labor Party were there. I remember that Senator Tillem was there, and I remember that the respected Labor Senator John Faulkner was there and—as you would imagine—took a leading part in the debate. He signed off on changes to the Senate electoral voting system, as did Mr Gary Gray. Whatever you think about Mr Gary Gray, he is recognised as an honest, fair and sensible leader of the Labor Party. He signed off on it, because he understood, as did everyone on the committee, that the system that was in place was being rorted. I find it hard to understand how the Labor Party continue this process of saying one thing—

Senator Cameron: Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: we are debating the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013. I have been extremely patient. I have waited 10 minutes. Halfway through Senator Macdonald's contribution to this bill, I do not think he has mentioned the bill. His attention should be drawn to the issue before the Senate.

Senator Seselja: Thank you, Senator Cameron. I will rule on that. Senator Macdonald did mention it earlier. He is straying into other areas—which is not uncommon, might I say, in these debates. I would simply remind Senator Macdonald that we are debating the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I thank Senator Cameron. He has been patient, particularly when the examples I am using in relation to this bill—which I will come back to shortly—are things that I know the Labor Party do not want to hear about. Particularly as we seem to be on broadcast today, I am sure the Labor Party do not want me reinforcing to those people listening just what hypocrisy abounds in the Australian Labor Party when it comes to promising one thing before the election and doing another thing after the election.

I must confess that I am not absolutely confident of what the Labor Party's position is on same-sex marriage, but it seems to change quite a bit—

Australian Greens senators interjecting—

Senator IAN MACDONALD: You are not clear either. Then I do not feel so badly that I cannot work it out. I know there are a number of people in the Australian Labor Party who have very, very strong views on both sides of this argument. But my understanding of the Labor policy—and perhaps Senator Cameron, who is speaking next, can elaborate on this for me. I understand that the Labor Party have now decided that this will be a party policy vote. So you will not be able to have a conscience vote in the future, you will not be able to vote on this very complex and difficult issue as you might believe, in all sincerity, that your conscience demands that you do. The Labor Party will regiment you into voting in a particular way. And, if you dare cross the Labor Party, you know the consequences. You are out on your ear, and we have seen a couple of times over the last couple of decades where Labor senators and members have dared to have their own view and they have been expelled from the party for doing that.

I am a member of the coalition and so I went to the last election promising, as all of my colleagues did, that the definition of marriage would stay the same in this term of parliament. Because we are a party that keeps its promises, that is what we are going to do. We know that there are has very, very strong and genuine views on both sides of this matter and so, after a very long, full and involved debate in the coalition party room, we decided by a good majority: why not ask the Australian people what they think on this very complex, difficult, sensitive subject? So that is what the coalition have done. We have said that we will ask the Australian people—and what could be fairer than that? Frankly, I am gobsmacked that anyone could think that asking the Australian people what they think on this rather different matter could be wrong. What could be better in a democracy than going to the Australian public and asking, 'What is your view on this?' I genuinely believe that asking the Australian public what they think is the right way to go about it. And I say here and now that, whatever the result of the referendum, that is what I will be implementing in parliament in the years ahead.

If the Australian people say, 'Yes, this is a good idea', then, in a democracy, having been told by my constituents across Australia, that is what I will be doing. I simply cannot understand why anyone would think that is a bad idea. Ask the Australian people in a democracy. People will say, 'We don't ask them to pass the budget', 'We don't ask them to pass road traffic laws'; we do that in parliament. That is what parliament is about, and that is all true and correct. But I think everyone would agree that this is an issue beyond the normal rules of government and it does involve people's very personal beliefs, opinions and emotions, and it is something that I think the Australian people should be given an opportunity to have a say on.

I know the churches have a view, and it is a genuine view, but I know other people—a lot of my gay friends—have a quite different view, and I respect that view as well. But I do think in an issue like this the right way to do it is to ask the Australian public. Isn't that what a democracy is about? If I were in the Labor Party and asking people to vote for me because I had a policy on this, I would not know which member of the Labor Party I was supporting, because I know some on the other side have very strong, deeply held, reasonable views against same-sex marriage, and I know that there are members of the Labor Party, similarly, who have very strong views in favour of same-sex marriage. If you vote for the Labor Party, which one are you voting for?

So there is that difficult question. It is an unusual question in that it is not the normal sort of thing we debate here. I think the coalition has made the right decision, and certainly I was part of that decision that said, 'In issues like this, let's ask the people of Australia.' Mind you, I would not mind if we added to the referendum a question on medically assisted termination of life. That is another issue in that same category. I have made my views on that known very clearly, but I think that is another decision that could well be put to the Australian public to ask the Australian public what they think about it. Again, those two issues are issues where people have very firm, very reasonable, very fixed, very deeply held and emotional views: the subject of same-sex marriage and, I might add, the subject of euthanasia. In a democracy, what better can you do than to ask the people of Australia what their view is? Frankly, I have never heard a real argument as to why asking our fellow Australians what they think is so wrong.

I think Senator Brandis indicated that the referendum would be held pretty soon. It does not matter to me whether it is by 31 December or by 31 January or whenever, but it will be pretty soon. Once the referendum is held, the results of the Australian view—the decision the Australian public give in that referendum—will if necessary be legislated very quickly and will become law very quickly—that is, assuming that the voters say yes. People tell me in debates, 'Everyone supports this.' Okay, if everyone supports this, why not have the referendum? Why not confirm it? You will never have any doubt about it if you ask the Australian people what their view is. If, as those in favour of this legislation before us say, it is a foregone conclusion and everybody wants this, let's just ask the Australian people. It is their right, and perhaps they do. Then they will have no fear from the plebiscite. The plebiscite will express the view of all Australians on this quite difficult and sensitive issue.

So that is the approach we have taken. The coalition parties are always open, transparent and honest about what we will promise at an election and then what we will deliver after it. We are not one of these parties—unlike, regrettably, our opponents in this chamber—who before an election say one thing, as I have demonstrated, and after the election do the exact opposite. We promised before the election the marriage definition would stay. We subsequently promised we will carry out our promise for this term, but we have said, for the next term, 'Let the people of Australia decide.' What could be fairer than that? (Time expired)

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:34): I always enjoy following Senator Macdonald.

Senator Williams: He makes a great speech, doesn't he?

Senator CAMERON: No, Senator Macdonald does not make a great speech. He is absolutely full of nonsense when he gets on his feet. He spent 10 minutes not even going near the issue of marriage equality. I want to indicate clearly that marriage equality is an issue that I believe needs to be dealt with. It is an issue that discriminates against people who love each other in this country, and it is an issue that should not be determined by what Senator Macdonald describes as a 'referendum'. He said 'referendum' on a number of occasions. We are not having, according to the coalition, a referendum, so Senator Macdonald needs to get his facts right. It is a plebiscite; it is not a referendum. I will come to that later, but the plebiscite, in my view, is an absolute abrogation of the responsibility of members of parliament and senators who were elected here to make decisions on the basis of a decent society in this country.

I will divert, given that Senator Macdonald probably spent two minutes out of his 20-minute speech on the issue of marriage equality. So I will divert to deal with some of the other issues before I come back to the important issue of marriage equality. Senator Macdonald spoke about the hypocrisy of saying one thing before you are elected and doing a different thing after you are elected. Senator Cormann is sitting here. Maybe Senator Cormann could give Senator Macdonald a lesson in the 2013-14 budget—the broken promises that were layered through that 2013-14 budget. There were the attacks on pensioners, when pensions were not going to be touched, to try to force down the increases in pensions to make it tougher for pensioners to survive in this country. There was the broken promise on health—$80 billion taken out of health and education.

Senator Cormann thought that was such a great manoeuvre, that he would break out the Havana and have a cigar after the budget to celebrate taking $80 billion out of health and education in this country. They cracked out the Havana, taking away the living standards of pensioners in this country. They made promises on Gonski and walked away from education promises. They walked away from promises on family benefits. They walked away from promises on health and imposing a $7 co-payment. They walked away on promises on superannuation and took away support for low-income earners to get an opportunity to have superannuation when they retire. They walked away from a promise on company tax rate. They walked away from 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. I am not advocating that, but this is another area where they walked away. They walked from a promise to build 12 submarines in South Australia and do a deal with the Japanese government to send them there. They are now sending 3,000 jobs over to Spain. These are only some of the broken promises. For Senator Macdonald to come here and talk about broken promises, I think he is on the wrong track when the coalition government talks about that. I can go on—broken promises on spending, tax, small government and doing cost-benefit analysis. They are all broken promises—broken promises on multinational tax-dodgers, broadband and the NBN and broken promises to young people on the six months on the dole.

Senator Simms: Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: Labor has been calling for this to be dealt with and they have yet to actually discuss the substantive issues. Could we have some actual debate about the issue of marriage equality rather than more partisan posturing.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Seselja ): Unfortunately, that was a debating point rather than a point of order. What I will do is as I did to Senator Macdonald. I will remind Senator Cameron that we are discussing the Marriage Equality Bill.

Senator CAMERON: It took you about 4½ minutes to remind me. It took 10½ minutes for me to remind you of Senator Macdonald's contribution, so I am happy to take on board—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, I have given the same ruling that I gave—

Senator CAMERON: I am happy to do that. Debate is wide-ranging. I have a bill in front of me. I raised the issue. I have only spent a few minutes on these issues, and I am not going to have Senator Macdonald come here and claim that the coalition are not a government that has broken promises. They are a government that cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted on marriage equality, health, education or any of the key issues that build a good society in this country, including the $100,000 university degrees. It goes on and on. For Senator Macdonald to come here and argue those issues is complete hypocrisy.

The issue of marriage equality is a very difficult situation and position. Senator Macdonald's argument is that we should have a referendum. We are not going to have a referendum. I hope we see some common sense and decide the matter in parliament not on some crazy plebiscite cooked up by the right wing of the coalition. Senator Williams came in and said I am voting against democracy. The way democracy works in this country is that you elect parliamentarians to make decisions after an election. That is what you do. That is how democracy works in this country. Marriage equality is not a matter of life and death. It is not a conscience matter that people keep telling me. It has been captured by the right wing of the Liberal Party and to some extent the churches, especially the Catholic Church, running the arguments against marriage equality. I did not ask Most Reverend Anthony Fisher, the Archbishop of Sydney in the Catholic Church, to write to me to tell me what I should be thinking about in terms of marriage equality. What I think on marriage equality has nothing to do with the Archbishop.

I have come late to this debate. I do not come here saying that I have fought for marriage equality all of my life. I was 27 years a blue-collar union official. I was a blue-collar worker before that. I did not think a lot about the lives that were being decimated around this country by homophobic attitudes towards LGBT people in this country. I did not think about that. Shame on me—I did not do that. I did not realise it, but I did when I became a senator, and I have told this before. One of my constituents from the suburb of Greystanes in the western suburbs of Sydney—a mother—rang me crying because of her son, who had been brought up in the western suburbs of Sydney. He was gay. He had been targeted by homophobic behaviour at school and after school, and this kid had a terrible life in school and in his formative years, being attacked on the issue of his sexuality. The mother said to me that he had found love. He had a same-sex partner. They were in a loving relationship and they wanted to get married. For the first time in his life, he was actually happy.

I do not think this would be an unusual story for many people after I have started to engage in this debate. This would not be an isolated incident. For those people that want to get married, in my view, they should be allowed to get married. If people love each other, why should some homophobic attitude pushed by some our colleagues in both the Senate and the House of Representatives stop people from entering a loving relationship?

The last time we had this debate there were discussions about the 'sanctity' of marriage. That puts marriage in a religious context. Marriage has not always been a religious issue; marriage is not a religious issue. I have now been married for 45 years. I was not married in a church or a chapel; I had an ordinary marriage in a registry office in Scotland because my wife was Catholic and I was Protestant. We did not want to get engaged in any of that. We did not want to tell our kids what religion to be brought up in or whether they would have a religion. So we decided to have a civil ceremony. The civil ceremony that I engaged in, that has kept my marriage for 45 years, was no less important than any marriage in a church. And I think my marriage has lasted a lot longer than many church marriages, where the sanctimonious position has been taken and people have given vows. I have had a marriage for 45 years, with all its ups and downs—as every marriage has—

Senator Williams interjecting—

Senator CAMERON: Yes! We are not saying anywhere that if the view of the churches is that being married in a church when you have a same-sex partner is some abomination against God, or any of that, that they do that. That is not what is being proposed here. I just think that is an absolute nonsense argument anyway. I say that one day churches will start providing same-sex marriages within churches because that is going to be seen to be part of the process of keeping churches alive and keeping churches at least a little bit relevant to what is happening in the rest of the community.

