Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (12:45): Australia is a close and longstanding partner to Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea is a country that I have visited many times over the last decade and I have come to develop a great affection for. From the 25 to 30 June, I had the great privilege of representing the Australian government as one of four Australian observers to the 2017 PNG elections.

I would like to start by warmly congratulating Papua New Guinea on the successful conduct of their ninth election since independence. I also congratulate all 111 successful candidates who were elected, and also Peter O'Neill on his re-election as Prime Minister. I was accompanied by my Senate colleague, Senator Moore, and also MPs, Andrew Laming and Cathy McGowan. I spent my time between two provinces. The first was the Eastern Highlands and the second was the Gulf Province—two very rich and wonderfully diverse communities and societies with two very different approaches to democratic elections.

This observer mission demonstrates Australia's commitment to supporting Papua New Guinea's democracy and the observations of all four of us will inform Australia's ongoing support to strengthen PNG's electoral systems. Geographic proximity and also our deep historical ties have given Papua New Guinea a very special place in Australia's foreign relations, and our bilateral relationship is certainly one of the most complex and wide-ranging with any nation. We are increasingly working together to strengthen governance in line with PNG's own policy priorities. Australia's official development assistance to PNG last financial year was over $500 million.

Having supported Australian programs—this is myself—to encourage female candidates, but also to strengthen political parties in PNG, on a very personal level this election provided mixed results in both areas. It was wonderful to see the evolution of political party administration and professionalism in Papua New Guinea. I would like to congratulate my friend, Dr Alphonse Gelu, for his tireless commitment to this cause over many years. But it was personally very disappointing to see that not a single woman will now sit in the PNG's next parliament. For this election, Australia provided training for a quarter of all female candidates standing for election in Papua New Guinea. That is 42 out of 165 women who stood at this election.

I would like to take this time to commend the outgoing female members of parliament, Delilah Gore, Julie Soso and also Loujaya Kouza for the important contribution they have made to Papua New Guinea's democracy, and I have no doubt that they will continue the work in encouraging more women to stand, and be in a position to win, in five years' time.

Our longstanding support for the Papua New Guinea Electoral Commission has also helped enable implementation of practical measures for women who are voting, and to do so in a way that is unimpeded by others at the booth. One of those in particular was the advent of a separate line for men and women going into the polling booth. I was very pleased to see at most of the polling places I went to that this was observed—in a number of different ways, but it was observed—and I think it was of benefit to a number of the women who were seeking to exercise a free vote.

Papua New Guinea is without question an endlessly fascinating and complex nation where locals will always tell you to expect the unexpected. On my return from Papua New Guinea, I was more convinced than ever that Australians would benefit from a bit more of the spirit of Papua New Guineans. That is, a spirit, a passion, for democracy. I think all of us here in Australia would be far better from a little bit more of that spirit of Papua New Guinea, and not being afraid of having robust and passionate debates of issues of importance and importance to our democracy.

The Papua New Guineans whom I know, my friends, all have wonderful senses of humour, a generosity of spirit, deep religious beliefs and a great love of and connection to family and to tribal lands. One of the things that I greatly admire in Papua New Guineans is that, over centuries, they have developed the ability to robustly and respectfully debate important issues within their communities but also then accept a consensus community decision. The tough subsistence living of so many, which I again witnessed on this visit, is unimaginable to most Australians today. But it does make Papua New Guineans an incredibly resilient and endlessly patient society. With over 1,000 tribes and 800 language groups, they also mostly manage cultural and ethnic diversity very well, albeit still with the occasional clan and tribal skirmishes.

Ultimately, however, what unites the nation of Papua New Guinea is a deep love for family, community, rugby and participating in elections. It unites the entire nation. Despite the well-documented problems with the administration and conduct of the election, there has been a result, and PNG democracy will continue to survive, but I believe it will evolve in a very distinctly Papua New Guinean fashion. In a way, what I saw there was that it is evolving and adapting classical democratic concepts and processes and merging them with tribal traditions to meet their own needs and requirements in the 21st century. I definitely saw this in action in a number of communities in the Eastern Highlands. All of this is not to underplay the significants socio-economic challenges Papua New Guinea still faces. PNG society, like society elsewhere in the world, is changing. Urbanisation is putting strain on traditional cultural values and family and societal structures, norms and support.

Responsibility for delivering this election lies with the Papua New Guinean government. In line with the Papua New Guinean electoral processes, and the expectations of the Papua New Guinean people, the PNG Electoral Commission was led by Commissioner Gamato, who I have to say had a very challenging role in delivering this election. Australia worked very closely with PNG to support the delivery of this election, including assisting the Papua New Guinea Electoral Commission with wide-ranging logistical support and training of electoral staff.

The Papua New Guinean terrain and the dispersal of communities mean that it is one of the most logistically challenging locations in the world in which to conduct an election. I was very proud, when I was up there, to see the ADF helping with transport. They transported over 90 tonnes of material, nearly 1,000 local election staff and over 600 members of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force who were involved in election delivery. It was great to see over 200 Australian personnel up there, quietly but very effectively providing air assets to transport materials and people to over 18 airfields—some of the most challenging to get to in the world.

I had the pleasure and the honour of meeting with the ADF personnel deployed on Operation Hannah, the ADF's contribution to supporting the PNG elections. I was honoured meet with Operation Hannah headquarters staff at Murray Barracks and thank them for the valuable work they were doing to contribute to Papua New Guinean democracy. The operation also, significantly for Australia, provided an environmental understanding for us in the lead-up to APEC 2018 and the Bougainville referendum, which we are committed to supporting. That the ADF was able to undertake such a significant operation overseas whilst simultaneously delivering effectively all other overseas operational deployments, but also Exercise Talisman Sabre, is a real testament to the enhanced operational capabilities of today's ADF. I congratulate them all.

I would like to finish by thanking Heather Murphy from DFAT, who was my liaison officer throughout the observer mission. She succeeded in not losing a senator in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. I thank her very much for that and for her professionalism and commitment. I also thank the High Commissioner, Bruce Davis, and the Deputy High Commissioner, Bronte Moules, both of whom provide very professional and very wonderful support. They do Australia proud, they and their team, in their support of the Australian government in Papua New Guinea.

The Australian government looks forward to a productive working relationship with Prime Minister O'Neill and Papua New Guinea's new government and parliament. I wish the new government well. I will do all I can personally to support the Australian government's continued work with the Papua New Guinea Electoral Commission to further strengthen electoral administration, particularly in relation to voter identification; to strengthen the integrity of the common roll; and, of course, to work with their women.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (12:55): Early in my working career, I was employed as an early childhood educator. I worked in childcare centres and then I ran my own family day care business. While the profession used to be simply referred to as 'child care', it was in those times that the title 'early childhood educator' was adopted. It was adopted to recognise that there is a much broader role for workers in this industry. We are not just carers but also skilled educators who help young children to learn and develop. We understand that learning begins from birth and that those who provide professional care for children while their parents are working or studying have a huge responsibility for that learning. As skilled professional educators, we understand a great deal about childhood development. As a former early childhood educator with over a decade of experience, I feel qualified to make some comments about the transition from early childhood education to school.

There's a debate going on right now in my home state of Tasmania about a state government proposal to lower the school starting age by half a year. This proposal is a bad idea for many, many reasons. It's bad for schools, it's bad for the early childhood education and care sector, and, most importantly, it's bad for the children. The Tasmanian government education minister, Jeremy Rockliff, claimed that their proposal would bring Tasmania's school starting age into line with other jurisdictions. This is simply not true. An analysis of school starting ages commissioned by the Australian Childcare Alliance shows that if the proposal went ahead Tasmania would have the lowest compulsory school starting age in Australia. This would be despite having the highest precompulsory school enrolment in Australia—that is, an enrolment in what we call kindergarten of 98 per cent, equal only to the ACT. While Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have similar compulsory school starting ages to Tasmania, their preschool/kinder programs are offered through early education and care services, not in schools.

Under this proposal, Tasmanian children would enter a formal school environment a full year before most of their mainland counterparts. Unlike early childhood education, school-based kindergarten programs do not provide 3½-year-olds with the kind of play-based learning that they require. I want to make it clear that I'm not criticising Tasmania's highly qualified and hard-working teachers, but they've studied and gained their teaching qualifications in the expectation that they would be teaching a particular age cohort—that is, children who are ready for school, not children who belong in early education and care services. Now, a lot of people think there is little difference between the ages 3½ and four, but this is a period of rapid development for children, especially when you consider those developmental changes across a classroom of 15 or 20 students. In Tasmania, it's quite often more. This presents the challenge of teachers having to supervise more young children who, because of their age, have a shorter attention span or cannot go to the toilet unattended—tasks which early childhood educators are trained to deal with.