After I spoke to that woman I was really concerned that I had not dealt with this issue effectively as a parliamentarian. I then went to Albury-Wodonga on a Senate reference committee hearing. I was having a cup of tea in one of the cafes in Albury and a middle-aged guy came up and said hello. He introduced himself and said, 'Look, I know who you are and I just want to put a proposition to you. I have lived in the Albury-Wodonga area all my life. It's a regional-rural area. I'm gay and my life has been hell in terms of the homophobic attitudes that have been taken against me. But, again, I have found peace, I've found love and I've found happiness. I have been with my partner for 10 years and we want to get married. I've got the support of my family, I've got the support of my friends—why can't you politicians just give me the opportunity to get married?'

After that there was a lot of debate within the Labor Party. With the arguments that Senator Macdonald put up about how strongly people believe in this, I do not see any reason why people should not give others the same rights as they have in a democratic country. I suppose that, as an atheist, it makes it easier for me to raise these issues. I suppose if you have a deeply religious point of view then, yes, these points come into play. But if you are religious and you are demanding religious tolerance and the right to exercise your religion, both that tolerance and those rights should not be exercised at the expense of gay people in this country, or transgender people or lesbians. They should not be treated differently because some people have a religious point of view on this. They should not!

Clearly, this should be a position that is determined without any interference from the churches. The separation of church and state should come into play. We should have a clear separation and we should show some backbone—actually have the debates and have decisions on marriage equality in this parliament. That is what we should do.

Senator MacDonald said that he had heard no arguments about why we should not have this plebiscite and let the people decide. Just recently, there was one big argument. If we want to talk about financial arguments, let's look at the cost of this plebiscite. The cost of the plebiscite is going to be about $158.4 million—$158 million because we are not prepared to make a decision in the interests of all Australians!

The funding to the ACCC is $132 million. The funding for rural assistance is $205 million. The funding for APRA is $121 million. And for natural disaster relief we get $33 million. So we are prepared to spend $158.4 million because the Prime Minister of this country does not have the courage and does not have the backbone to stand up for what he proclaims are his values, for marriage equality. I am just beginning to wonder whether the Prime Minister ever did have any of the values that he proclaims he has, because if he did he would not capitulate to the right wing and the homophobes in the coalition, and he would not capitulate to the worst elements in our society. He would stand up for his values and have a parliamentary vote, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, to give our fellow Australians equal rights.

What is going on is a nonsense. Senator Macdonald's argument that nobody has said there is a problem here is wrong, because people have raised the cost of this. But it is not only a financial cost: this is about a cost to the LGBTI community itself. We have seen the Australian Christian Lobby getting out and talking about 18C, that racial discrimination and discrimination should not apply during this plebiscite. So they want a free ticket to get out and attack people who are not heterosexuals and who do not fit their view of what a normal society should look like. I would hate to see a normal society if they were all like George Christensen. What kind of normal society would that be? The guy is out there spewing hatred, spewing homophobic views and not being called to account by the coalition. He is not being called to account.

We take the view that the Christian Lobby should be ignored, that people with crazy views like George Christensen should be ignored and that we should put our fellow Australians first because we do not want their mental position diminished even more because of attacks during a plebiscite. We do not want this position that they are pushing where they are going to have a debate about whether they are real Australians, whether they are real human beings, whether they are aberrations. These are our fellow Australians. They are the people who we should support. We should support them.

The cost of this plebiscite is a nonsense. We should support the gay community, the lesbian community and the transgender community. We should make the decision here, and we should do it because it is the right thing to do to make sure that people who love each other have an opportunity to get married.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Waters.

Senator Cameron: Chair—

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:53): Thank you very much, Deputy President. I am next on the speakers list—

Senator Cameron: I understand that the convention normally is this. The Greens have had an opportunity. They have spoken. The opposition spoke—sorry, the government; you will be opposition soon. The government has spoken. The opposition had a contribution. It should now go to the crossbench.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am basing the call on who I thought did jump in their place first. I thought it was Senator Waters. I am not particularly interested in the speakers list. That is simply something organised in the chamber, and it assists in the normal conduct. It was a close call, but I am afraid it is my opinion that Senator Waters did jump first, and the call is now going to the crossbench. Senator Day, did you want to say something?

Senator Day: Yes, I did.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: On a point of order?

Senator Day: Yes. There is a spot for the crossbenchers, as Senator Cameron has said. We have heard from three Greens senators and only one crossbench senator, all in support of this motion. Surely it is time to hear from someone from the opposing side. I do not want to be gagged on this topic—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Day, you are really now debating the issue. I know you both jumped very quickly, but I am probably in the best position in the chamber to make these judgements, and I thought Senator Waters did in fact jump first. It was a close run thing, Senator Day. I am sorry, but that is my decision.

Senator WATERS: I move:

That the question be now put.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the question now be put.

Senator Cameron: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will take a point of order because I think there is some confusion in the chamber.

Senator Cameron: Yes, there is some confusion. We have only this minute had Senator Waters standing and arguing that she should push Senator Day out of the speakers list. Clearly there has been an arranged position, a clear position, and Senator Waters is trying to play games here—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order, Senator Cameron. Senator Waters can move such a motion because she has not yet spoken in the debate. She has moved the motion. Unless anyone else wants to raise a point of order, I will now put that motion.

The question is that the question now be put.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:04): I wanted to indicate why it is the view of the government that this debate should not have been gagged and why government senators joined with Labor senators on this occasion in resisting a gag.

Nobody in this chamber doubts that this is a very, very serious matter. It is an issue on which there is a variety of different views within the coalition, and we do not have any difficulty with the fact that there is a variety of views. Both the Prime Minister and I are on the record as being in favour of change to the law but we respect the fact that there are many of our colleagues who have a different view.

What we are all united on though is in the belief that this matter is one of those matters which, because of its peculiar sensitivity, ought to be resolved ultimately by the Australian people at a plebiscite, which is what the coalition has committed to do.

I might say that that is the view of the Australian people themselves. Only two days ago the research firm Essential published an opinion poll on this very question. The results of that opinion poll are very instructive. When asked whether the matter should be decided by a vote of members of parliament or by a national vote of the Australian people, fully 66 per cent of respondents agreed with the government that the matter ought to be resolved by the Australian people; only 23 per cent were of the view that it should be decided by politicians only sitting in parliament.

That view was uniform across all party affiliations: 68 per cent of Labor voters thought the matter should be decided by a plebiscite; 67 per cent of coalition voters thought the matter should be decided by a plebiscite; and 58 per cent of Greens voters thought the matter should be decided by a plebiscite. So whatever one's views might be of the ultimate question—and we in the government respect the fact that there is a variety of views—there is a strong, overwhelming preference by the Australian people that they should be included in this decision, which is precisely what the coalition is committed to doing. It is certainly, in light of those considerations, not the sort of matter that should be decided here today by the device of a gag on a procedural vote.

Senator DAY (South Australia) (12:06): I rise today to oppose the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013. As I said in a previous speech about free speech, it is shameful that activists for marriage equality assume that opponents must be bigots. It seems there is no free speech in this country as long as there is this concept of hate speech. It is anathema to free speech to have attitudes and laws that are called hate speech.

With this bill today the Greens seek to jump the gun on the efforts of others in order to claim a political win for themselves. The government has agreed to a public vote on marriage but no, the Greens do not want to wait for that. They are scared of putting the question to the people. They are scared of how the silent majority will vote when given the chance. Opinion polls on news websites seem enough for them. They want to rush headlong into yet another radical experiment on Australian society.

Senator Waters: Radical experiment?

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

Senator DAY: Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Even though it is a long way away from me and I cannot hear all the details of the interjections, I think senators should be more courteous when they are so close to another senator speaking and keep the noise down. Senator Day, you have the call.

Senator DAY: When members of parliament and senators sought the views of their own electorates in the not too distant past the majority told them the truth—Australians do not want marriage or the word 'marriage' to be redefined. On the question of a public vote, you just have to ask how it can be a fair debate when you have a barrage of unfounded claims thrown at you the minute you open your mouth saying you support keeping the status quo, keeping the definition of 'marriage' as it is. You also have to ask how it will be a fair debate when you look at who is lining up on the yes case.

But the Greens do not want to wait for any of that to materialise. The Greens are just like chanting students and socialists. They chant: 'What do we want? Gay marriage. When do we want it? Now.' Name-calling, sloganeering and empty platitudes are unbecoming and facile. Take, for example, the phrase 'marriage equality' itself. By calling same-sex unions 'marriage', it is asserted by stealth that they already qualify as marriage. This is before any supporting arguments have even been offered. Saying it is a matter of equality evokes the struggle of the suffragettes or Martin Luther King.

If you dare oppose that, you do not have a difference of opinion; according to the gatekeepers of tolerance, you are just plain wrong—end of story. While this may be very effective rhetoric, it tells us nothing about what marriage actually is or why different treatment is automatically bigoted. It is ironic that those who cry bigot are guilty of bigotry themselves. When people advocating traditional marriage are dismissed out of hand or when their motives are treated with suspicion and malice, that is prejudice and that is bigotry. When, like Archbishop Porteous, they are subjected to complaints—complaints that cost the alleged victim nothing but merely completing a form, but cost the accused everything—bigotry gains an ally on its side: the gorilla of state apparatus to suppress dissent and the expression of millennial values.

A civil debate on marriage would focus on the key principles of what is marriage. Why does it matter what it is? What sort of relationship is marriage or is a marriage? Should the state define a marriage? If so, why? What role does the state have in this institution of marriage? Marriage is the foundation of society's most fundamental unit—the family. Marriage is itself a social good worthy of protection by law. Marriage provides the best environment for the family to flourish and for children to be raised and nurtured. It is this critical function of marriage in our society that allows the state to take an interest in its regulation. I will repeat that. Marriage provides the best environment for the family to flourish and for children to be raised and nurtured. It is that critical function that allows the state to take an interest in its regulation.

Normally the state would not regulate relationships between adults. It is only because marriage has a position as a foundational building block of society that marriage is an exception to that rule. Out of the 1,000-plus societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas marriage between one man and one woman is common in all, whilst the marriage of men to multiple wives is prevalent in over 800. By contrast, marriage between people of the same sex has never been widely accepted in any culture since the dawn of time.

Here are another set of questions a civil and measured debate should consider. If this bill seeks marriage equality, what is it trying to protect equally? What relationships then are not marriages? Why would redefining marriage stop at same-sex relationships? The bill talks about two people, but why not three? The 'throuple' concept—three people—advanced by polyamory advocates goes something like this. Three people of any gender can be married to one another. They will make all the claims of emotional union, romantic feelings, pledges to care for one another et cetera. How soon until we have marriage equality dusted off for the 'throuples'? I suggest that there will not even be enough time for the dust to settle, and it will be on again. If you do not believe me, I note that the Greens' cousins in the UK are right now advocating for consenting polyamorous relationships.

Senator Williams: Really?

Senator DAY: Absolutely. The goal of this push is to have, in a borrowed phrase, 'marriage equality'.

A recent Canadian court case has made the argument that three people in a loving relationship are not harming anyone so why not give them marriage too? Given the demographic rise in Australia of people from cultures like those in the Middle East where there is polygamy, you can safely assume there will be a marriage equality push for them sometime soon too. But why stop even there? In places where gay people, typically men, have been able to form recognised unions, they do not necessarily equate their commitment to monogamy. The term 'monogamish'—monogamy as a kind of 'monogamish'—has now been coined, a sort of 'open marriage'—a tautology if ever I heard one in this brave new world—as they feel a restriction to one partner is unrealistic and unnatural.

A three-year study of civil unions in Vermont found that 15 per cent of straight married men had sex outside their relationship, compared to 58 per cent of gay men in civil unions. Other studies have reported candid admissions from many gay couples about monogamy. Despite their intention to stay faithful, a survey found that only seven out of 156 same-sex couples had managed to do so. This 'monogamish' compromise is nothing short of surrender. As usual, all the guarantees about marriage staying the same have come to nought.

Speaking on a panel of homosexual authors at the 2012 Sydney Writers' Festival, Dennis Altman said:

Now I am going to speak as a gay man: one of the things about gay male culture is that it is not a monogamous culture. All the evidence we have suggests that monogamy is a myth. There are many longstanding gay relationships. There are virtually no longstanding monogamous gay relationships.

Now let me pause here for a minute. I am fortunate that I can say these things under parliamentary privilege. But could I say them outside? With the persecution of Archbishop Porteous, I am not so sure. But I digress.

Let us shift to the question of children. Children deserve a mother and a father. They need both. We are not talking here about only redefining marriage; we are talking about redefining the words 'mother' and 'father'. Already birth certificates around the country are being written to say 'parent 1' and 'parent 2'—or more—right here in the ACT. There is no such thing as parenting; there is only mothering and fathering. And children need both a mother and a father. Whenever a child is born, the mother will obviously be close by. And fathers should be close by as well. The two of them take responsibility to raise that child. When that does not happen, the social costs for the spouses and for the child and for society are very high.

Katy Faust, a recent visitor and speaker in Australia, told her own story of being raised by lesbian mothers. She spoke of the loving and caring nature of their parenting, but emphasised that neither were a substitute for the father she desperately needed in her life. This echoes the sentiments of another child of gay parents, Heather Barwick. In a speech delivered last year, she said:

Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The time for this debate has now expired.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (12:21): I present the fourth report of 2016 for the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

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. 4 of 2016

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 7.21 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a) the provisions of the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 June 2016 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Australian Workers) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 May 2016 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 May 2016 (see appendices 3 and 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(d) the provisions of the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 May 2016 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

Financial System Legislation Amendment (Resilience and Collateral Protection) Bill 2016

Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016

Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2016

Registration of Deaths Abroad Amendment Bill 2016

Social Security Amendment (Diabetes Support) 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 (Auditor Registration) Bill 2016

Corporations Amendment (Publish What You Pay) Bill 2014

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

Migration Amendment (Free the Children) Bill 2016

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2016

National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account 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

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Consistent Treatment of Parental Leave Payments) Bill 2016

Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2016

Statute Update Bill 2016

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Fund) Bill 2016

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Transparency Measures) Bill 2016

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 2) Bill 2016

Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016.

(David Bushby) Chair

17 March 2016

APPENDIX 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITT EE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of Bill:

Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016

Reasons for refe rral/principal issues for consideration:

Schedule 6 pertains to the actions of officers at sea and appears to protect the action of officers where there has been a defective consideration of the UN Convention of the Laws of the Sea.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Refugee sector re international law

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

May/June

Possible reporting date:

20 June 2016

(signed)

Senator Siewert

APPENDIX 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITT EE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of Bill:

Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Australian Workers) Bill 2016

Reasons for refe rral/principal issues for consideration:

Detailed scrutiny- Measures include new criminal offences, increased penalties for serious contraventions of Fair Work Act 2009 and additional protections for employees in cases of sham contracting and phoenixing.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Unions, employer organisations, Law Council, academics, government departments and regulators.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

10 May 2016

(signed)

Senator McEwen

APPENDIX 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITT EE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of Bill:

Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016

Reasons for refe rral/principal issues for consideration:

To further investigate potential impacts and unintended consequences of the Bill

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Australian Human Rights Commissioner

Law Council of Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

10 May 2016

(signed)

Senator McEwen

APPENDIX 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITT EE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of Bill:

Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016

Reasons for refe rral/principal issues for consideration:

This bill amends the sponsorship framework to allow the disclosure of personal information and allows introduces Ministerial power to cancel or bar a family sponsor where family violence is involved. The terms are currently vague and therefore evidence and expert opinion are required in order to examine this Bill in greater detail.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Migration sector

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

May/June

Possible reporting date:

June

(signed)

Senator Siewert

APPENDIX 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITT EE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of Bill:

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016

Reasons for refe rral/principal issues for consideration:

To investigate the structures and systems that will safe guards and provide protection to levy payers relating to the sharing of levy payer information with Rural and Research Corporations and to eligible recipients.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

GrainGrowers, Cattle Council, Sheepmeat Council, Rural and Research Corporations

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible reporting date:

12 May 2016

(signed)

Senator McEwen

Senator BUSHBY: by leave—I move:

That the report be adopted.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:25): Does any senator wish the question to be put separately on any of those proposals?

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:25): Just on a matter of procedure, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Thank you. I just want to say that I am disappointed that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee has extended the deadline for the report on the Joint Strike Fighter. We only need a day of hearings on this very important inquiry. A lot of work has gone into putting those hearings together. I have not had an explanation from the chair of the committee as to why this reporting date has to be extended for nearly two months. It smacks of politics to me, and I am very disappointed that we cannot get this reported on 1 May as was the original decision. There has been no evidence provided to me, and I want to express on the record my disappointment.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:27): At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 May 2016:

The response to, and lessons learnt from, recent fires in remote Tasmanian wilderness affecting the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, with particular reference to:

(a) the impact of global warming on fire frequency and magnitude;

(b) the availability and provisions of financial, human and mechanical resources;

(c) the adequacy of fire assessment and modelling capacity;

(d) Australia’s obligations as State Party to the World Heritage Convention;

(e) world best practice in remote area fire management; and

(f) any related matter.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (12:28): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RYAN: The Tasmanian government is best placed to investigate the management response and on-ground work necessary following the fires. The Tasmanian Premier has already announced that the Tasmania Fire Service has initiated an independent inquiry conducted by the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council. The coalition applauds the tireless work of nearly 7,000 personnel and up to 40 aircraft and pilots involved in firefighting efforts. We also commend the efforts of Emergency Management Australia for their responsiveness on behalf of the Commonwealth. The coalition wholeheartedly supports the priority effort to protect lives and property in Tasmania and notes that Tasmania continues to identify areas of high ecological value and cultural significance for protection. The Australian government is also providing $14.8 million annually to increase national aerial firefighting capability.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:32): At the request of Senator Gallacher, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 11 May 2016:

The partial suspension of sanctions against Iran, with particular reference to:

(a) the nature and scope of public consultation prior to the making of the Autonomous Sanctions (Suspension of Sanctions—Iran) Instrument 2016, the Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons—Iran) Amendment List 2016, and the Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons—Iran) Amendment List 2016 (No. 2);

(b) the adequacy of the explanatory statements accompanying the regulations for the removal of certain activities and entities from the sanctions regime;

(c) the extent to which any removed entities have institutional or financial ties to any entities that continue to be designated, and the nature of such ties;

(d) the impact of lifting sanctions on the conduct of Iran in international affairs and on Australia’s national interest;

(e) the Australian Government’s decision to re-open a trade office in Iran; and

(f) any related matters.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (12:32): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RYAN: The decision to remove economic and financial sanctions on Iran was made in full accordance with the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011, introduced by the former Labor government. A number of Labor members and senators spoke in support of the bill, including the member for Melbourne Ports. The bill was considered by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, which recommended it be past. Australia's decision to remove economic and financial sanctions is consistent with the approach of the United States, the European Union, Japan and Canada and is in line with the United Nations Security Council resolution 2231. We will use this inquiry to highlight Labor's hypocrisy on this issue as well as their legislative record and Australia's international obligations.

Question agreed to.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (12:46): Continuing on from my contribution last night on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, I was talking about the concern about the process and the division now in this place. Around the issues of the process, I was talking about the time constraint that has been placed on the decisions that this parliament will make. We have had the ongoing and very valuable work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which had met over a period of months during 2014 and 2015. In fact, their last report was delivered in April 2015. However, there has been no further consideration in this place or in any committee process around changes to the electoral process for the Senate. I am not sure why that is, but I have been very clear that there did not seem to be any sense of urgency. As I said last evening, I had checked the Hansard and there was no commentary made.

However, two weeks ago in the media we found out that this was going to be an exceptionally important and urgent vote in this place to change the voting system for the Senate. Linked to that, in exactly the same media coverage, was that the government was looking to move quickly to a double dissolution because they could not get their legislation passed in the Senate. My major concern is the link between these two issues: the urgency around this electoral amendment legislation, which we have only had before us for a fortnight, and the push around the double dissolution. It is impossible not to see a link between these two issues, and that is the point I have been trying to make in a number of my contributions in this debate.

The election of senators is an important issue. It was raised during the joint standing committee process and it has certainly been raised in the media. In terms of an ongoing consideration in this place, it has not happened. Whilst it is absolutely critical that it should happen in this place, more importantly, it should also happen in the wider community. Indeed, the roundtable discussion that was held two weeks ago on this, which was purported to be a joint standing committee inquiry into this bill, the Electoral Commission stated the importance of an education campaign in the community about any changes.

The Electoral Commission made the same statement in their April 2015 recommendations, that because of the magnitude of the change and because there is already an acknowledgement that voting for the Senate is a complex issue—we know that every time we go to the polls—educating the community about the changes must be an important element in the whole process. If we have this truncation of the process, if we have a rushed process in this place to accept new legislation and compound that by having a double dissolution, there will be no time at all to have effective engagement with the wider community to explain the process and to bring them on board with the way we vote for the Senate.

I believe that this is a very serious attack on our democratic process. All the way through, from the time we actually set up this Federation, the expectation was that citizens would be involved in the electoral process. That is what is critically important for us to understand, and there will not be time for this educative process if this bill goes through and we have on top of that the double-dissolution process.

In questions and answers in the conversation around the joint standing committee report two weeks ago, the Australian Electoral Commission—as they do, as professional public servants who are well-skilled in the running of elections—said that they would be able to commit to changing their systems and holding an effective election if these changes go through in a three-month period. They would need a minimum of a three-month period to ensure that the programs are tested and that there could be an effective electoral process. That was for the basic processes of making sure the computer systems work, making sure the counting system works and making sure that they have the appropriate documentation. That did not include any consideration of the range of electoral education that must be considered when we are looking at such a significant change in the way our electoral rules operate.

I am on record as saying there needs to be much more community education around our electoral processes—in a standard way, let alone in terms of what would happen when we are having such a major change. Any of us who have survived the process of a double-dissolution vote—I am not talking about whether we survive the actual election; I am talking about when we actually go to the polls to vote—understand the complexity of having to vote for 12 senators and to understand exactly how that operates. As I said earlier, my major concern around what has occurred is that I think we have made an attack on effective process around something that should receive much more consideration and engagement with a whole range of people who would need to be involved. Also, the outcome is one where I think people who have a purely political motive—and we understand that is a reality—have constructed a process to get the outcome whilst not understanding the elements of process that should be put forward.

I wish to foreshadow a second reading amendment which has been circulated in the chamber. That is for debate at a future time, but I just wanted to foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment, which is on sheet 7892. In terms of where we will go, I feel absolutely certain there will be more opportunities as we go on to have further discussion around a whole range of issues. But, moving right aside from the interactions we have been having in this chamber about who is moving what and why, I think we should take the time to take a very close look at whether this change will have impacts into the future which have not been considered up until now. If there had been the appropriate time given for full consideration to this bill, there would have been a greater chance for more involvement by people in the community, people who have an understanding of the system. Rather than having this debate in the media—which seems to be the chosen method of this government, to have exchange of information and communication through the media—we could have had more effective time for feedback on the kinds of information and data that we as senators should have before casting a vote on such a significant issue.

Senator CONROY (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:56): I thank all my colleagues who have made such informative contributions over the last few hours, yesterday and ongoing through the evening. I come to this debate with a mixture of frustration, anger and sadness—frustration that genuine reform of Senate voting procedures was possible and that we could have addressed some of the somewhat overblown concerns that were discussed over the last few years and found a way to ameliorate some of those concerns without having to engage in parties rorting the voting system into the future for their own benefit. We could have solved this if those who were involved had been prepared not to stick to a deal they did years ago on the parliamentary committee—which did not have the support of the Labor Party and never had the support of the Labor Party at any stage, ever. The federal parliamentary Labor Party determines the position of the senators in this chamber, not the national secretary. The federal parliamentary caucus determines this position, not the national secretary or any individual spokesman. Only the federal parliamentary Labor Party determines the position on this floor as guidance for the senators in this chamber. Nobody is above that, no matter how passionate they are on an issue.

I was prepared to put my position to the floor of the caucus any and every time over the last 2½ years—any and every time. And I promise you: the outcome would have been exactly what it is today, at any time this had ever been put to people—any time whatsoever, because this is a deal that was put together for the sole purpose of eradicating minor parties and Independents to the benefit of the Liberal-National coalition and the Greens.

Ironically, because they struggle to walk and chew gum, they did not actually envisage the prospect of a double-D, so I will wave sadly goodbye to a couple of Greens senators who will not be coming back after the double-D is called on 11 May. But sometimes you get a bit of justice in politics, and that day will be justice, because you are consigning some of your own colleagues to oblivion. You will be okay, but we all know what was really driving you.

The tantrums that I have witnessed—the sense of entitlement that now surrounds the Greens senators—I find extraordinary. But it is not just you. Senator Xenophon says, 'I got 1.7 quotas and I should have got two senators.' No, Senator. To get two senators you have to get two quotas, and, if everybody else in the system decided they were not going to preference you because they did not want you to get two senators, guess what: that is called democracy.

I have seen some pretty ugly references to Senator Muir recently: a disgrace to the Senate and the parliament. Frankly—and I am happy to say this in front of Senator Muir, who happens to be here—he is probably the most normal person that has been elected to this parliament in a long, long time.