If the government's proposal goes ahead, teachers will need more resources to help them in the classrooms. Granted, the state government has allocated funding for this initiative, but it's funding that could be better directed to initiatives that make a positive difference to educational outcomes. For example, why not direct the funding to reducing teacher-to-student ratios, providing more one-on-one support for children with disability or learning difficulties, or reinstating pathway planners? So, while the lower school starting age proposal would put a strain on Tasmania's education budget, it will also have a devastating impact on the early childhood education and care sector. Taking thousands of children out of early childhood education and placing them in formal schooling will lead to many childcare centres becoming unviable and being forced to close, particularly in regional areas. Analysis by the sector's peak body, Early Childhood Australia, found that upwards of 500 early childhood educator jobs could be lost as a result of this proposal. Lowering the age that children go to school would also lower the average age of children enrolled in child care. And because there is a requirement for higher staff ratios for younger children, childcare fees would increase significantly. Modelling by the Australian Childcare Alliance shows that fees could as much as double in some centres due to their high fixed costs and the loss of this more profitable age group. While those parents whose children have entered school early might save on childcare fees, the cost will be borne by those parents whose children remain enrolled in child care.

I've mentioned the impact this proposal would have on schools and early childhood and care sector, but an even more important reason I oppose this policy is that it is just simply bad for the children. Prominent author and child psychologist Steve Biddulph wrote in an opinion editorial in the Mercury of Hobart last year that research overwhelmingly supports a later school starting age of around six or seven years of age. He pointed out that around 88 per cent of the world starts school at around this age, and that:

Australia as a whole is out of step with the world, and our State Government is seeking to make that worse.

Among the reasons against starting children at school too young is that they find sitting at a desk for long periods uncomfortable, and their motor skills and executive function are generally less well-developed than older children. Mr Biddulph's view is backed up by a study from Stanford University, which found that children who started kindergarten at the age of six had much better self-control than those who were enrolled at five. In Queensland, suspensions of children who are five years old and under have doubled in three years—suspensions! And more children are being referred to support services for ADHD.

The Tasmanian government's proposal has been roundly condemned, not only by childhood development academics and experts like Mr Biddulph but by the early childhood education sector and many parents and teachers. With the weight of evidence against this proposal and so much opposition to it, I cannot understand why the Tasmanian government is persisting with this misguided and ill-thought-out plan. The only possible reason I can think of is that they have invested so much political capital in it that they have no dignified way of retreating from it completely. Minister Rockliff has at least managed a partial retreat, I will give him that. In August last year, the education minister changed his proposal to allow parents the choice of whether to send their children to school early. This is possibly worse than the original plan. I know the idea of giving choice to parents sounds like a good one, but it places an incredible burden on them. Some parents may feel quite comfortable about making the decision, but many others have told me that they are already feeling anxious about it. They are asking themselves: 'What do I base my decision on? Where do I seek advice about what's right for my child, and what if I get it wrong?' If they get it wrong, it can have huge social impacts on those children. In particular, low-income families may be influenced in their decision by financial pressures, as has been pointed out by educational psychologist Professor Andrew Martin from the University of Sydney. As Professor Martin said:

Low socio-economic students may be disproportionately more likely to be entered early so their parents, for example, can get to work.

The results of different parents making different decisions will be classrooms with children more than a year apart in age, and the gap will be even wider in combined prep and kinder classes, where children could be up to three years apart in their abilities.

In the early years, children progress in their learning and development very rapidly. It is clearly unacceptable to have three-year-old children in a classroom with children six years of age. How could one teacher or even two teachers possibly supervise a class of children spanning ages three to six? And let's remember, a lot of three-year-olds still have a sleep throughout the day. How could they possibly give those children the attention they need, tailoring various curriculum programs to each age group? Without individual attention, this age gap will compound the problem of children becoming anxious and disengaged, because they struggle to keep up with the older peers. This age gap and disadvantage could potentially continue throughout a child's entire school life.

The Tasmanian state Labor opposition is firmly against this proposal, and I believe their position is in step with the majority of the Tasmanian community. This opposition was reconfirmed last month when I spoke to, and seconded, a motion carried unanimously by Labor's state conference against lowering the school starting age. I cannot imagine many Australians would agree that a three-and-a-half-year-old child is old enough to begin school. Since the government is ignoring the community and ignoring the evidence, the power is in the hands of Tasmania's Legislative Council, so I hope they're listening and I hope, for the sake of Tasmania's children, that they make the right decision. I will continue to speak up against this ill-considered and short-sighted proposal until it is dropped by the government. (Time expired)

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:05): The MP citizenship issue has been a significant matter of public interest in recent weeks. I was personally devastated by the news that Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters resigned from parliament over issues with dual citizenship. These two people—indeed, friends of mine—have served the party and the country with distinction and brought so much to this chamber. I'd like to pay tributes to both of them, and I certainly hope to see them back in this place one day.

Scott, Larissa and our leader Richard Di Natale have brought great credit on themselves and on the Greens in how they have dealt with this question with complete integrity, openness and grace. This is in stark contrast to the Liberal-National Party and, today, One Nation, who have announced they will refer Senator Roberts to the Court of Disputed Returns, but only after the Greens and others had forced the issue.

I came under public scrutiny over my citizenship because my parents were in Singapore when I was born, as my father was serving in the Australian Air Force during the Vietnam War. However, because of Singaporean law—where you can only become a citizen of Singapore if you have one Singaporean parent—there was no way I could have inadvertently become a Singaporean citizen. Despite this, like many in this place, I was under a lot of media and constituent pressure to publicly provide documentation on my citizenship status. So I sought advice, records and a statement from the Australian High Commission and the Singaporean High Commission and have provided this to the media.

I have been open with my documentation. I also know that Senator Di Natale has been open about his, but it has been brought to my attention that one person in this chamber has not been willing to clear up public speculation and doubts about their efforts to rid themselves of dual citizenship when they were duly first elected: Senator Eric Abetz.

We know that Eric Abetz was once a German citizen. We know that he is now no longer a German citizen. What we don't know is whether—or how long—he sat in this chamber before he rid himself of his dual citizenship. It could've been anything up to 16 years. We don't know whether he took all reasonable steps to renounce his German citizenship before he took his place in the Senate. He has previously said he would publicly release documentation, but I understand he has not done so.

The government has been very vocal in the media about Larissa and Scott. It is only fair to subject senators on the government's side of the chamber to the same scrutiny—in fact, all senators. This is why we have moved for a general AEC audit of all sitting senators' and MPs' citizenship records and status. Given Labor and Liberal are disappointingly not likely to support this motion, it would then be a simple matter for Senator Abetz to clear up this issue by publicly providing the documentation about the steps he took to end his citizenship. This would be easy to do and would put him above doubt, which we all must be. I ask him to come to this chamber and do so.

Now, onto Venezuela. Since I last spoke on the issue in June, Venezuela has taken further steps away from democracy and towards chaos. With the establishment of a so-called constituent assembly, the Venezuelan President, Mr Maduro, has effectively set the stage to perpetuate himself in power at the expense of Venezuelan democracy and the human rights of the Venezuelan people. Many international human rights groups, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have condemned the constituent assembly, as have governments from around the world, including Venezuela's Latin American neighbours and the European Union.

There are many concerns with a constituent assembly, and I will outline some of the most egregious aspects here. It is entirely made up of ruling party loyalists, including the President's own wife. It's impossible to ascertain the truth regarding the voter turnout given there were no independent observers and the media were, generally, not allowed to get close to the voting centres. But it's widely believed that turnout was low. Millions of Venezuelans had previously expressed their opposition to the proposal through a plebiscite on 16 July. It has the power to stop the national assembly—Venezuela's democratically elected parliament—from operating. Indeed, the new body is meeting where the opposition-controlled assembly holds its sessions. It removed the Attorney-General, Luisa Ortega Diaz, from her position in one of its first decisions. Ms Ortega was once a government loyalist, but, more recently, she has been a critic.

The chair of Transparency International, Jose Ugaz, said:

Without an autonomous judiciary that provides for checks and balances to the government, democracy is impossible. The lack of an independent Attorney General Office in Venezuela will result in even more impunity for illicit enrichment in a country where corruption is already rampant.

Indeed, Venezuela ranks amongst the most corrupt nations on the planet. It can indefinitely suspend elections. Elections for governors, which were supposed to take place last year, are now scheduled for December 2017. Presidential elections should take place in 2018. It will be critical to ensure that elections proceed as planned. That is not to mention the fact that the assembly itself is unconstitutional. Instead of holding a plebiscite to ask voters whether they approved of his plan, as experts generally agree is required, Maduro did it through a presidential decree. And I note that previous the President, Chavez, held a plebiscite on changing the country's constitution, which was defeated and which didn't go ahead.

In addition to the establishment of the constituent assembly and the sacking of the Attorney-General, on Sunday 20 people in military uniforms attacked a military base and stole weapons. The attackers said they wanted to save the country from total destruction, but this is a very disturbing development, especially in light of international experts' concerns that Venezuela will slide into civil war with devastating consequences for the instability of the region and, of course, for human rights. This attack is an example of the increasing chaos in Venezuela. I call on all sides, both government and opposition, to deplore violence and stand up against human rights abuses and to move towards restoring democratic processes. Given the violence and deaths that we are seeing on our TV screens—and it is increasingly being covered here in Australia and in newspapers—the violence seems to be progressively worsening. I have met with a number of Venezuelans living in Australia, including in Tasmania and in Melbourne. They are all good people and they have very, very grave concerns for their families and loved ones back in Venezuela. It's on their behalf that I stand here today and represent this issue in the Australian parliament.