Senator Cameron: Oh, me?

Senator CONROY: No, Doug, not you. No, Senator Cameron, not you. But Senator Muir is probably the most normal Australian to have been elected to this chamber in a long time. I would have preferred a third Labor senator—apologies, Senator Muir—but I do not find it a disgrace that Senator Muir got elected. I accept there is some criticism of the voting system that could have been reformed without ever coming to a position where a normal person like Senator Muir could never get elected to this parliament. The Greens are perpetrating this atrocity. This absolute travesty of democracy, where they devised a system where 3.4 million Australians will have no say about the make-up of this chamber, is an absolute disgrace.

I am frustrated. I keep seeing members of parliament and senators saying they are sad about what has happened and about the Labor Party position. Let me say again: I am sad that 3.4 million Australians are going to be locked out of representation. What is really sad is the dishonesty. I have sat as national secretaries, federal directors or senior politicians have said, 'We don't know what's going to happen as a result of these reforms.' The national secretary—or the equivalent, the federal director—of the Liberal Party does not know what is going to happen! Senior frontbenchers say, 'Oh, I don't know what's going to happen; it's the will of the people.' How dishonest can you be? Everybody else has stood up and said this bill is designed to eradicate the crossbenchers. I do not know how much blunter it could be. You should have just written 'eradication of crossbench senators' as the title of the bill. You could not be more obvious. You could not be more blatant.

Then you have some of the key people like Senator Rhiannon and some of the key people who have been on the parliamentary committee—senior figures who have spent their entire lives maximising the vote for their party—who say, 'I have no idea what the outcome of this is going to be.' Even key, important commentators have been dishonest in their representation of what this particular alleged reform will do in terms of the outcome. The only thing that came out of that farce of a parliamentary inquiry that the Greens and the government foisted on us was that finally Antony Green was forced to confess that, yes, there was a strong chance that the coalition could get 38 or more seats in a double-D or a half-Senate election. He finally confessed it. I looked at it for 30 seconds when I saw the first proposal and said, 'This can deliver 38 senators for the coalition and 12 senators for the Greens.'

They know it. They just do not want to admit it, because then it will be seen for what it is: a rort that is about denying the opportunity for ordinary Australians to get elected to parliament. It is a total rort. It is not a reform; it is a bill where the Greens say: 'We're pulling up the drawbridge. We're sick of those nasty minor parties that won't give us any preferences because they don't agree with us.' Watching Senator Rhiannon attack Glenn Druery at the committee was comical, as they traded blows about what happened in the year 2000 and why you would not give us preferences in this year and what happened in this state election. Goodness me! What a tantrum from the Greens. What a tantrum from Senator Xenophon. What a sense of entitlement.

That is the thing I really find offensive about the position being advocated by the Greens: they pretend that it is not going to get them more senators in a half-Senate election—so don't let them come back in here and say, 'Oh, one minute you're saying you're winning and one minute you're saying we're losing.' There are two very different scenarios. The fact they were too stupid to work out the government were actually planning a double-D to use the new legislation is a matter for the black Wiggle to explain to the people of Australia. I mean, seriously!

So I find extraordinary the sense of entitlement from those who are voting for this—that they are entitled to Senate positions. Senator Rhiannon is so offended by what happened in the last New South Wales Senate vote—the prospect that she might not win her seat. Oh, my goodness! We cannot possibly have a vote of the New South Wales people and make sure everyone's preferences are taken into account!

You have to admire it. Tony Abbott has left the prime ministership, but the spirit of the Abbott slogan lives on: 'We're going to give the people of Australia control of their preferences, because it's wrong the other way.' We will not tell them that 25 per cent of them will not be counted at all because they are going to exhaust. We will not tell them that what we are actually doing is introducing a radical package which will disenfranchise 25 per cent of Australians who I wish voted for the Labor Party but who do not vote for the Labor Party, the coalition, the Greens or Senator Xenophon. Apparently the way to fix that is to disenfranchise them.

Let us take away their rights to cast a preference below the line, 1 to however many, or to vote above the line. It is all about those nasty backroom deals. You are such hypocrites. I have spent years pseudonegotiating with your backroom boys through various committees. You have been in the preference deal arrangements for years. You yourself, Senator Rhiannon, have engaged in practices to get yourself elected into the New South Wales state election and the federal election. They are the very things you are now attacking. You are guiltier than Glenn Druery for your behaviour, the very behaviour you have been attacking, and you are now so mortified and opposed to. You have been engaging in it for years and you never thought it was wrong until all of a sudden, you worked out: 'Oh my goodness, no-one wants to give us a presence. The best way to fix that is to disenfranchise 25 per cent of Australians who vote in the Senate.' What a lousy argument.

But, no, we will just keep saying over and over again, Tony Abbott style: 'We've got to stop the backroom boys. We've got to stop the factional deals.' You have been in the middle of them. At least say backroom boys and girls, because you have been in the room. For goodness sake, what a hypocrite! I expect the coalition to always rort the system to try and make it as favourable to the coalition as possible. I expect that. I do not even bother to waste my breath on you. It is standard operating procedure—whatever we have to do to win, we will do—block supply, bring down the Prime minister and knock over any convention, all of it.

Government senators interjecting—

Senator CONROY: No. I am talking about one from the opposite party when they were Prime Minister and you were the opposition. It is 1975 I am talking about. Okay. Let us be clear. There is no convention to trust you to keep up. I respect that. I do not like it. I do not agree with it, but at least I am prepared to accept it is standard operating procedure.

Senator McGrath interjecting—

Senator CONROY: I know you would prefer me not to mention you. I know you are cheering me on, because she is not going to kick to the kerb. At 12 o'clock tomorrow they are going to kick you to the kerb. I am disgusted by you. They despise you. They are going to laugh all the way to the double-D and wave a couple of you goodbye. They will say, 'Well, you voted for it, idiots.'

It would be laughable if it was not so fundamentally wrong. I have seen a speech this morning that says, 'The only way the Libs can get 38 is if the people of Australia vote for it.' That is not true under this system. That is the point. Seventy-five per cent of people will vote for a particular main party and 25 per cent will get nothing. The 25 per cent will not have voted. Their votes would have been exhausted, cast aside and eliminated by this legislation, and that is what gives those opposite 38 in the future. That does it and not the way the people of Australia vote.

When those dishonest people give speeches saying the only way the Liberals and Nationals can get 38 is by the will of the people, that is not true. That is so dishonest from some people who spent their entire lives harvesting votes for the Labor Party that it beggars belief for the dishonesty that you could stand up in public and say that. And then, when you ask a serious question, what happens? You go, 'Oh, I don’t know.' How can you take someone seriously, who actually says, 'I am proposing this voting change and I don’t know what the outcome is,' when their spent their entire lives harvesting votes, doing preference deals, maximising the Labor Party's vote at every single election and then suddenly say, 'I don’t know what the outcome is going to be'?

Anyone who has a modicum of understanding of quota preferential voting fully understands the game, the scam and the rort being polled by those opposite and the Greens. You have put all political principle and your own platform aside for a filthy deal that you thought would get you 12 votes, 12 green bums on seats, because you are entitled to them. The people of Australia decide who comes here. There is no sense of entitlement. They do not owe us anything. If I get elected, I consider it an absolute privilege to be here. I do not believe I am entitled to be here, unlike those in that crossbench now, who think they are entitled to red leather under their bums. That is what this is about down that end of the—oh please!

Senator McGrath: Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: what about bottom? I think bottom may be more parliamentary. I prefer bottoms rather than bums!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Seselja ): Thank you, Senator McGrath.

Senator Cameron: Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: I have been in Australia long enough to know what bums means. Bottom is a Pommy thing, and I know you have been there. I know you got thrown out. But bums is okay!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think I will buy that. Senator Conroy, proceed.

Senator CONROY: What I find dishonest about the argument that has been put forward is that they stank before you. Senator Muir, how many votes did you get?

Senator MUIR (Victoria) (13:13): I got 17,000.

Senator CONROY: Senator Muir, do you know how many votes I got to be elected to the Senate of Australia? I got 1,472—what a disgrace I am. I am even a bigger disgrace than you. I am about one-sixteenth of a disgrace to you or bigger disgrace than you, because it is okay for a party to pass a preference down its ticket. It is okay for two parties to come together to pass their votes between each other if you call yourself coalition. National Party, Liberal Party—they can pass preferences to each other. That is okay. What is absolutely wrong is the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party passing its preferences to the Liberal Democratic Party! That is wrong. The Greens have been trying to pass their preferences from their No. 1 candidate to their No. 2 candidate. It is not going to work for them, because they are not going to get enough votes. But it is okay to pass preferences of Senator Rhiannon to the No. 2 on the Greens ticket and from Senator Ludlam, with that huge vote that he got last time, pass it down to his No. 2. That is okay. But Senator Muir, how dare you give a preference to the Jacqui Lambie Party, or the Glenn Lazarus party or the Liberal Democrats or Family First?

How dare you! What an affront to democracy! But it is okay for the Liberals to give votes to the Nationals. That is okay! But you are a disgrace! You are a disgrace to this parliament, Senator Muir! How dare you actually want to engage in a preference arrangement with another political party? You could form a coalition and that would be okay—okay? That is fine.

What hypocrisy! If you want to deal with pop-up parties and if you want to deal with some of the other complaints about the system, there are better ways to do it than this. Much better ways. But you are obstinate, you refuse to discuss it and you are committed to only one path because you knew it maximised the political benefit to yourselves. And that is what is so frustrating, disappointing and sad. You are going to pull a rort on the people of Australia—pull a rort!—because you think you are entitled to have your bums on red leather.

Ultimately, the Australian people will work you out. That is the great thing about democracy in this country: ultimately, the punters on the street work out the scams, the rorts and the frauds. And they work out those who pretend they are interested in democracy and will mark you down accordingly. They know a filthy deal that gives the coalition a 'blocking majority', as I call it—38 votes. But you do not care. No principle and no policy can pass without the permission of those opposite. No future environmental gains or social justice gains—any of that: it all goes out the window so you can get your bum on your seat for New South Wales in the Senate, Senator Rhiannon. You should be ashamed of yourself.

There are fairer ways to fix this. There are much more democratic ways to fix this. But at the end of the day, 25 per cent of Australians will be disenfranchised by this vote—25 per cent! There will be 3.4 million Australians who have their ballot papers put in the bin. They will have no say about who is elected to this chamber because of the filthy deal that Senator Rhiannon has orchestrated on behalf of the 'Black Wiggle' and his friends, and they are too obstinate to admit that they have made a mistake. There is still time, but I do not think they have the fortitude or the backbone to stand up for what is right. (Time expired)

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Seselja ): I would just remind senators to refer to other senators by their correct titles.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:17): I too would like to contribute to the debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. This is a bill which has been rushed through the parliament committee scrutiny processes so that the Prime Minister can call a double dissolution election, knowing that he has manipulated the way senators are elected and so that the current crossbench of this Senate will be wiped out and the Liberal-National coalition will gain eventual total control of the Australian Senate.

That is what this is about. The motivation of the government in bringing this bill on is to achieve lasting electoral dominance in the Senate for the conservative parties—the big Liberal and National parties, who want to destroy Medicare, who hate public education, who do not believe in climate change, who want to slash workers' superannuation, who despise working people and want to destroy their working conditions and who want to make higher education unaffordable for ordinary Australian families. They are the parties that oppose everything that is fundamental and fair and which is decent policy—policy which has been worked on and fought for by the Labor Party for over 100 years.

Complicit with the government in this deal to disenfranchise Australian voters and to install majority conservative governments is the Greens party. Senator Di Natale, the leader of the Greens, and his ragtag band of hangers on are up to their necks in this, because some of them will find it easier to get elected—some of them. In his desperate desire to be more than just a page 90 fashion shoot in GQ magazine, Senator Di Natale has decided to shelve any principles that he may have had and to shelve the principled stance of the Greens leaders before him, Senators Bob Brown and Christine Milne, who were principled—most times—when it came to dealing with the hard right of Australian politics. The Greens today, though, are all sanctimony, all spin and no spine at all. They are self interested—as are, indeed, the coalition.

This bill is of great significance to all Australians, that is why the Labor Party will scrutinise the bill extensively in the coming debate on it. The bill fundamentally changes how Australians elect the Senate. If it is successful in this place, it changes an electoral system that has been in place for 30 years. It does that by introducing optional preferential above-the-line voting for the Senate by numbering at least six boxes. It introduces a limited savings provision to ensure that a ballot is still formal where the voter has numbered one, or fewer than six boxes, above the line. It abolishes group and individual voting tickets. It introduces a restriction to prevent individuals holding relevant official positions in multiple parties and it also deals with the matter of parties having a logo on the ballot paper.

These are significant changes—big changes—and so this bill should have the opportunity to be properly scrutinised by the appropriate committee of the parliament. And it should be properly scrutinised by the Senate, because, rightly, most Australians think of the Senate as the house of review and expect senators here to review legislation—particularly significant legislation like this.

That is why the Labor senators are critical of the disgraceful so-called 'committee process' that the coalition and Greens pretend was a process of scrutiny and consideration. Just to go back a step: the coalition claims that the bill reflects the findings of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters of the parliament, which conducted an inquiry subsequent to the 2013 election. That inquiry was finalised last year. Despite claims by the government that this bill implements the findings of that joint standing committee of the federal parliament, the bill does not.

The bill includes new matters, and for that reason Labor insisted the current bill again be scrutinised by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—a very well-regarded committee, not just within this parliament but also around the world. But that scrutiny process proved to be a complete farce. It minimised the scrutiny of the bill. It was an attempt by the government and the Greens, working together, to pull the wool over the eyes of all Australians.

The committee—the JSCEM, as we call it here—received 107 submissions on this bill from a range of interested parties in Australia, and, of those 100-plus submissions, only eight people were called forward to appear before the JSCEM when it had its public hearing into this significant bill. That hearing lasted 4½ hours. Labor senators were then advised at 9.40 pm, in the evening after that truncated hearing, that the committee's draft report was available for them to have a look at. That was a matter of hours. It just indicated to everybody in the Labor Party that the report had basically already been written before the hearing had been held. Then Labor senators were given until eight o'clock the following morning to provide dissenting reports. Here was a draft report on the most significant change to Australia's electoral system in 30 years, and Labor senators had overnight to have a look at it and to provide dissenting comments. It was a farcical process.

At the hearing itself, which most of us watched, as it was broadcast here—it was well attended, of course, by the crossbench senators—people were shut off, unable to ask questions and not given time to fully explore the issues that they wanted to explore and should have been given the opportunity to explore in that committee hearing. There is no way that a bill like this can be properly scrutinised with only one public hearing that lasts just over four hours. The alleged scrutiny process also did not allow time for people to put in significant, considered submissions, but we thank the people who did put in submissions.

What was the rush? Why couldn't the committee have had longer to consider this bill, which I understand from evidence at that committee hearing was concocted by the coalition, probably in consultation with the Greens, without any input from the Electoral Commission? That is the Electoral Commission that works out the electoral system in this country and applies it. It is because, as I said before, this Prime Minister wants to set up a double-dissolution election and wipe out the crossbench. He wants to wipe them out because neither he nor the Prime Minister before him, Mr Abbott, has been able to work effectively with the crossbench. There have been two coalition governments, the Abbott and the Turnbull governments, and neither figured out how to negotiate successfully with the crossbench. And neither figured out that, if their legislation was not passing the Senate, it was not because the crossbench were being recalcitrant and not because Labor were the bad guys; it was because the legislation itself was bad and should not have been supported. But, instead of devising legislation that would pass the Senate, out comes the double-dissolution sledgehammer and the electoral reform that goes with it.

Labor have always said that we are willing to look at some type of electoral reform. We know that the system is not perfect, and we acknowledge that there are limited concerns about aspects of the Senate election process. Anybody who has been confronted in the Senate voting booth with those massive ballot papers—70 or more candidates to vote for if you wish to vote below the line—knows it is very difficult without spoiling your vote. But we are not convinced that this bill is the way forward.

Australian voters have spent 30 years voting 1 above the line. At the 2013 federal election, more than 96 per cent of Australians voted that way. Following that election, we did see more Independent and microparty senators take a seat in this place. As much as the government hates that, that is democracy in action. That is how it is. That is how the Australian parliament was elected. It is not unusual for the government of the day not to have the numbers in the federal parliament. It is not unusual. In fact, having the numbers is rare, and it has only happened twice in history. In the most recent instance where a coalition government had the numbers in the Senate, it ended very, very badly for that coalition government because the people of Australia do not like one party to have control of the Senate.

The legislation is probably the most self-serving piece of legislation to come into this place in recent memory. As I said, it was primarily concocted by the government to serve the interests of the government, to seize control of this place.

You have to ask: what are the Greens getting for this deal with the coalition? I laughed out loud when I read that Senator Mathias Cormann had appeared on Sky News and had denied that he had considered the impact of this legislation on the preference deals that his party is doing with the Greens. I had to laugh. He outright rejected suggestions that the government had considered how this legislation might benefit the government at the expense of the opposition. With a straight face, he said his 'simple objective' was 'to ensure that the Australian people have the opportunity to direct' what happens to their preferences and who is elected to the Senate. But we all know that the principal beneficiary of this new voting system will be his party, the Liberal Party.

The bill is designed to exhaust preferences early to deprive Independents and the so-called microparties like the Motoring Enthusiast Party, which my senatorial colleague Senator Muir represents—he will soon speak on this bill—of votes so that senators like Senator Muir do not get elected. We all know that preference negotiations and lower house deals between the Greens and the coalition are at the heart of the changes. The idea that Senator Cormann, a senior cabinet minister, has not given any consideration to the impact of the bill in the context of preference deals with the Greens is laughable.

As I said, the current Australian Senate electoral system has been in place since 1983. Back then the newly elected Labor government removed a number of constrictions that had impacted past elections, and we established the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Reform, now called the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

That committee, when it is treated with respect and is allowed to do its work properly, has given rise to significant changes to Australia's voting system such as printing of party affiliations on the ballot paper; the introduction of party financing laws; and the creation of the independent Australian Electoral Commission.

Consequently, the Electoral Commission has worked closely with the committee to maintain an effective implementation of the will of the parliament in the electoral field. However, that close collaboration was not seen in the creation of this bill and in the parliamentary scrutiny process that should have been applied to this bill through the JCSEM process.

We know that at the last federal election we saw record levels of support for minor parties and independents in both the House and Senate. Support for non-major party candidates reached 21.1 per cent in the other place, representing more than one in five votes; and, in this place, support for non-major party candidates soared, reaching over 32 per cent.

Non-major party support in the Senate has always been greater than in the House of Representatives, but the 2013 record surpassed the results of the 2010 election as well as the 1998 election when 25 per cent of the vote was received by the One Nation Party. But minor and party independent support has been above 19 per cent in the Senate for every election since 1996. It challenges us in the Labor Party as to why that increase in support for minor parties and independents is so.

I think it indicates that Australians are dissatisfied to some extent with their political representation—and it was blindingly obvious in the 2013 Senate result. However, Labor Senators do not think that addressing the issue should be by manipulating the Senate election system. It should not attempt to be remedied by changing the rules to make it harder for independent and minor parties to join the Senate and, importantly, making it easier for the conservatives to seize complete control of the Senate. That is why we continue to say that we will look at sensible Senate reform but we will not consider, we will not contemplate and we will not support this reform before this parliament, because it is intended to implement the potential for Prime Minister Turnbull to go to a double-dissolution election and wipe out the Senate crossbench that was elected in the 2013 federal election.

There is an opportunity here though, while we are addressing electoral reform, to make some positive changes, and the Labor Party has proposed some amendments to deal with that. Those amendments go to the issue of political donation laws. I have been in this place for a while and I know that Labor has attempted many times to change the laws regarding transparency and accountability for political donations. My former well-regarded senatorial colleague Senator John Faulkner was passionate about this, but his electoral reform in this regard could not pass the Senate: it was thwarted by the Senate and opposed by the conservative parties opposite.

So Labor will move some more amendments to this particular piece of legislation to lower the disclosure threshold for political donations from $10,000 to $1000; ban foreign donations; restrict anonymous donations; and prevent donation splitting to avoid disclosure. It is essential for the purposes of transparency in our political donation system that the information about who is making donations to political parties and members of parliament should be publicly available—and lower levels of political donations—otherwise the political donation system can be gamed.

I look forward to seeing how the sanctimonious Greens and Senator Xenophon vote on those amendments. Both of them like to put themselves forward as paragons of virtue when it comes to political donations—however, we know that both the Greens and Senator Xenophon have been recipients of corporate donations. I would hope that they will support Labor's amendments.

Talking about amendments to this legislation, I note there is a raft of amendments from the government to its own legislation—and that is a factor of the way this legislation was cobbled together, and concocted by the Prime Minister, to facilitate a double-dissolution election without regard for due parliamentary process. If there had been proper parliamentary scrutiny on this legislation, then we would not be in a situation where the government was having to amend its own bill, because—shock, horror—'We examined it in such a rush that now we've found that there are mistakes in it.'

You should always have a scrutiny process for such significant pieces of legislation—especially one that fundamentally changes the way the Senate of the Australian parliament is elected—to avoid a situation where the government is going to have to come in and say, 'Oh my God: we've made a mistake. Here are some amendments.' It will just delay the process but, nevertheless, Labor will take the opportunity in the committee stage, which the government has brought upon itself, to examine in forensic detail the implications of this legislation for the future of the Australian Senate and the ability for people from beyond the major parties to put themselves forward for election; and for the Australian public to have the opportunity to vote for crossbench senators, micro and smaller parties, if that is their wish.

It is incumbent upon the major parties, if we are disturbed about the amount of the Senate votes that are going to crossbench and minor parties, to examine our own policies to understand why that is the case. It is not up to us to support this appalling retrograde legislation that will deny the voters of Australia the right to choose who they want to represent them in the Senate. It is not up to us to support this legislation that will fundamentally change the Senate in Australia, enshrine dominance by governments like the Turnbull and the Abbott governments—like all of the coalition governments, all of the conservative governments—and then wreak havoc upon the fairness and the dignity of the Australian community.

Senator MUIR (Victoria) (13:37): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. You will have to forgive the speed at which I am speaking because I have a lot to say and not enough time to do it. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the ALP's contribution to this debate, noting the possible impacts of this legislation in the future and highlighting that even the government has got amendments at the last minute. It goes to show how great this process has been. I commend you for your support of the crossbench and the 25 per cent of voters who are choosing to vote outside of Labor, Liberal, the Nationals and the Greens, who are the instigators of all of this.

My election is largely used as justification for this bill being presented to the parliament. To quote some of the rhetoric, 'It is undemocratic that somebody can be elected on 0.51 per cent of a quota.' This is a commonly used statement. Those who preach this forget that to be elected I had to receive 14.5 per cent of the vote. As it turns out, I did not get elected on 479 votes below the line nor on 17,122 votes above the line but on 483,076 votes after receiving preferences. I started gathering preferences after receiving 0.51 per cent—the common number that gets spread around. These are the exact same rules which the major parties play by and have used to their advantage for 32 years.

In the current make-up of the Senate there are 13 senators who received significantly less of a primary vote than I did—as low as 0.01 per cent before receiving preferences and ending up being elected at the required 14.5 per cent. Nobody is speaking about that of course because it does not suit the agenda. It seems that this bit of information is regularly missing in this debate. Why? Because it highlights exactly how the major parties and the Greens have been using this system to their advantage and pulling the wool over the eyes of voters for 32 years.

I might be called the accidental senator but I am a duly-elected Australian senator nevertheless. I was elected under the rules that have served this country well for 32 years. What is different now is that the minor parties have figured out how to use the rules the exact same way the major parties do and have levelled the playing field by doing just that. If minor parties had been directing their preferences to the major parties or the Greens above other minor parties, we would not be having this debate because they would still be the beneficiaries of the system designed by them to benefit them 32 years ago.

The reality is that one in four voters have become unimpressed with the way they have been represented—or, in reality, unrepresented—by the major parties and the Greens. They are looking elsewhere and that is the only way minor parties are receiving enough votes to stay in the game. If the major parties were passing the pub test by the voters, I would still be blissfully disenfranchised of politics while milling timber in country Victoria.

I note that in Senator Back's contribution to this debate he made some good points in relation to the need for some form of electoral reform. I am not actually saying that things need to or have to stay as they are. I am opposing the so-called reform in its current form as it strips democracy from the people and empowers certain parties. Senator Back quoted section 7 of the Australian Constitution, which highlights that parliamentarians should be elected directly by the people. Senator Back, I agree. Where is the debate about removing above-the-line voting, which encourages party voting and internal party preferences? On Senator Back's assessment, why are we not encouraging below-the-line candidate based voting?

Senator Rice: We are.

Senator MUIR: I am going to ignore the interjection. It would seem that this would not benefit the majors, so why was it not even discussed by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters? Either that or this is more evidence that, even with this so-called committee oversight, it was missed by the major party political geniuses. This is more reason why I am calling for a proper process in relation to this bill, not just the Greens claiming that, because they have been discussing a topic for 10 years, the first bill proposed should be rammed through parliament, gagging important debate and oversight on the issue. This just highlights that there is something to hide and they are treating the public of Australia with contempt.