With the last few minutes I have left, I would like to quickly touch on Four Corners' stunning expose on the waste and recycling industry in Australia in recent days. This is a problem that has been a long time coming. My first senator's statement in here five years ago was how we need to tackle waste issues in this country, especially the issue of marine waste. I said in that senator's statement that it was one of the key reasons I came to parliament. Every Senate estimates I have repeatedly pushed the government to do something on this issue. Time and time again, they have stonewalled. The federal coalition has completely stalled our national waste policy. They abolished the COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water. They have not issued a national waste report in four years. They have not issued a single policy objective. They have vacated this space. The result is that the recycling industry is now in crisis, and public trust is sure to follow.

Last night, the ABC reported that the New South Wales regulator was recorded joking with industry about stopping his own government from introducing a plastic bag ban. This is no laughing matter, but it is what we are up against. It suggests that even when conservative ministers such as in New South Wales want to do something on this significant matter of public importance, the industry and regulators have got in the way. The environment minister must act now to save the industry and help restore public faith by recommitting the federal government to developing a national waste policy, including binding, mandatory national targets.

The Greens support the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee's recommendations. I note there was no dissent across the political divide. I very much respect the work that Senator Back did in that committee. There is the call for the federal government to step in and legislate for a national container deposit scheme and plastic bag ban if the states have failed to act by 2019. We also desperately need mandatory product stewardship schemes for a range of problematic waste streams, including tyres, mattresses, paints, batteries and other electronic equipment.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson.

Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr Acting Deputy President, I want to raise a point of order. I did the previous speaker the courtesy of not interrupting him—a courtesy which, I might say, he doesn't show to other senators. I draw your attention to standing order 193, which says senators shall not make imputations of improper motives or personal reflections upon other senators. Not only did Senator Whish-Wilson do that but, in a cowardly way, he did it when he and everyone of this chamber knows that Senator Abetz is not in the parliament this week because of his wife's illness. I draw to your attention standing order 193. You might ask Senator Whish-Wilson to withdraw those imputations.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, I don't have the standing orders in front of me, but let me consult with the clerks. Senator Macdonald, I've reviewed section 193 and, due to the content, I will refer your point of order to the President, unless Senator Whish-Wilson wishes to make a statement.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: I do. I certainly don't withdraw that, Acting Deputy President. I was going to suggest that you do refer it to the President. I made similar statements in the media only last week, and I knew nothing about Senator Abetz's wife. This is a significant matter of public importance.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator WHISH-WILSON: You are a grumpy old bugger.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Sorry, Senator Whish-Wilson.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: I was going to ask that you refer it to the President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I've made my decision. Senator Macdonald, I will raise with the President the concern you have raised. Senator Macdonald, you have the call.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (13:17): Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Today I want to talk about two significant industries in what we all know and acknowledge and agree is the best part of Australia, and that is northern Australia—in particular, northern Queensland. There would be no-one in this chamber who would argue with that description. The two industries in the north of Queensland in particular that I want to talk about are the tourism industry and the banana industry. In the tourism industry, I particularly want to talk about a wonderful feature called Paronella Park, which is otherwise called 'The story of a Spaniard's dream'.

Before I get to that, I want to briefly mention another great Australian industry, and that is the banana industry, which is centred principally around Tully, Innisfail, some parts of the Atherton Tablelands and up further, at Lakeland in the north of Queensland. In doing that, I wish to correct a misstatement I made previously when I told the chamber that Australians consume five million bananas each and every day. I was wrong in saying that and I want to correct the record. I'm told by the industry that it's actually six million bananas each and every day.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Well, I'm glad you've cleared that up!

Senator IAN MACDONALD: It's a wonderful statistic. But when you think of the uses bananas are put to and the way they are readily consumed by most Australians—particularly young Australians—you can understand that that statistic of six million bananas being consumed in Australia each and every day of the year is accurate. For young people, of course, when parents pack a lunch for the kids to take to school, a banana has in-built wrapping—it comes in its own wrapping facility. And, of course, it is wonderfully tasteful. Not long ago, the industry in the north achieved a Guinness record of having the world's longest banana split. It was something that happened as a new world record of 8.04 kilometres. That's a pretty big banana split.

It's a great industry. It employs a lot of people in tropical North Queensland. It's well run and well managed. They obviously do have their difficulties with diseases and importations but, by and large, it's a wonderful industry. Along with Senator O'Sullivan, I had the pleasure of attending the annual banana growers' conference during the break and saw firsthand the wonderful things they are doing: the way they are farming so sustainably; the way they have a concern about the environment in which they work; the sustainability, marketability, and future of their industry. All congratulations to the Australian banana growers on what they do. I thank them for their hosting of the banana growers' conference and wish them all the best in the future.

The other industry in North Queensland that I particularly want to highlight today is the tourism industry. There are so many wonderful aspects of the tourism industry in North Queensland that it would take more than 10 minutes—in fact, more than 10 hours—to properly detail them. In what is wrongly called the 'break' over the last month or so, I was in the area of Tully and the Atherton Tableland. I had been up to a local government conference at Yungaburra and Atherton, and that was followed by a meeting with the Mareeba Shire Council and the Mayor, Councillor Tom Gilmore. It was more than a meeting; I actually opened a facility of theirs. I've done a lot of openings in my time, and some of them were pretty schmick sorts of openings, but this was the opening of a sewerage plant—not quite as glamorous as many of the other openings I do. But, thanks to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash, who happens to be in the chamber, $5 million was made available through the Stronger Regions Fund, which Senator Nash administers, to the Mareeba Shire Council to do this new sewerage plant, which will stop run-off of effluent contaminating some of the gulf rivers. It is visionary and provides for the future.

On the way home from those parts of the Atherton Tableland, I thought it was time I again went to have a look at a wonderful venue called Paronella Park. For those who are not aware of this, Paronella Park is a Spaniard's dream. It is a Spanish castle built in the rainforest. A man named Jose Paronella arrived in Innisfail in 1913, having sailed from Catalonia in northern Spain, to plan a splendid life for himself and his fiancee, Matilda. He worked for eleven years—cutting cane, I might say, in those days—and created some wealth for himself. He then went home with the intention of getting Matilda to join him in Australia. He was going to build for Matilda this wonderful Spanish castle in the middle of the rainforest at Mena Creek just outside Innisfail, on the backroad between Innisfail and Tully. Unfortunately, in the long time Jose had been in Australia, Matilda thought he was never coming back and married someone else. Never mind, Jose married the sister, brought her back and then built this magnificent Spanish castle right in the middle of the rainforest.

It has had a chequered history over the years. In the prewar and immediate postwar years it was the social venue for anyone in that part of North Queensland. It had a ballroom and a theatre. It is on the banks of Mena Creek, which is a fast-flowing waterfalled creek in that part of tropical North Queensland. It is a magnificent site right in the middle of the rainforest. In the middle of that he built this Spanish castle with turrets, walkways and a love tunnel. It's really interesting.

Over the years it became a tourist attraction. Following Cyclone Larry and Cyclone Yasi it fell into disrepair and the jungle started to take over. Since then two very enterprising people, Judy and Mark Evans, acquired Paronella Park and have restored much of the property. They have improved the surrounds and the grounds. They have wonderful tours through there. While I am at it I want to thank Pablo, the young Spaniard, who conducted the tour we took when we visited that place. They've turned this around so it is a very successful tourist attraction in tropical North Queensland. Not only do Mark and Judy Evans own Paronella Park and all that goes with it; they own the old hotel across the road, the caravan park and the skywalk through the forest not far away. They have done a wonderful job. They employ 80 people. They tell me that, if they did not have to pay the payroll tax they pay to the Queensland government, they could employ another two people.

It is a wonderful enterprise. Mark and Judy Evans have done a wonderful job not only in restoring Paronella Park, the castle and the grounds, but in building a real tourist enterprise that provides real jobs for 80 of my fellow North Queenslanders. I congratulate them on all they have done. Any senator who happens to be up that way—if there is a committee meeting up that way—should take time off and travel the hour or so from Cairns to see Paronella Park. It would be well worth their while.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (13:27): Today I want to talk about the custody notification service that has operated in New South Wales and the ACT for quite some time. It's a program that provides 24-hour legal advice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people if and when they are taken into police custody. It was set up in New South Wales and the ACT in 2000. It followed one of the recommendations and the model that was outlined in the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

It has been about two years since I have spoken in this place about the custody notification system, or the CNS. It was under threat at one point. The New South Wales government was going to cease funding it. After quite a battle the federal government put some money in and the New South Wales government, I am very pleased to say, continued the service.