This deal has shown how those who have opposing ideologies sometimes unite around a common cause, albeit a dirty cause this time. The deal between the government and the Greens has shown how these differences of opinion are put aside to unite around a common—yet misguided in this case—view so much so that the government will not discuss its own Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation, which the government has been publicly saying is the most important legislation it needs to present to the parliament. More to that, the Greens have proven that opposing parties will work together on common issues to the extent of opposing their own legislation in relation to marriage equality, twice in one week, and their bill to allow landholders the right to refuse gas and coalmining on their land.

So much for this rubbish that when you vote for a minor party you may get someone who does not have the same values as who you voted for. It appears that it is okay to vote for the Greens and get the LNP, or vote for the LNP and get the Greens. It seems that the government is happy to let the Greens steer their direction while the LNP are now the ones lost in the wilderness. This deal has shown how the voters have trusted their favourite choice under the current system to make these decisions for them. It has also highlighted that, when voters are gravely concerned about the nature of the process, they are not happy to listen but push spin upon them to push their own agenda. This deal has shown how polar opposites on the political spectrum—the conservative coalition and the once progressive Greens—can unite over an issue.

This bill, this debate, is all based around the argument about the need to remove individual and group-voting tickets. Those supporting the removal of group-voting tickets have followed this approach to ensure that these changes are passed in the Senate. Let us think about this for a moment. Let us consider what these parties from opposite sides of politics have done. They have done the exact thing the minor parties did with their group-voting ticket negotiations at the last election. The minor parties from opposing ideologies united around a common cause. That cause was to save the Australian Senate—save the Senate from being either a rubber stamp for the government or a tool of hostile opposition for opposition's sake. Engaged minor party voters agreed, with around one in four voters choosing to vote against the coalition, Labor or the Greens. They trusted their preferred political party to negotiate in their interests. The voters put forward their voice. The voters wanted something different in the Senate. If you consider for a moment that the concept is around minor parties and their supporters uniting against the established major parties and the Greens then this is what the results delivered. But somehow all of a sudden, when the established major parties and the Greens are challenged, the rules are wrong. All of a sudden, the media is enlisted to whip up voter outrage—and don't I know it. How dare minor parties put their political ideology aside to unite! That is only allowed if you are the Liberal or National Party member, Senator Xenophon or the Greens. How dare they pass their preferences amongst themselves to get a political outcome at the expense of the established parties! So what do those with the most to lose do? They unite against the minor parties and Independents to effectively try to wipe them out. Votes will exhaust. Same process, different deals—that is politics, it seems.

The Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party and others worked within the rules, and I make no apology for that. This resulted in me being elected on a full quota of near half a million votes—votes not directed to any of the major parties. These are the rules the major parties were happy with so long as their minor party cousins did not break ranks and continued to funnel their preferences to the majors.

One thing the minor parties have done is keep both the government and opposition accountable during this parliamentary term. They highlight the failings of both sides of politics in this house of review. The government has to win over a diversity of views in the Senate, something that is easily possible if you negotiate and communicate. The government claim that this makes things hard for them. The government are forced to keep up the spin during their whole term, rather than just at the end of it. As a result, the government are accountable during the whole parliamentary term rather than afterwards like they are used to.

This government has failed to be agile and has struggled to adapt. The government has struggled to understand the concepts of negotiation and consultation. The fact of the matter is the government does not have a clue how to deal with the crossbench nor has it any desire to listen to the voices of the people. We saw that with ex-Prime Minister Abbott and we see it still today with Prime Minister Turnbull. I, like others, had very high hopes that Prime Minister Turnbull actually understood. He talked the talk but, for some reason, cannot walk the walk, unless, of course, there is a 'selfie' involved.

I do not attack like this too often. I am generally against political tit-for-tat and am quite vocal about that; however, I feel justified in highlighting the failings of a government and a Prime Minister who have failed to live up to expectations, especially when I am often told by members of the public how I have grown into the role and how they are pleased with my performance. Now that the Prime Minister's failings are starting to show, he wants to divert attention away from myself and my crossbench colleagues completely by attempting to have us removed. He wants to do this with threats and coercion—all the things, ironically, that he seeks to remove from the construction industry. I would always rather play the ball and not the man. It is a shame the Prime Minister of this great country is not willing to do the same.

I will also direct some comments towards the Greens. To their credit, they have adapted. For most of this parliament, they had simply been an irrelevant, minor-party opposition voting bloc on most issues. They began this parliament unwilling to compromise, unwilling to negotiate, and, as a result, would have rather seen children left in detention on Christmas Island. Thankfully, I was able to negotiate and have them removed, even if the process took a bit longer than I expected. I suppose if these issues are actually resolved, it is hard for the Greens to go to an election and gather votes by promising to reach a resolution for these innocent, desperate, vulnerable people—thank God we have a diverse crossbench.

Raising false hope, with complete disregard to how it will affect those it is aimed at, through motions which the Greens know will not get up is a disgusting tactic that needs to be called out. What we see now, however, under the new leadership of Senator Di Natale, is a senator who is actually willing to negotiate and play for the middle. So the Greens are now doing what minor parties have been accused of doing—that is, working with each other from opposite sides of the political spectrum. What worries me is that Senator Di Natale is effectively trying to trick that middle-ground swinging voter to vote for the Greens at the expense of their grassroots supporters, not because he actually wants to represent the middle ground but so that the Greens might increase their power and influence. So finally, under new Greens leadership, they have been able to return to the table and actually become a non-government force. The price for this shift towards the middle is yet to be paid by the Greens, so we will have to wait and see how that plays out.

Let us now turn to the bill itself. Put simply, the bill is rushed and the bill is flawed. The bill fails to address many of the issues introduced by above-the-line voting. We have already established this bill has been introduced to benefit political operatives rather than the people of Australia. I have highlighted many of these concerns in my 30-page dissenting committee report. I encourage voters to read it. I have publically spoken about the token sham process in which this bill has been introduced. The below-the-line omission from the legislation was, it seems, an intentional flaw. It was done to make it appear that the committee process actually found something. It was done so that it would appear that consultation had taken place. I think it was also done so the Greens could run around and crow about yet another fake achievement. I find it very hard to believe, with the seasoned politicians who put this bill together, with all the legal advice that was sought when drafting the bill, that this omission was not intentional. They insult our intelligence, and that of all Australians, thinking that we would fall for such an obvious trick.

The government would continue to insult our intelligence by thinking that Australians are unable to count to twelve. Why would we accept the marking of six boxes below the line to record a formal vote when the minimum is 12 is beyond me. If the majority of Australians are not able to count to 12, and we have to make it easier by allowing a 50 per cent pass mark to cast a vote then I think that screams volumes about the various governments' leadership in education over the years.

Above-the-line voting has turned a pure candidate based system into one where people are voting for a party and not for the candidate. We often hear complaints about the ballot paper and the amount of microparties that form. Nobody is talking about how the number of Independent candidates has declined over the years. Has anyone bothered to consider that these are symptoms of the same problem? That problem is above-the-line voting. Above-the-line voting was designed to allow for the use of group or individual voting tickets. If we are to scrap these then perhaps we should scrap above-the-line altogether. All we need to do is simply make it easier to cast a formal vote. Knowing that political self-interest always wins ahead of the interests of the people, I have quickly given up on this approach to reform.

So how can we make this butchered system better? For a start, let's actually give all preferences back to the voter, not just the preferences exchanged between political parties. Stop saying that this is the intention of these so-called reforms publically, but then presenting a bill which does not do this. I would also like to see the preferences exchanged within a party group go back to the voter. But if we did that then the major parties would oppose it. Why? Because they would no longer be able to help out a mate would who otherwise be a dud candidate. That dud candidate can currently be dropped into the first spot on the ticket. For a candidate to shine above the others, they would need to actually be a candidate of quality. But that would make them accountable to the voters and take power away from the party hacks that put them there. Well, I say, 'Let the people choose.' They can make that choice at the ballot box by voting below-the-line for that candidate.

The problem is that they are not going to do so unless they are encouraged to do so. There is a way to encourage this engagement between candidate and voter by encouraging below-the-line voting. We have established, however, that this will only be done if it is in their self-interest and not the interest of the voter. We will need to make them work for their vote. This could be achieved by rotating the order of groups on the ballot paper. This system of rotation is known as the Robson rotation, and it is used in the Hare-Clarke system that exists already in some of the Australian elections. This will mean that those parachuted in by party hacks will have to get out there and work for their vote. Other candidates in the other spaces on the ticket would have a fighting chance to build a strong local following and earn their seat. This encourages accountability over self-interest.

I should, however, return to the issue of the rise of microparties and the fall of the Independent candidates. Once this bill is passed, it will be impossible for any ungrouped Independent candidate to be represented above the line. Let us consider that for a moment. Around 97 per cent of votes are cast above the line. This bill fails to allow all candidates to be represented above the line. Only grouped, party based candidates are able to access this pool of votes—that is, unless two Independents group together on a ticket, they are not able to be represented above the line. So we have just doubled the number of candidates that will now appear below the line. It is no wonder that people are voting above the line.

To stand a chance, an Independent needs to group above the line for just one available seat. In order to group together, each member of a group must gather 100 different nominators in the state they are nominated in. That is a lot of work for just one seat that will be declared via preferences.

Now consider what you need to do to register a political party when you can centrally nominate. You only need to gather 500 signatures from all over the country. You can then run as many candidates as you like, in whatever state you like, without having to demonstrate any local support at all. You can be a resident of Victoria and run in Western Australia when you are in a political party. If you are in a team of two Independents, you have to have 200 local nominators in that state in order to run. This bill does nothing to address this. Why? Because it means that the political parties would have to work a little bit harder.

If I had been invited to be part of a genuine reform process, my focus would have been on restoring accountability between a candidate and the voter. I would have sought to address all the problems that above-the-line voting has introduced into the system, not just change the rules around the ones that the established major parties, Senator Xenophon and the Greens find to be a threat to themselves. Most importantly, I would have made the system fair again so that small political groups did not need to form a political party just to have a chance. I would have made sure that people stood a fair chance as Independents in their own right. I would hope that any High Court challenge to this bill and perhaps above-the-line voting would consider how there has been a significant shift away from candidate based voting to party based voting. I would hope that they would consider how it is impossible for a single Independent candidate to be directly elected by the people, because of the party based voting above the line.

This bill has been rushed through parliament with little to no oversight for a reason: it does not deliver what those who want it claim. We may well find ourselves with a rubber-stamp Senate after the imminent double-dissolution election, and the Greens will be the ones who will have to answer for it. I am buoyed by the support I have received from across Australia over the past three weeks from coalition supporters disappointed with the coalition and from Greens supporters bitterly disappointed with the Greens. Of course, it is not too late for the Greens to realise the error of their ways and withdraw their support for this ill-considered bill.

Yesterday, Senator Rice mentioned in her speech: how would somebody who votes for the Bullet Train for Australia or the No CSG Party feel with me being elected via their preferences? I suspect they feel pretty good, considering that I have been very vocal about the right for farmers to veto mining companies' access to their land. The question has not been raised about a train from Melbourne to Sydney via Canberra, but—I tell you what—it sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

If I can come to this debate and highlight clear flaws, it shows one thing: Senator Lee Rhiannon is no longer for the grassroots Greens supporters, who are against a political machine; she is part of that machine and allowing the minority Liberal government, who would be nobody without a coalition, to lock diversity out. If this is so important, where is the plebiscite? Why aren't the people having a chance to vote on this? Why is it being rushed through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, locking everybody else, who might actually have an intelligent contribution to add to it, out of the debate? I would have to say what the Labor Party may have just said: you are running scared.

Senator WANG (Western Australia) (13:56): I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. Ever since the coalition leadership change, the government has been very keen to claim it is a 21st-century government that is agile and nimble and embraces disruptive technology, but the government's behaviour in relation to Senate voting reform in recent weeks has been in stark contrast to these claims. Let me be crystal clear: the bill in front of us today is not a genuine and legitimate reform. It is nothing more than a Senate restructure, because, simply put, this bill does nothing more than make sure that small political parties face an even greater hurdle to be elected. It does nothing more than make sure that the one-quarter of voters who chose not to vote for the coalition, the Labor Party and the Greens cannot be represented in the Senate.

It is okay for the government on one hand to argue that media reform is needed so that media companies can embrace new technologies and take steps to be competitive. Yet, on the other hand, when faced with a growing number of disillusioned voters, this so-called 21st-century government chooses to resort to 20th-century trickery. I am afraid that unfortunately the coalition has no clue at all on how to deal with those more than three million discontented voters, so, instead of trying to be a more competitive political party by listening to the people and representing them better, the coalition along with the Greens and Senator Xenophon have formed a union to entrench their own political domination by eliminating their competitors—the crossbench.