Why is it so important? Since its operation in New South Wales and the ACT, single-handedly the CNS has meant that, up until a tragic death earlier this year, there had not been one single death in custody in a police cell in New South Wales. It is because when the police take an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person into custody, they must phone the Aboriginal Legal Service, who runs the CNS program. That gives the person in custody early legal advice from an ALS lawyer, making sure that their fundamental legal rights are respected, and it has led to fewer Aboriginal people being imprisoned.

But the ALS lawyer will also ask the person being taken into custody, 'Are you okay?' And the answer is often no. There might be threats of self-harm or suicide. There might be concerns about access to medication, immediate medication that's required—that's a common concern—and they can also notify if they have any injuries or any injuries that may have been sustained in the arrest that need to be examined by a medical practitioner.

The CNS is absolute value for money. It costs just over half a million dollars a year to run—almost the same cost as locking up two juveniles. In New South Wales and the ACT, it assists over 15,000 people per year, averaging 300 calls per week. So for qualified legal advice for that welfare support, that wellbeing—court, bail and diversion efficiencies—it's not expensive for any government. As I said, significantly, it has prevented deaths in police cells up until the tragic death of Ms Maher last year.

Last year, I am proud to say, that the WA Labor Party adopted the CNS as part of its platform, indicating that it would, once in government, institute a CNS because WA has, along with the NT, very, very high rates of Aboriginal incarceration and we continue to have significant numbers of absolutely unavoidable deaths in WA. So I was really pleased to read in the paper last week that our Attorney-General, Mr John Quigley, has instructed his department to consult with relevant agencies and the federal government as to the procedural and operational details to implement the CNS in WA. I know that Minister Scullion has been fairly active around the implementation of the CNS, because he sees the value of it as it's happened in New South Wales and the ACT.

So what we are looking at now in WA is the introduction of this service and, unfortunately, it's come too late. After the tragic and avoidable death of Ms Dhu in custody in Port Hedland, it was one of the recommendations of the coronial inquest into her death that WA introduce a CNS. Unfortunately then, the Liberal government, Mr Barnett's government, was still in power and they ignored that advice from the coroner—in fact, they behaved disgracefully around the whole passing of Ms Dhu, as we know. Even more so, the federal government offered WA some funding to implement a CNS, and guess what? Mr Barnett, when Premier, refused. He thought that the visitor system—or indeed, his deputy at the time, or the person responsible, Mrs Harvey, who's still in the parliament, I might add, along with Mr Barnett—which operates in prisons across the country, is adequate. It is far from adequate. It does not offer legal advice. It happens after the event. It's a completely inadequate response and shows just how little the Barnett government really cared about the high rates of imprisonment of Aboriginal people that that offer was refused.

Certainly there is no doubt about it—there is no doubt in my mind or the minds of her family—that Ms Dhu would be alive today, if we'd had a CNS in place in Western Australia. She begged for help for severe pains in her stomach. If she'd been given access to an ALS lawyer on admission to that prison cell, the ALS could've agitated for that to happen. I am sure that agitation—external to the pleas that Ms Dhu was making—would have been acted upon. We know that she was taken twice to the local hospital where medical officers said there was nothing wrong with her, and we saw a police officer, in that shocking footage that the family wanted released, minutes before her death telling her she was faking it.

That's a disgraceful episode in our Western Australian history. Unfortunately, it's not unique.

If we get this CNS, as proposed by the McGowan government, and, indeed, Attorney-General Mr Quigley, that will go some way to rectifying and making prison a safe place if Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people find themselves arrested and taken to prison. Ms Dhu's mother, Della, said after the coronial inquest that she never ever wanted any other family to go through the trauma and the tragedy of her daughter's death. She said:

We do not want this to happen to anyone else. Our families are heartbroken and the pain has not left us. My daughter should be with us today. Her loss haunts me each day and it will remain but it will give me at least an ounce of peace to see the CNS implemented.

That was after the coroner recommended that Western Australia establish that.

In Western Australia, along with the Northern Territory and South Australia, we convict Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders at amongst the highest rates in the world. The CNS is a small step. I know that the McGowan government wants to change the record when it comes to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander incarceration. We know that Indigenous people are imprisoned at something like 17 per cent or 18 per cent higher than non-Indigenous people, and we really do need to change that record. I am not suggesting for a moment that the CNS is the be-all and end-all. It is a tiny little step. Much more needs to be done. We need to be doing much better on early intervention strategies.

In Western Australia, the McGowan government has inherited the highest rate in Australia of out-of-home care of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids. They are 16 times more likely to be taken from their families and placed in foster care, and of significant concern is that babies are being taken at birth. In the Kimberley region, every single child who finds themselves in out-to-of home care is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child, and we know that there is a very strong correlation between out-of-home care and finding yourself in trouble as a juvenile.

I do note the sadness in Port Hedland. I was up there last week and I visited the youth centre, which is a fabulous centre. Those people knew Ms Dhu as a child and they all told me what a wonderful, remarkable care-free child she was. Her life was taken at the age of 21. The CNS would definitely have meant that Ms Dhu lived today.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (13:37): I would like to begin by reflecting on Senator Macdonald's comments this afternoon. Those people who know Senator Macdonald who are listening on the broadcast will know that he's an enthusiastic, energetic senator for Queensland. But he was only half right when he reflected on how great Far North Queensland is, because the other half of that statement is, of course, how great the far north-west of northern Australia—that place we know as the Kimberley region.

During the recess, I had an opportunity to catch up with Elsa Archer and others—Senator Rachel Siewert was there and the new regional development minister, Alannah MacTiernan, was also there—at the Kimberley Regional Forum, where, with local shires, we discussed a variety of issues that are important to continuing jobs growth and continuing economic development opportunities for the very large and remote numbers of Indigenous communities. I had the opportunity to talk about native title reform and how I think native title reform is necessary if we are going to lift and change that terrible scourge that is Indigenous disadvantage by giving Indigenous people better access to how they might utilise their lands for better resource extraction and for better pastoral lease operations.

The Kimberley is a remarkable place. I know that people say that but, when you visit there—and I know that you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, are a regular visitor to the Kimberley region—you can't but be impressed by its natural beauty—that's a given. But what is happening up there in terms of the pursuit of innovative agricultural techniques is really remarkable. I am not so worried about who brings good ideas to the people of the Kimberley, but you have to agree that the water-for-food initiative, which was a Colin Barnett Royalties for Regions Mia Davies initiative, has really transformed key parts of the Kimberley and it is a very, very exciting part of the world.

Can I just also extend my very, very personal thanks to Elsa Archer. People who know her know she is a stalwart of the Derby community and a stalwart of the Kimberley community, and I have been very heartened by the messages of encouragement I have received from Elsa Archer over the last few days, and of course people across the Kimberley.

I would just like to talk this afternoon about a great deed. I am an active member of a variety of community groups across Western Australia, but one of the proudest groups that I am involved in is the Perth Rotary Club. The Perth Rotary Club, with the Salvation Army in Western Australia, under the fantastic leadership of Rebecca Tolstoy has had for the second year what they call the Path of Hope Foundation Annual Gala Ball. It raises hundreds of thousands of dollars to beat domestic violence. It raises that money to support the great work that the Salvation Army does at the women's hostel in Perth's inner northern suburbs. It's not appropriate for me to identify its location, but they do some fantastic work. The Path of Hope Foundation has worked tirelessly since its establishment in 2012 to break the cycle of family and domestic violence. The foundation's ethos is reflected in its name: to create positive pathways for women affected by violence.

The great state of Western Australia is where I call home and I am privileged to call myself a very proud Western Australian, but it shocked me to learn that last year in 2015-16 WA Police received more than 50,000 calls for help from people reporting cases of family or domestic violence. If you break it down, that is approximately 158 calls a day, and it is very alarming when those statistics are shared with us. What do those statistics actually mean, though? They mean one in three women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by someone who is known to them. It means that domestic and family violence is the principle cause of homelessness for women and their children. It means that Indigenous women and girls are 35 times more likely than the wider female population to be hospitalised due to family violence.

The gala ball brought together a diverse crowd. There were almost 600 people there. From the private sector, from governments, from rotary clubs to entertainers and entrepreneurs—it was a fantastic night. We were all there, though, for one cause. Many people had a great night. I was privileged to sit next to the Western Australian governor, Her Excellency the Hon. Kerry Sanderson, who is a great Western Australian and a great ambassador for Western Australia. But, more than that, people were united in their single mission, the pursuit of one cause, and that was to celebrate the women and children who have survived family and domestic violence. Rebecca Tolstoy, the Path of Hope Foundation director spoke powerfully and eloquently about why we were there. She said: 'Tonight is all about one very special group of people—people who have chosen life, chosen a better future for themselves and their children and who are breaking that cycle of violence hour by hour, day by day, week by week. Their courage is to be commended and tonight is their night. Their actions and their bravery is a beacon of hope to others wanting to break the cycle and to choose a life free of violence.'

The ball was a strong and powerful demonstration that the community was more determined than ever to break that terrible cycle that we know as family and domestic violence. During the course of the evening we all reflected on the need to provide safe and secure environments for women and their children who find themselves affected by domestic violence and family violence.