If the same logic had been applied to the media landscape, the then Minister for Communications, now Prime Minister Turnbull, would have proposed a media reform package that could be summarised as follows: competition is bad; newcomers are bad; online news, social media, online streaming and so on all represent serious competition to our traditional media; therefore, they must all be banned. In fact, while they are at it, why not ban the internet altogether? There would be no NBN at all. It has given the government too much grief anyway! The obvious hypocrisy here is that this government likes to tell others to embrace competition and to be more competitive, but when it finds itself exposed to new political forces its only approach is to get rid of its rivals.

I was very puzzled at why the coalition would do a deal with the Greens and Senator Xenophon, after having a look at the Senate voting records, which confirm that the crossbench senators have been more constructive and more balanced than the Greens and Senator Xenophon. Without the Palmer United Party, Australia would still have a carbon tax and a mining tax. Without us, Australians, when they get sick, would right now be paying a GP co-payment.

Debate interrupted.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (15:45): I present two government responses to committee reports as listed on today’s Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard. Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Progress Report on the implementation and administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

The Australian Government welcomes this report and recognises the important and ongoing work of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in reviewing the implementation and administration of the NDIS.

2014-15 was another important year for the NDIS, with trials in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Western Australia, and the Northern Territory (NT) joining the existing trials in New South Wales (NSW), Victoria, South Australia (SA) and Tasmania. Over the year, an additional 10,000 participants entered the scheme, bringing the total number of participants to 19,817.

The Government remains committed to the full, nationwide roll-out of the NDIS. As noted by the Committee in its report, both NSW and Victoria have signed bilateral agreements for the transition to full scheme. Transition to full scheme has already commenced in the ACT. Since the report was finalised, the Prime Minister has also signed bilateral agreements with the Premiers of South Australia and Tasmania. The signed agreements, in total, provide certainty for around 64 per cent of the 460,000 Australians with disability expected to be eligible for the NDIS.

The NDIS is a complex and challenging initiative and the Government is determined to ensure that it is sustainable into the future. When delivered, it will address the chronic unmet needs of people with disability, their families and carers.

Response to the Joint Standing Committee ' s Progress Report

The Government agrees, or agrees in-principle, to all of the recommendations made by the Committee.

The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and its Board, as well as representatives from the Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Treasury, state government officials and key stakeholders, participated actively in sessions held by the Committee leading up to publication of the progress report. The NDIA and DSS have already started work to address many of the recommendations.

The Committee has made several recommendations that will involve further consultation and negotiation with State and Territory Governments. Consistent with current and long-standing arrangements, these will be addressed under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Disability Reform Council. All Australian Governments continue to work together closely to ensure the Scheme is delivered in a timely, effective and efficient manner.

Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Australian Government response to the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth report

Inquiry into Business Utilisation of Australia ' s Free Trade Agreements

March 2016

Tabled 15 October 2015

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should include financial services regulators in free trade negotiations to boost the opportunities for Australia's financial services sector.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) includes financial services regulators in free trade agreement negotiations. This includes through formal consultations on key negotiating positions, regular updates on negotiations and maintaining open communication channels for access to DFAT trade negotiators at all times. Financial services regulators have at times also participated in formal trade negotiating rounds—for example, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission were all involved in negotiating rounds for the recently concluded China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Recommendation 2:

The Committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture should continue negotiating with trading partners to gain acceptance of the fruit fly-free status of particular regions of mainland Australia in free trade agreements where this is an issue.

Response:

The Government does not support the recommendation. Australia does not negotiate sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) outcomes in free trade agreements (FTAs). The Australian Government will continue to negotiate SPS market access outcomes, including pest free areas for fruit flies, with Australia ' s trading partners on a science and evidence-based approach.

Recommendation 3:

The Committee recommends that proposed changes to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme include all exported goods whether destined for export via air or sea.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendation. The Government has agreed to the expansion of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme (TFES) from 1 January 2016. This will enable Tasmanian businesses sending their goods to the mainland to be able to claim under the scheme regardless of the goods' final destination.

Shipments via the mainland for markets not currently covered by the Scheme will now be covered and will be able to claim assistance at the flat rate of $700 per TEU (twenty foot equivalent unit). Shippers from King Island and the Furneaux Group of Islands will be eligible for a 15 per cent additional loading. The flat rate of assistance will be introduced for eligible non-bulk goods that are shipped to any mainland port regardless of the goods' final destination, and whether the goods are air freighted or shipped to a final destination.

The objective of the TFES, including in its expanded form, is to provide Tasmanian industries with equal opportunities to compete, recognising that unlike their mainland counterparts, Tasmanian shippers do not have the option of transporting goods interstate by road or rail.

Shipments of eligible non-bulk goods that bypass the Australian mainland are not eligible for assistance under the expanded TFES.

Recommendation 4:

The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:

review the roll out schedule of the North Asia FTA Advocacy Program seminars with a view to providing quicker and more effective outreach to its target audience; and

engage peak industry bodies to deliver seminars under the North Asia FTA Advocacy Program.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendation.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Austrade have jointly delivered 38 North Asia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Information Seminars around the country since April 2015. Seminars have taken place in all states and territories. More than 1500 small and medium enterprises and other interested parties had attended these events; feedback to date on the events continues to be very positive. The regularity of seminar delivery has increased over recent months and this is likely to continue as a result of efficiencies in the planning, logistics and program delivery aspects of the seminars. The seminars are well advertised by Austrade and DFAT to general and target audiences, and through outreach to member-based organisations. Presentations and other material used at the seminars are available to the public through the "Open for Business" website.

As regards peak body involvement, the Government strongly supports North Asia FTA outreach activities undertaken by the private sector across Australia. Austrade and DFAT are engaging closely with a wide variety of peak industry bodies, as well as state governments and other stakeholders, on the roll-out of the seminars, including through inviting their members, as well as providing speakers and panellists for separate corporate and industry-focused events. Austrade and DFAT will continue to support these events wherever possible.

Additionally, as part of the FTA advocacy package funded in the May 2015 Federal Budget, Austrade has also developed an online 'FTA Toolkit' with video case studies, talking points, presentations and fact sheets for industry, regional business development groups and bilateral business chambers to inform their members about the FTAs. Austrade also will shortly begin assessing applications for the FTA Training Provider Grant program, established to assist eligible organisations deliver tailored training projects aimed at helping Australian small and medium-sized enterprises and stakeholders understand how to use and access FTAs with China, Japan and Korea.

Recommendation 5:

The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ensure the FTA Dashboard is designed to enable easy access to country-based information and enable end-users to easily switch between the FTA Dashboard and the MICoR database.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation. The FTA Portal (formerly referred to as the FTA Dashboard) is designed to provide access to FTA information on a country basis. In particular, searches are conducted by country, rather than by Agreement.

In the most recent release version (December 2015), the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources ensured the FTA Portal directs users easily to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Manual of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR). Both agencies will further explore the possibilities for improving the ease with which information can be accessed.

Recommendation 6:

The Committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture:

review the demand for 24 hour/7 day access to the export document hub; and

assess the feasibility of developing technology to meet the demand for 24 hour/7 day access to the export document hub.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendation. The Government notes that demand for 24 hour/7 day access to the export document hub is currently very low. The development and implementation of technology to provide such access would require significant human and financial resources, and would increase costs for exporters through cost recovery mechanisms. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources will continue to monitor demand for this service, but does not believe a feasibility study is warranted at this time.

Recommendation 7:

The Committee recommends that the Export Market Development Grant scheme be broadened to recognise anti-counterfeiting measures as an expense.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendation. The Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) scheme is a key Australian Government financial assistance programme for small to medium aspiring and growing export-ready businesses. It encourages businesses to increase international marketing and promotion expenditure to achieve more sustainable international sales. Eligible businesses can claim expenses under nine categories: overseas representation; marketing consultants; marketing visits; communications; free samples; trade fairs, seminars, and in-store promotions; promotional literature and advertising; overseas buyers; and the registration and/or insurance of eligible intellectual property.

For the purposes of the EMDG scheme, intellectual property covers, but is not limited to:

patents,

designs,

trademarks,

plant breeders' rights,

circuit layout rights,

confidentiality/trade secrets or

copyright.

The grant, registration or extension of the term or period of the registration of the intellectual property must have been made for an approved promotional purpose. More information on this category of EMDG expenditure can be found at: http://www.austrade.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/1433/EMDG-IP-registration-insurance-2014-15.pdf.aspx

While packaging and labelling may provide Australian exporters with other anti-counterfeiting protection, the EMDG scheme cannot cover expenditure relating to the cost of production, and this type of expenditure would not be eligible expenditure for the purposes of the EMDG scheme.

Recommendation 8:

The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade provide assistance to free trade agreement partner countries, where appropriate, to build their capacity to assess sanitary and phytosanitary risks.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendation.

Australia's development assistance programs in the agriculture and fisheries sectors, valued at approximately $225 million in 2014-15, included technical assistance for managing sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) risks and improving food safety. These programs provide assistance to current and future free trade agreement partner countries in the Indo-Pacific region.

For example:

The Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market Access Program (PHAMA) aims to increase Pacific horticultural and agricultural exports to international markets;

The Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Emerging Infectious Diseases Animal Health Program supports the Indonesian Agriculture Ministry's capacity to plan and implement disease prevention and control activities;

Agricultural Productivity in Solomon Islands supports the Solomon Islands Agriculture and Livestock Ministry's cocoa extension systems and includes SPS-related technical assistance in the Ministry; and

Australia also supports the World Organisation for Animal Health's Stop Transboundary Animal Disease and Zoonoses initiative, including a program to build veterinary capacity in Asia.

Australia also provides assistance to developing countries for negotiating and implementing free trade agreements, which include SPS chapters.

For example:

The ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (AANZFTA) Economic Support Program assists developing country members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to implement their AANZFTA commitments so they can benefit from trade liberalisation and economic integration.

The PACER Plus Support program assists Pacific Island countries negotiating the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus.

Recommendation 9:

The Committee recommends that when the Government signals an intention to begin free trade agreement negotiations with a trading partner, industry assistance should be targeted towards exporters who may wish to achieve a presence in the intended trading partner's market before completion of the free trade agreement negotiations.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendation. The outcomes of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), including market access commitments and other potential benefits, are not finalised or made public until around the time of the conclusion of negotiations. As such, it would not be possible to target industry assistance before the completion of the free trade agreement negotiations, as the benefits for a particular good or service provider would not be certain.

Businesses seeking to expand into the market of a new or existing FTA partner are eligible to apply for assistance through a range of government programmes. Businesses could cite any known or expected benefits from an FTA in such applications.

Government websites carry a substantial amount of materials to assist exporters (by country and sector), if they wish to target a given market. The Government typically increases assistance through the provision of broad information and advice on how to expand to an FTA partner's market near the conclusion of an agreement. For example, the North-Asia FTA information seminar series began well before the entry into force of the China-Australia FTA in December 2015.

Recommendation 10:

The Committee recommends that at the commencement of free trade negotiations, the Department of Employment should undertake modelling of the human capital and workforce needs arising from the agreement, particularly for the services sector. Based on the modelling outcomes, the department should develop a workforce strategy to take advantage of the agreement.

Response:

The Government does not support the recommendation. The Government notes that economic modelling on free trade agreements does not usually include estimates on employment growth or sectoral labour market impacts and, where such modelling occurs, it is more appropriately undertaken at the conclusion of negotiations. The limitations of economic modelling (see response to recommendation 12) would prevent its use for workforce strategy development purposes.

Recommendation 11:

The Committee recommends that Austrade, in consultation with Australian business, facilitate:

the development of a recognisable Australia brand logo and signage for exported Australian goods and services; and

the development of anti-counterfeiting measures for exported Australian goods.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendation, and supports the creation of a recognisable logo and related brand assets for exported goods and services. Austrade has previously responded to a government request to develop a brand identity (logo) to identify Australian goods. The 'Australia Unlimited' logo was created as part of the Building Brand Australia program to represent the capability internationally, including to identify goods and services as Australian. The use of the 'Australia Unlimited' logo was encouraged across government, with varying success. More recently, the Government has used the Open For Business logo to position all of the free trade agreement advocacy and business utilisation activities under a single brand. Elsewhere, work is being carried out by the private sector in relation to food branding, and in particular red meat, and this work is being monitored.