I am pleased to share that the government announced a $100 million package last year to help prevent violence against women. But we were reminded at the ball that we all have a role to play in raising awareness about this scourge across our community. It is our responsibility to educate and empower the community to take action. It is interesting that as I have become more aware of this issue, I have become alarmed at the depth to which it permeates our community, and how important it is not to have government addressing this problem but to have community partnerships addressing this problem. What is particularly unique about the Path of Hope Foundation is that it is not just a ball once a year—this year's ball was the second year it has been held; it is actually a foundation that works on the ground to support women and their children from domestic violence. It works in refurbishing homes for people, refurbishing the women's hostel and providing education access for young children who are traumatised because they're no longer able to live in their normal or most reliable family environments. It supports these young children when they go to the local primary school. It supports these young children by building a playground in the hostel.

Let me share with you the entirety of Rebecca Tolstoy's speech to the gathering two Saturday nights ago, 29 July. Rebecca said: 'We all know how wonderful it is to live in Western Australia and to be known as a west Australian. As someone who has chosen WA as my home, I love the can-do spirit. I love its warm, generous and friendly people and the willingness of Western Australians to rally behind people when they choose to have a go.'

She went on to say: 'Let me begin by welcoming all of you who are enjoying the Path of Hope Gala Ball for a second time and marvelling at how this simple but important gesture is going from strength to strength. One person who captures the spirit of Western Australia is, for a second time, tonight's major sponsor.' I think it is important to recognise the contribution of a very, very committed Western Australian, a name that is well known to us; a successful Western Australian businessperson, but someone who does supports many, many charities throughout the community—that is, of course Mrs Rinehart, who, through Hancock Prospecting and the Roy Hill project, generously provided support for the evening's event.

Rebecca went on to say, 'We are truly blessed by the continuing support of other long-term financial donors to the gala ball: Mr Stan Perron, Mr David Reid, Mr Alan Tribe and Mr Richard Lockwood.' Rebecca said: 'Since our last gala ball, Path of Hope has travelled the world with its gesture of hope and empowerment, and has been greeted with open arms and encouragement. From Perth, Western Australia; to Atlanta, Georgia; to the meeting rooms of the United Nations in New York; to Stockholm, Sweden; and the halls of the United Nations in Geneva, the world has recognised what we in Perth have known for a long time. We have taken the rich heritage of the trusted and complemented it with the innovation of a 21st-century approach. Our trusted local partnership between Perth Rotary and the Salvation Army is not only empowering the victims and survivors of domestic violence in our community, but is on the cusp of being a vehicle for liberating the lives of women and children around the world.'

This is a very important point, because the Path of Hope Foundation is like none other I have seen. It is not just a very, very good Western Australian idea; this idea is now one that has captured the imagination of the United Nations and captured the imagination of friends and supporters in Sweden in Geneva. This is a truly remarkable local initiative born in Western Australia— (Time expired)

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (13:47): I am well known for speaking up about immigration, but what isn't well known is that I am not anti migrant. In 1996, I spoke out about the high rate of immigration from Asia that would have put us on a trajectory of losing our Australian identity. I support immigration when it is in the best interests of Australia, but we have made a mistake in accepting high levels of migrants from countries where democracy is unknown and accepting people who follow Islam and its political ideology.

One of the reasons we don't know enough about the extent of the problems with Islamic immigration is that political parties don't want to upset the Muslim vote. There is plenty of information collected, but it is not published and it is not available to senators like myself. In hiding the evidence of high unemployment and high dependence on social welfare, the government hopes you won't discover the problems associated with Australian Muslim communities.

Despite the best efforts of Labor and the coalition, we have found some reliable information. The unemployment rate amongst Australian Muslims is more than double the average rate and it is more than 50 per cent higher than the nearest other major religious group. The unemployment rate for Muslim women is higher than that of Muslim men, making Muslim women the most likely religious group to be unemployed in Australia. This persistent high-unemployment level among Australian Muslims translates into high levels of income support in the form of payments made by the Department of Social Services.

I don't have enough time to go into greater detail, but in densely populated Muslim suburbs, Muslims are paid high levels of taxpayer-funded support in the form of disability pensions, carer pensions, carer allowances and other forms of income support. Australian Muslims are a significant drain on the public purse, because of the rates of unemployment and dependence on social welfare. You will not hear these facts from Labor, because Labor is muzzled in pursuit of keeping the Muslim vote it already heavily relies on. We looked at the electoral areas containing 10,000 or more Australian Muslims, using 2016 census information. Every one of those 15 federal seats is held by Labor, and 50.4 per cent of all Australian Muslims live in these 15 Labor seats. It is the concentration of the Muslim vote, in a relatively small number of postcodes and electoral divisions, which gives Australian Muslims a much higher influence in Australian politics. What we know for certain is that Labor needs the Muslim vote to keep those seats in the parliament. The reliance on the Muslim vote in turn gives Australian Muslims an important say over Labor policy, and that influence is increasing because of the high birth rates among Muslim women. In fact, the number of Australian Muslims doubled in the decade between 2006 and 2016.

The young age profile of Muslims in Australia means that Muslims will increase naturally at a greater rate than any other. The concentration of Australian Muslims in a limited number of postcode areas, together with the high rates of birth, means Labor is now firmly in the hands of the Muslim voter. The demographic information is irrefutable. The only issue is how Australian Muslims will change the Australian Labor Party and Australia.

The Muslim vote has pushed hard for Labor to abandon its traditional support for Israel and they have kept Labor silent on the fate of Christians in the Middle East, particularly Maronite and Coptic Christians, who once made up 20 per cent of the Middle East and now make up less than 5 per cent. In the lower house seat of Blaxland, in NSW, there are 50,995 Muslims, or 29.2 per cent of the population. In the Sydney seat of Watson, there are 40, 903 Muslims or 23.4 per cent of the population. In Victoria it's a similar situation. In Calwell, there are 29,324 Muslims and in Werriwa there are 21, 761 Muslims.

Labor has made a conscious decision to sell its soul for the Muslim vote. Every speech and every comment made by Labor is now made with reference to keeping the Muslim vote. Labor cannot speak out in opposition or act in government on issues affecting Australian Muslims because it fears losing seats in parliament. The numbers are so finely balanced in the lower house of this parliament that the loss of this small clutch of seats would see Labor's chance of government end. Labor's dependence on the Muslim vote is frightening, because a small but fast-growing group, opposed to our way of life, is bending Labor to its will. And communities of Coptic Christians and Lebanese Maronites and other Christians know how that story ends.

The Muslim vote opposes same-sex marriage, because the notion of sexual orientation is against the fundamental teachings of Islam. So here is Labor's dilemma: how does Labor get same-sex marriage passed, bury the hundreds of thousands of 'no' votes and not upset Muslims in Labor electorates? The best way forward is to let parliament decide, and then they will tell their Muslim voters they had to follow the party line—gutless!

It is common knowledge that areas with high concentrations of Australian Muslims are also areas associated with organised crime and acts of terrorism performed in the name of Islam. Labor knows this as well as any Australian, but it cannot speak directly, so it talks in riddles. Who can forget Bill Shorten talking to the cameras about combating extreme extremism and hoping those watching could see that he was like any one in a hostage situation. He was communicating in riddles, hoping not to offend the hostage takers—that is, the Muslim vote in Australia.

Australian Muslims take all the benefits that Australia has to offer, but Australian Muslims are underrepresented in the workforce and underrepresented in the Defence forces, instead preferring to fight for ISIL in Syria and Iraq. A federal investigation into the status of foreign fighters found 96 per cent had been on welfare benefits, including disability pensions, before leaving to fight overseas. It's a disgrace that more Australian Muslims have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq than have joined the Australian Defence Forces to defend Australia. It is a disgrace our pension system is abused by Australian Muslims, and it is a disgrace the Department of Social Services is inept. It is undeniable that many Australian Muslims choose to be separate from other Australians living in communities. Many of them never leave these communities except when accessing government services and benefits and having holidays in their countries of birth.

One Nation supporters have a positive view of migrants when they are willing to become active citizens, to work and to make Australia a better place. However, we are not seeing too much of that from Australian Muslims. It would be comforting to think the problems we have with Muslim refugees and second-generation Muslims will resolve, given time and money, but there is no evidence anywhere in the world that this will be the case.

We need to learn the lesson from other countries who have accepted high numbers of Muslims into their country. They have found that, as the number of Muslims rise in a country, the tolerance of those Muslims to others in that country falls. Then, Muslims demand special treatment, which is given for the sake of appeasement, but is never enough. The demands just keep coming—discussions to change the words 'race' to 'people' in Section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution for the benefit of Muslims because they are not a race, they are a people.

There are no democratic Islamic countries in the world. If we don't ban further immigration from Islamic countries, our way of life will be lost and the freedoms we take for granted will be gone.

Senator CAMERON ( New South Wales ) ( 13:57 ): I did mean to rise and discuss the issue of National Homelessness Week. I've only have got a couple of minutes, but I must respond to that racist rant from One Nation. If we are going to have a nation that actually welcomes people from overseas—that actually builds a strong, cohesive nation—then that sort of nonsense that we've just heard from One Nation has to be challenged every time it is raised because there are so many Muslim contributors to our society. There are so many Muslim sports people in our society. There are so many people here making strong contributions, and yet, if this racist nonsense goes unchallenged, then we will not have a cohesive society. We will have a society that is pulled apart because of One Nation and the ego of Senator Hanson.

She cannot make a contribution in this place constructively on any issue on employment. She cannot make a constructive contribution on the environment. She cannot make a constructive contribution on any issue of importance to Australian working people. All she does is come and push a racist rant that should be unacceptable and condemned in this place.

I'm sorry I don't have time to talk about the homeless, but I can tell you one thing: all my views about Senator Hanson have been confirmed by that rubbish speech that she just put up—that racist speech. That's speech that will divide Australia and make us a poorer nation. You should think again, Senator Hanson. You do not deserve to be in here running that sort of racist nonsense.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senator Cameron, just to let you know, the clocks have been reset. You can go to two o'clock, should you wish.

Senator CAMERON: Senator Hanson, you should get up and apologise to all of the Muslims who make contributions to this country. You are trying to pigeonhole them in a position that they don't deserve. Muslims make contributions to this country that you will never make. You will never make a contribution to this country.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Cameron.

Senator CAMERON: You are a disgrace.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cameron. It being 2 pm we move to questions without notice and I call Senator Wong.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (15:00): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Pratt today relating to a proposed postal survey concerning marriage equality.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, could you resume your seat. Could we have order in the chamber, please? If you are not participating in this current session, please resume your seat or leave the chamber. Thank you, Senator Pratt.

Senator PRATT: This Monday, the Liberal party room came to a decision that broke the hearts of hundreds and thousands of LGBTI Australians. Those in the coalition have decided to denigrate the LGBTIQ community by attempting to pass the plebiscite through this place yet again, and I thank my Labor colleagues and those on the crossbenches for again voting this ridiculous plebiscite plan down. Yet, in another slap to the face of our community and, indeed, all Australians, this government has decided that it's appropriate to spend some $122 million on a divisive, hateful and, frankly, illegitimate postal survey. This illegitimate postal survey is simply a result of the compromising position that this weak Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, finds himself in. What we have here is a situation where the government has needed to satisfy the extreme right wing of the coalition in a search for stability. Prime Minister Turnbull has decided to spend this ridiculous amount of taxpayer money on an illegitimate postal survey that members of his own government have not even gone to the extent of honouring the outcome of, in terms of how they will then vote in this place.

As my question highlighted, there are a great many things that $122 million of taxpayer money could be better spent on, and I'm particularly moved by the Facebook post of one Jackie Hodson, who has cystic fibrosis. When the previous version of the plebiscite was being considered, she posted the following on her Facebook page: 'It's going to cost roughly $160 million for the government to run the plebiscite to confirm what we already know—that the Australian society supports same-sex marriage. Here I am, 25 years old and fighting to breathe. I have battled cystic fibrosis since infancy, and now I'm facing a big, fat fight to stay alive on revolutionary medicine that is saving my life.' She says she's been lucky to be on the medicine Orkambi through a compassionate scheme. However, there are thousands of other children and young adults who need this drug now, and some will die while they wait. She goes on to say: 'I can't understand how we can justify letting innocent people die unnecessarily. How can we justify breaking the hearts of all our mums and dads, brothers, sisters, partners? How can the comparable cost of this plebiscite, a vote, be justified while denying me a lifeline—my only chance to marry the love of my life, have a family of my own and grow old? Both injustices need to end, and they need to end now. Love is love, and please let me breathe easy.' And she has asked people to share her Facebook post.

So there are a great many other priorities that this government could spend that money on. I would love to see that $122 million given to the PBS so that they can weigh up the decision of funding medicines like Orkambi or other important life-saving drugs. It is a ridiculous waste of priorities on the part of this nation to save the Prime Minister's skin, to gloss over their internal division—to spend this money on a wasteful postal plebiscite. That $122 million could go to a great many other worthwhile causes in our nation.

As Senator Brandis highlighted in his answer to my question, why has Mr Bill Shorten put up a plebiscite on the republican question? The simple fact is: to change that problem requires a change in our constitution, whereas marriage equality can be determined by this place and the other place by a simple vote. And you will not even bind your members to uphold its findings. (Time expired)

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (15:06): Sorry, Senator Brandis, this is hard. I quite like Senator Pratt but I cannot believe she is running this argument today. A plebiscite done by the government is bad for her friend who needs medicines, but two plebiscites run by the Labor Party are, apparently, okay. Senator Pratt, you certainly can't really seriously believe that argument. If you are right—and I don't think you are—on the argument about the cost, then it's doubly wrong for Mr Shorten to promise that twice. I can't believe that you have the gall, the front, the hard skin to get up in this chamber and make such a contradictory argument. As I say, I quite like you but I just can't believe you are putting this position.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, may I remind you to address your remarks to the chair, thank you.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Yes, of course. Thank you very appropriately, Madam Deputy President. I am just indicating my concern for Senator Pratt, being forced to run what is quite clearly a ridiculous and so contradictory argument. Senator Pratt selectively quotes one email. I could quote 10,000 on each side of the argument. But I do want to, particularly at this time, acknowledge the University of Queensland LNC, who did a survey of young people clearly showing that young people wanted the people of Australia to decide this issue. So I thank them for that. Senator Pratt justifies Mr Shorten having a plebiscite on something that requires not a plebiscite but a referendum to change the constitution. Again, Senator Pratt, through you, Madam Deputy President, Senator Pratt should be aware of that.

This is an issue which has been debated to death. I simply say again—and repeating the leader's comment to Senator Pratt, through you, Madam Deputy President: if Senator Pratt had voted for this plebiscite last year, the whole issue would have been over and done with by now. It would have been resolved six months ago.

Senator Brandis: 11 February.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: On 11 February we would have had a resolution. Yet, it's Senator Pratt and her team, the Greens and Senator Xenophon—who should not be excused from this stupidity—who are determined to carry on this debate for political reasons, as Senator Brandis has mentioned. There is no policy purity at all in the Labor Party's position, or in the position of the Greens or Senator Xenophon, not that we ever expect any sort of decent policy from any of those people.

Senator Pratt, why do you object to the Australian people having a vote on this? Your leader wants the Australian people to have a vote on two particular issues, neither of which too many people are talking about. Here is something that so many Australians had so many different views about. It was an appropriate question to put to the people of Australia. Why don't you trust the people of Australia? Why didn't you allow this to go to a vote six months ago—and then we wouldn't be talking about this today. People who you say are concerned by the indecision wouldn't have been indecisive had you and your team—I say that through you, Madam Deputy President—agreed to have a plebiscite. It would have been resolved six months ago and we'd be moving onto the issues which are of real importance to the people of Australia—things like jobs; things like health, as you mention; things like education; and things like the economy generally—rather than wasting so much time on this, and now having to go through a postal plebiscite to get the views of the people of Australia.

It would have been much better to have a compulsory plebiscite. You people and your allies have chosen not to do that, so we will go to the postal plebiscite and we'll still get from that the views of the majority of Australian people, and I can't understand why that frightens you. I indicate, and I've indicated publicly before, that I will be voting no in the plebiscite, but if the majority of Australians say yes I will be voting yes when the bill comes before the parliament. I can't understand, Senator Pratt. Again, I feel for you that you are running such a contradictory argument.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:11): Unfortunately over the course of this week, we've seen yet another shambles from the Turnbull government, a government that is becoming very well known for the shambles that it creates every time it turns its hand to any form of policy. We're seeing it on energy policy, we're seeing it on housing affordability policy, we're seeing it on education—whether it be higher education or schools—policy and we're seeing it on employment policy. Everything it touches becomes a shambles. There is no difference with the marriage equality debate, where it's happening again, but, sadly, this is a debate in which the shambles the government is creating is going to see a lot of innocent people get very badly hurt.

Now, we know from opinion poll after opinion poll that the vast majority of Australians—I think it's in the order of 70 per cent—support marriage equality and just want to see it get done. We all know how polarised the political debate in our country has become about so many different issues over recent years, where we can't reach agreement and where the community is divided. This is an issue where the community has spoken loudly and clearly on over and over again. There are few issues you could find where you would get such a vast majority of community support as you could find with marriage equality. But rather than just get on with it, act and vote for it, as we do on every other issue—barring constitutional change—in this chamber, the government has chosen to use this as yet another opportunity to settle old scores, to turn on each other and knife each other, and to create yet another policy shambles.

The so-called solution that has come out of the coalition party room this week, headed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, is an absolute joke. Step 1 was to send back to the Senate the request to have an in-person, voting plebiscite, knowing full well that the Senate would vote it down—and that is what we did again today. The government knew that that was an absolutely futile exercise, that nothing had changed and the Senate was still going to vote against a plebiscite where people would turn up and vote. But that was step 1—send it back in there with this forlorn hope that something might have changed. Inevitably, this morning it was voted down by the Senate. So, step 1: a complete failure.