The Government establishes the policy and legal frameworks for intellectual property protection in Australia, and FTAs and other international agreements help underpin intellectual property standards which assist Australian companies to do business internationally. The Australian Government also participates in international fora dedicated to better detection and mitigation of intellectual property infringements in global markets. However, taking the commercial measures and legal steps to protect and enforce their brand rights, including in foreign markets, is a matter predominantly for Australian companies to consider and undertake. Nevertheless, Australian government agencies do provide information to assist Australian businesses on these important issues, including in international markets. There is a range of publicly-available information on protection of IP rights, including trademarks, overseas, on the Austrade and IP Australia websites.

Recommendation 12:

The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commission independent modelling of the potential benefits of free trade agreements. Modelling should be undertaken before negotiations begin and be compared to the outcomes of a second modelling exercise undertaken after negotiations have been completed, but before signing. The modelling results together with an explanation of variances should be made publicly available.

Response:

The Government does not support the recommendation. While economic modelling simulations can provide helpful indications of the possible quantitative impacts of an FTA, such models have limitations and their results should be regarded as only one input into the process for assessing the merits of trade agreements.

DFAT does not consider that it would be practical or feasible to delay signature of FTA negotiations in order to conduct quantitative modelling of final outcomes. Critical market access outcomes are often the final elements agreed by the negotiating parties; undertaking modelling at that stage, or making signature contingent on the results of economic modelling, could prejudice Australia's negotiating position and impact on the Government's capacity to negotiate outcomes in the national interest.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has, from time to time, commissioned independent modelling on the possible impacts of free trade agreements in consultation with government, and, where this occurs, will continue to ensure the publication of modelling results is accompanied by the assumptions upon which the modelling is based.

Recommendation 13:

The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade formally involve representatives from Australia's peak industry bodies, both employer and employee, in free trade agreement negotiations, reflecting the US model.

Response:

The Government does not support the recommendation. The Government currently consults extensively with the public before a decision is made whether or not to enter into FTA negotiations, including through a wide call for submissions. This consultation process continues throughout the course of any FTA negotiations. Stakeholders or other interested parties are welcome to make a submission, meet with relevant negotiators or join DFAT's regular (typically bi-annual) peak body trade consultations at any time. This Government-instituted model works well in both identifying commercially-significant impediments to increasing Australian trade and ensuring the Government is well informed when developing negotiating positions.

Recommendation 14:

The Committee recommends that the Government should be taking all possible means to ensure that market access is enabled and that negotiators from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade remain involved in market access negotiations after a free trade agreement enters into force.

Response:

The Government notes the recommendation. The Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and Agriculture and Water Resources have different areas of responsibility in negotiating market access for Australian exporters. DFAT and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources work together in negotiations, with DFAT having the lead on tariffs and tariff quotas. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is the lead agency on technical market access negotiations (Sanitary and Phytosanitary negotiations) with DFAT playing a supporting role, including attendance at negotiations.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:45): Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports as listed at items 12 and 16 on today's Order of Business as well as Report No. 3 of 2016 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and additional information for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity together with the Hansard records of proceedings and documents presented to the committees.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:47): by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:47): by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (15:47): by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee's final report on Economic Development and Governance in the Indian Ocean Territories—which encompasses the Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

As external territories Christmas and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are administered by the Commonwealth, with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and the minister for the territories having overall responsibility.

Arrangements with the Western Australian government provide state-type services.

Today I wish to briefly highlight the work of the joint standing committee in undertaking this inquiry.

In March 2015, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development referred the issue of the economic development and governance in the Indian Ocean Territories to the committee for inquiry and report.

The terms of reference directed the joint standing committee to look into the interaction between formal institutions and the Indian Ocean communities, reviewing:

•   the role of the administrator and the capacity (and appropriateness) of the administrator taking on a stronger decision-making role;

•   existing consultation mechanisms undertaken by government representatives, including the IOT Regional Development Organisation, and best practice for similar small remote communities' engagement with Australian and state governments;

•   local government's role in supporting and representing communities in the Indian Ocean Territories; and

•   opportunities to strengthen and diversify the economy, whilst maintaining and celebrating the unique cultural identity of the Indian Ocean Territories.

As part of the inquiry, the joint standing committee visited Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas Islands in April 2015.

A visit I was sadly unable to attend myself.

However, those colleagues in this and the other place that were able to participate in the visit undertook a hearing, took community statements and made a range of inspections on the islands.

Throughout the course of the inquiry the joint standing committee received 53 submissions and held 14 hearings throughout 2015.

The joint standing committee heard from a diverse array of stakeholders, including Commonwealth officers, local governments, former and the current administrators, business owners, community groups and residents.

The committee heard evidence of great contrast between the islands. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands have long had a static and small economy.

By contrast, Christmas Island has experienced a 'boom and bust' cycle over the years.

In particular, the committee heard calls for call for alternative economic drivers for Christmas Island as a result of the recent decline in immigration detention activity on Christmas Island and ongoing concerns about the longer-term sustainability of the Christmas Island phosphate mine.

Previously, in June 2015, the joint standing committee tabled an interim report which focused on some aspects of economic development where the evidence on how to proceed was clear and consistent.

The committee's interim report did not include the consideration of the more complex issues in relation to the IOT's governance arrangements.

The committee agreed to concentrate on a few measures it believes have the potential to stimulate the IOT economy relatively quickly and could have a multiplier effect.

The committee's interim report contained three recommendations centring on:

•   establishing a policy, legislative and regulatory framework that facilitates the reopening of the Christmas Island casino, and conducting an appropriate process to assess proposals from private sector proponents;

•   allowing Christmas Island District High School to accept fee-paying international students again; and

•   a sea freight service that offers more regular and affordable shipping.

The interim report also highlighted the Mining to Plant Enterprises project which has been successfully trialling agriculture on exhausted mining lease land on Christmas Island.

The joint standing committee's final report into the inquiry, which has been tabled today, makes 19 recommendations.

The recommendations in the final report both builds recommendations of the earlier report on economic development as well as addressing longstanding service delivery and governance issues.

In particular, in considering further opportunities to stimulate economic activity in the IOTs the report looks at ways to increase tourism.

Tourism has long been considered a potential cornerstone of a diversified IOT economy.

The attractive landscapes, rare animal and bird life, and unique cultures of the Christmas and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are considerable drawcards.

However, the committee heard that like other remote Australian destinations, the development of a vibrant tourism sector in the region faces significant challenges.

These challenges are compounded by the territories' unique governance arrangements and the presence of immigration detention operations on Christmas Island.

The committee concluded that overcoming these barriers will require close collaboration between Commonwealth and local governments, industry and the community to boost promotion and marketing of the region and revitalise the territories' reputation as a premier holiday destination.

Recommendations include establishing closer links with Tourism Western Australia to facilitate access to tourism support services, and measures to promote the Indian Ocean territories as a unique destination with capacity-building assistance for the local tourism associations from Tourism Australia.

Significantly the report also makes recommendations to improve land management.

The need to conduct a detailed geological survey on Christmas Island was identified as a priority.

A further priority which was identified is clarification of the operation of the land trust on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

The report also identified the need for a Crown land management framework which sets out the principles governing the release of Crown land, and processes that developers need to follow to lease and purchase Crown land.

The evidence to the inquiry made it clear that residents are dissatisfied with the management and delivery of services in the IOTs.

For example there were well-founded concerns that fire and emergency services on Christmas Island were in jeopardy when existing arrangements were due to expire and new arrangements had not been negotiated.

While I note that this issue has since been resolved it is unsatisfactory that the situation was even allowed to occur in the first place and must never be allowed to happen again.

Related to this are the committee's recommendations on the need for improved consultation with the community and increased transparency and accountability.

Over the course of the inquiry it became apparent that public servants within the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development have assumed some of the responsibilities that were previously assigned to the Administrator.

And as a result the role of the IOT Administrator has diminished over time.

Uncertainty about the role of the IOT Administrator has been compounded by the different approaches of successive administrators.

The result is that the IOT communities are increasingly uncertain about who is responsible for what.

For this reason, the committee has recommended that the role and responsibilities of the IOT Administrator be clarified, including outlining specified delegations.

The report, in its final chapter, examines possible options for reform.

While at a local level there may be scope to streamline and amalgamate some functions of the IOT shire governments, it is clear it is going to take more fundamental reform to achieve significant improvements in governance for the IOT.

This is not a new consideration; however it has been over two decades since the proposal for incorporation of the IOT into a state or territory was last mooted.

The committee came to the view that bringing governance arrangements into line with the rest of Australia would significantly improve investor confidence and enhance economic prospects.

Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the Australian government fully investigate the option of incorporating the IOT into a state or territory as a longer term solution for the IOT and its residents.

Initially this would involve making formal approaches to the relevant state and territory governments and critically, extensive consultation with residents of the IOT.

As we know from previous experience significant reform of this type would not be without its challenges.

However these reforms may be the best and most appropriate way to achieve a stronger foundation and new strategic direction for the IOT.

Finally, on behalf of the chair, myself and my committee colleagues, I wish to thank everyone who contributed to the inquiry, especially residents of the Indian Ocean territories for sharing their views and experiences.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of the committee secretariat for their work on the inquiry and the support they have provided the joint standing committee.

I commend this report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (15:58): I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I am pleased to table this report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee into mental health of Australian Defence Force members and veterans. The government, opposition, and Australian Greens senators worked cooperatively during the inquiry and I am pleased to report that the majority report's recommendations have broad cross-party support.

The committee has a deep respect for those Australians who serve and protect our country, putting their life, as well as their physical and mental health, on the line. This report examines the prevalence of mental ill health and the impact that ADF service can have on the mental health of its members and veterans, as well as the services available to support ADF members and veterans struggling with mental ill health.

It is a terrible tragedy whenever any ADF member loses their life during their service; however, when a member or veteran dies as a result of suicide it is particularly devastating for the family, friends, and colleagues of the deceased member.

Since 2000, more than 100 ADF members are suspected or have been confirmed to have died as a result of suicide. Suicide claims the lives of many veterans as well; however, it is difficult to determine the number of veterans who have died as a result of suicide.

In general, the committee has been satisfied that ADF members' access to mental health services is adequate, provided the member is willing to seek treatment. However, evidence received by the committee of ADF members who were brave enough to report mental ill-health and seek treatment being ostracised, ridiculed, and accused of 'malingering' was deeply disturbing and completely unacceptable.

The committee has made a number of recommendations to Defence, DVA and the Commonwealth government more broadly. The recommendations focus on:

improving the identification and recording of mental ill-health in ADF members by auditing the scope and accuracy ADF medical record keeping, especially during deployment, and ensuing that medical officers and mental health professionals have ready access to records of potentially traumatic events experienced by members;

addressing stigma by emphasising the benefit of early identification and treatment of mental ill-health for an ADF member's long-term career and encouraging ADF members to plan beyond their next deployment when considering mental ill-health;

improving transparency regarding the use of the anti-malarial drug mefloquine and ensuring that ADF members and veterans, who have been administered mefloquine during their service, are advised of the possible short-term and long-term side effects and be given access to neurological assessment;

the introduction of a universal veterans identification number and card that is linked to veterans' service and medical records;

encouraging veterans to seek assistance early by ensuring that e-health records identify veterans and that GPs are encouraged to promote annual ADF Post-discharge GP Health Assessments for all veterans;

simplifying the pathways for veterans to seek assistance by broadening eligibility for the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service (VVCS) and ensuring that DVA has the resources to achieve the full digitisation of its records and modernisation of its systems and claims processes;

ensuring that the DVA Psychologists Schedule of Fees be revised to better reflect the Australian Psychological Societies' National Schedule of Recommended Fees and that any restrictions regarding the number of hours or frequency of psychologist sessions are based on achieving the best outcome and guaranteeing the safety of the veteran;

addressing veteran homelessness, advocating a 'housing first approach' which focuses on providing stable housing and ongoing psychosocial support for veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Early identification and treatment of mental ill-health is crucial for ADF members and veterans struggling with mental ill-health to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Mental ill-health in veterans may go unrecognised and undiagnosed for many years after leaving the ADF. Whilst it is true that engagement with DVA must be initiated by the veteran, more must be done to encourage veterans to seek assistance early and to make the process for seeking assistance simple and swift.

It is a terrible failing that we as a community do not know how many of our veterans are struggling with mental ill-health. More must be done to ensure continuity of identification of veterans, regardless of whether they are clients of DVA. All veterans should be provided with a universal identification number and identification card that can be linked to the veteran's service and medical records and utilised by both Defence and DVA, as well as other government and community services.

The committee commends RSL Lifecare for its Homes for Heroes Program and for the work of its founder, Mr Geoff Evans, helping veterans who are homeless and struggling with mental ill-health. Despite being in its early stages, the program's 'housing first approach' and focus on ongoing psychosocial support for veterans appears to be achieving excellent results at minimum cost.

I commend the report to the Senate.