Let's move onto step 2: a $120 million postal survey conducted by the census-fail organisation, the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That is a postal survey which will not only be incredibly expensive; it will be optional, it will be divisive, it will be ignored by many members of the coalition party room, when we end up getting to a vote anyway, it will be non-binding—so you've really got to wonder what is the point in having it happen—and we all know from a range of legal opinions that there is actually a real legal cloud over whether this postal survey is even legally permissible to conduct. We will have to wait to see what the High Court says. What an absolute shambles. Step 1, send it to the Senate where it will be inevitably knocked over; and, step 2, send it off to a postal survey which is riddled with holes and which many coalition MPs have said they will ignore the result of no matter what the result is. What an absolute shambles.

Focusing for a moment on the cost of this postal survey: $120 million. In the electorates that I represent, I can think of a large number of things where that money would be better spent. In Rockhampton, in Central Queensland, many people in the community want to see a flood levee built to prevent the town from flooding into the future. This postal survey would pay for three flood levees in the city of Rockhampton. But, instead of doing that, this government is happy to spend money on a postal survey which its own members of parliament will actually ignore. On the Gold Coast, the $120 million amounts to three times the cuts that Minister Steven Ciobo, the federal Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, has made to tourism spending. I can think of a lot of tourism businesses on the Gold Coast that could really benefit from some of that tourism funding being restored. But, instead of that, we're going to waste this money on a postal survey which the members of parliament will actually end up ignoring.

In the short time that we’ve had available, I put out a request to Queenslanders to let me know their stories about what this postal survey will mean to them, and I have had quite a number of requests overnight from people. I will just read a couple of them in the time I have remaining. Angela, who has been with her partner, a female partner, for 20 years, said:

There's barely a cross word between us. We are still as madly in love today as we have ever been. We have two gorgeous children and two little grandchildren. We'd like to get married in front of our family and friends.

In the end she says:

We just want to feel equal. We just want to share that loving moment with those we love and who love us.

That's not a lot to ask, but, unfortunately, this government is making it harder and harder for them to experience that. From Audrey:

My story is like many others that struggle growing up. All through primary school and high school I wished and hoped that I wouldn't end up being gay. I hid my true self for so many years.

This government is getting in the way of these people having their relationships recognised. (Time expired)

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (15:16): I, too, rise to take note of the Attorney-General's answer to Senator Pratt's question. We've just heard from the last two speakers on the other side a lot about values, compassion and legal equality. There are other values here that I think are very important. They talk about all those values as if they are the only people in this chamber who have those values. I support same-sex marriage and, if the plebiscite comes back, yes, I will certainly be voting for it. However, like my colleagues on this side of the chamber, a value that we honour and respect greatly is that of keeping our promises. We went to the last election with an absolute commitment that we would put this issue to the Australian people so that they could have their say. It was a very clearly commitment—and one that we have reaffirmed again this week that we will work to honour. I respect that. I participated in the seven hours of debate and discussion two years ago, and I understood the reason that our party room took that decision and it is a reason I still support. It is a way of having this issue resolved once and for all.

I listened to the hypocrisy on a whole range of issues wafting over this chamber to this side from those opposite, and I would like to address each of those issues. First of all, I will address their sudden concern about having plebiscites. This sudden concern comes in the same week that their Leader of the Opposition has proposed at least two plebiscites on issues that they would like to address, including one that we have already in recent times had a referendum on. I cannot recall the last time that those on the other side of the chamber showed any concern about fiscal restraint—putting this nation on a trajectory of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt—and yet they fall to the depths in here in this debate today and say that this will cause people's deaths. It's tacky, it's sad and I think it sells all Australians short.

But the thing that upsets me most about what those opposite have been promoting—in what is really just playing politics with this issue—is their distrust of the Australian people. Our founding fathers, our own founders, didn't enshrine a bill of rights in our Constitution, because they had faith in the people in this chamber that we would move with the times and we would represent, in a representative government, the contemporary will of the Australian people. But, to do that, plebiscites are conducted when we want to actually make sure that we've got the will of the people right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with and there is nothing to fear from Australians having their say.

Everywhere I go and I meet younger Australians, they tell me: 'We want to be heard. We want to have our say.' This is something that is important, particularly to under 30s. They want to have their say on this issue. I would have thought those in this chamber would have embraced the opportunity for younger Australians to have their say on this issue, to influence government policy, to talk to their family members, to talk to their parents and to find a voice electorally. That is not something to be afraid of. Those opposite have so little confidence that the Australian people can engage in a robust but respectful debate on an issue on which there is great diversity of opinion in the Australian community. I have to say, 'Shame on you,' to those opposite for not having confidence in the Australian people that we can any more discuss issues of great importance to our country.

Our founders would be very disappointed in the fact that so many people in this chamber and in the other place do not have the confidence to go out, listen to what Australians have to say and then enact it. I remind all of us in this chamber that the only reason we are still discussing this here today—and not issues like electricity prices, jobs and all those other issues—is that the opposition played politics with it. At the last election, you did not have a position on this publicly. We did. We are delivering our commitment to the Australian people, and I am extremely proud of that. When you think about the implications of what you are doing—what you have done and what you did here again today—by denying Australians the opportunity to have their say in a proper plebiscite, in a full plebiscite, I think you should hang your heads in shame. You have done a great disservice to all Australians.

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (15:21): I will just pick up on what the previous speaker said about confidence. I would question that. It is more about competence. There has been no preparation in terms of what a postal plebiscite would look like in this country. If you look at the Northern Territory, for example—

An honourable senator interjecting—

Senator McCARTHY: And let me tell you, Senator, you will need to hear this—we have 43 town camps, 72 remote Indigenous communities and 500 homelands. What consideration have you given to the over 100 Aboriginal languages and the translations that should take place? Earlier this year we heard the sister girls on the Tiwi Islands speak very passionately about the fact that it has been enormously difficult for them to be able to talk about the issues and to stand strong as members of the lesbian and gay community across Australia. In the previous debate in this Senate, in November, we discussed and debated the mental health issues and expressed directly concerns about the effect that any plebiscite, postal or otherwise, would have on the health and wellbeing of those in the LGBTI community. I can speak about the people of the Northern Territory and what they have said to me consistently, over the last 12 months in particular, as we have discussed this.

Minister, you did not give a response at all about the cost of this. You played politics with this. One hundred and twenty-two million dollars is a considerable amount of money. This is where we look at, in terms of first nations peoples, the cuts to Aboriginal health and, in the LGBTIQ area specifically, the cuts of $800,000. The question that is coming forward is: where is your concern really, in all of this? We know for a fact, don't we, that this isn't about whether the Australian people should have a right to speak? This is about the Turnbull government's inability to lead this country in a comprehensive and confident way that lets the families of Australia know that this parliament cares—because you don't care. You do not care. You simply do not care. You have taken this parliament, and this country, down a path that is illogical and irresponsible, and basically you've wimped out on your role as government leaders of this country.

An online poll of more than 2,000 people, just in the Northern Territory, showed that 72 per cent—almost three in four respondents—supported change to the Marriage Act. That was the front page of the Northern Territory News today. We in the Northern Territory know for a fact that this parliament can vote today. This parliament should vote today. We have heard time and time again of the unnecessary impact that this will have on families in this country as a result of the cowardice of the Turnbull cabinet and the Turnbull government. It should allow this vote on the floor of both the Senate and the House of Reps. Putting families through extraordinarily torturous trauma, which you have heard of personally from members in this house, where you are wilfully deaf and wilfully blind for your own purposes is not a justification that brings the right way in leading this country. It is a justification only for your personal goals—to hold onto what little team you have in your very divisive cabinet.

The questions that are coming through from families across Australia—and certainly, to my email, from the Northern Territory—are: will Australians living overseas be able to vote; what will the government do to ensure people are on the electoral roll; what are you putting in place to ensure the ABS doesn't repeat the mistakes of the census operation; how will you ensure Aboriginal people living remotely and in town camps will have a vote in this, the 50th year since the referendum of 1967? (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:26): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

When previous Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, spoke to the National Press Club only a few weeks ago it was noted that a number—in fact, the majority—of the questions that were asked of her were around executive pay in the banking sector. It's really interesting that, at this time when we're having a national debate about inequality, it's certainly been a key topic in recent weeks and no doubt will form the basis of the Labor Party's policies and strategic thrust going into the next federal election. While we're having this national debate on inequality, where's the debate on income inequality? Where's the debate on the massive bonuses and executive salaries that we're seeing in industries like the banking sector? Now, I noted today that this has been back on the agenda in recent days, following the revelation, as quoted in the media, of allegations against Commonwealth Bank in relation to the AUSTRAC filing in the Federal Court against Commonwealth Bank directly in relation to a number of breaches around the use of automatic teller machines and money laundering.

It's actually worth reading the notice of filing. It's not very long—it's only six pages long—and it's actually quite stark and quite illuminating when you read the details of the filing. It outlines a number of money-laundering syndicates. The key point is the alleged harm that the Australian regulator, the government agency, has outlined because of Commonwealth Bank's breaches:

As a result of the failure to file TTRs and SMRs on time or at all, in accordance with the Act, AUSTRAC and other law enforcement and designated agencies have been deprived of information which the Act is intended to provide. Non-reporting and late reporting both delays and hinders law enforcement efforts. Delays in this case have resulted in lost intelligence and evidence (including CCTV footage), further money laundering and lost proceeds of crime.

And this is the most important line:

The effect of CommBank's conduct in this matter has exposed the Australian community to serious and ongoing financial crime.

It might be a coincidence that this was filed and hit the media only a few days before CommBank announced their annual results. The situation this week resulted in an immediate public outcry, not just from the Greens but from a number of CommBank's investors, that the board of CommBank and the chair of CommBank have to take immediate action. We've seen calls for bonuses to be waived, salaries to be cut and executives to be dismissed. It didn't take very long for the board of CommBank to respond yesterday. They cut short-term cash bonuses to their CEO and directors and cut directors' fees. That still leaves us in the situation where the CEO, the head of CommBank, based on last year's package—when you look at long-term bonus incentives and salary—is still paid over $10 million.

While we're having a discussion about a plebiscite, wouldn't it be fascinating if we actually asked the Australian people what they think and what community expectations are around the salaries of these executives in our banking sector. It's not just our banking sector. There are CEOs across a number of industries who are paid extraordinary amounts of money—in some cases, over $30 million a year. It's not just the private sector; it's also in the Public Service, government organisations and government owned business enterprises, GBEs. Some of the salaries are huge multiples of average weekly earnings or average wages in businesses. If we want to have a serious debate on inequality in Australia or anywhere around the world, we need to debate income inequality. We have stagnate wage growth and we know we have inequality in the housing market in this country, but we need to look at income inequality, we need to have a public debate about how much our CEOs are paid and we need to have it here, in parliament.

Question agreed to.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (16:03): I, and also on behalf of Senator O'Sullivan, move:

That the Senate acknowledges that—

(a) on 5 July 2017, the World Heritage Committee unanimously endorsed Australia's Reef 2050 Plan and the progress made to implement this plan;

(b) the decision recognises Australia's significant efforts and investment in the early and effective implementation of the Reef 2050 Plan; and

(c) the World Heritage Committee has not put the Great Barrier Reef on its in-danger 'watchlist'.

And I note the good news about the UN's determination of that plan.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:04): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator GALLAGHER: Labor has no option but to oppose this motion, because it claims that the Reef 2050 plan is being delivered early. This government is not delivering early for the environment or for the reef. This government is failing on climate change, and the Liberal National Party in Queensland voted against reef protections aimed at limiting tree clearing. The Liberal-National Party chose to protect its mates who want to bulldoze trees and native vegetation, rather than protecting Australia's iconic Great Barrier Reef. It isn't the fault of the state government in Queensland that land-clearing regulations haven't been updated. This position that damages the reef by increased sediment run-off from land to the reef is being championed by the Liberal-National Party. The Queensland government put in legislation to strengthen land-clearing laws to halt the broadscale clearing of remnant vegetation which is destroying key wildlife habitat and contributing to climate change, but the Liberal-National Party voted against the legislation and reef protection. At the time, Labor in Queensland made it clear that the Liberal-National Party have abandoned the reef plan and that the Palaszczuk government remains 100 per cent committed to it. (Time expired)

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (16:05): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I don't think the Manager of Opposition Business actually read the motion. It doesn't say what she says it says. All it says is the Senate acknowledges that the World Heritage Committee of the UN endorsed Australia's Reef 2050 Plan and progress made to implement the plan. So, that's been endorsed by the UN. The decision recognises Australia's significant efforts and investment in an early and effective implementation of the Reef 2050 Plan. Again, we're just asking to note that this is what the UN has said. Also, the motion says that the World Heritage Committee—and we particularly want people to note—has not put the Great Barrier Reef on its endangered watch list. That's what we're asking the Senate to note.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (16:06): Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RICE: The arrogance of Senator Macdonald and Senator O'Sullivan's motion today is gobsmacking. Yes, desperate lobbying by the Australian government has managed to avoid the down-listing of the Great Barrier Reef. But here's what the World Heritage Committee and advisory bodies also had to say:

Climate change remains the most significant overall threat to the future of the property. It is recommended that the Committee express its serious concern at the coral bleaching and mortality that occurred in 2016 … their scale serves to underline the severity of the threat to the property from climate change.

This government, hand in hand with the Queensland state government, will approve any coalmine, frack any basin and dredge any port if it means more money for their mates in the fossil-fuel industry. Right now, we're seeing them rush headlong into giving $1 billion of taxpayers' money away to the Adani coalmine. There is no plan from this government to deal with climate change, and therefore there is no plan from this government to protect the Great Barrier Reef. (Time expired)

Question negatived.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:09): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the unresolved bargaining dispute between cleaners at Parliament House and their employer Limro Pty Ltd means the cleaners have not had a wage increase since 2012;

(b) affirms its support for the men and women who clean the offices of parliamentarians and staff at Parliament House;

(c) urges Limro to quickly resolve this dispute;

(d) recognises the current contract between the Department of Parliamentary Services and Limro will finish on 30 June 2018;

(e) notes that the Department of Parliamentary Services will conduct a review of current cleaning requirements and conduct an approach to market within the 2017 calendar year; and

(f) acknowledges the President has agreed to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Appropriations, Staffing and Security and has arranged for the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services to attend in order for the policy parameters for the approach to market and the future contract to be discussed.

Question agreed to.

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (16:10): I move—

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

   (i) the inaugural Tournament of Nations (the Tournament), an international women's football tournament, was held in the United States of America (USA) from 27 July to 3 August 2017,

   (ii) the Tournament was won by Australia's Matildas,

   (iii) the Matildas are ranked 7th on the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) women's world ranking,

   (iv) in the Tournament, the Matildas beat the number one ranked USA on American soil, in their first-ever win over the reigning World Cup champions,

   (v) the Matildas also beat Japan and Brazil, who are ranked 6th and 8th, respectively,

   (vi) the Matildas played Brazil in the final, winning 6 - 1,

   (vii) the unbeaten performance by the Matildas positions them well for qualification to the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup in France,

   (viii) more than 270 000 women and girls play football in Australia and the sport is growing rapidly, and

   (ix) the Matildas are an inspiration to young players and their win will encourage even more children to play football; and

(b) congratulates the Matildas on their impressive win and acknowledges the importance of investing in women's football, including coaching and facilities and pay and conditions for professional players.

Question agreed to.

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (16:10): I move—

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

   (i) 7 to 13 August 2017 is Homelessness Week,

   (ii) the theme of this year's week is 'Action and Innovation' which aims to highlight the many effective approaches specialist homelessness services have implemented to prevent and respond to homelessness,

   (iii) Australians of all ages and backgrounds become homeless, however, some people are more vulnerable to homelessness than others,

   (iv) along with domestic violence, poverty, drug and alcohol use, mental health is a key cause of homelessness,

   (v) homelessness services which provide mental health support have expressed concern that many clients will not qualify for a package under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and, as a result, will be left without adequate support as funds are withdrawn from psychosocial support services and into the NDIS,

   (vi) the Productivity Commission's NDIS costs position paper, released in June 2017, stated that about 700 000 Australians experience a severe mental illness in any one year, however, according to the National Disability Insurance Agency, only around 64 000 people with psychosocial disability are expected to be eligible for individual packages in the NDIS, and

   (vii) the Productivity Commission also stated that 'it is unclear what supports will be available for people with a mental illness who do not meet the NDIS eligibility criteria and this should be clarified as a matter of urgency'; and

(b) calls on the Government to adequately fund services and programs which provide psychosocial support to ensure no one falls through the emerging gap between these services and the NDIS.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:11): At the request of Senators Chisholm, Watt, Ketter and Moore, I move—

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

   (i) the enduring and lasting impact that Tropical Cyclone Debbie has had on communities in Queensland and northern New South Wales,

   (ii) that the cost of recovery for families, businesses and communities is a shared responsibility of local, state and federal governments and the insurance industry, and that each has an important role to play,

   (iii) that the Queensland Government has proposed $110 million in additional funding to support projects which will boost economic growth, help communities get back on their feet and assist in preventing further damage from future extreme weather events, including, South Rockhampton Flood Levee, the Whitsunday Coast Airport and the Shute Harbour Revitalisation, and

   (iv) that the Federal Government has chosen not to match this funding through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) Category D; and

(b) calls on the Prime Minister to review these decisions, and provide matched funding from either the NDRRA or from other appropriate sources to ensure these vital projects are supported.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:12): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: Before any reconsideration of category D funding by the Prime Minister, the government requires further information from Queensland. We are yet to receive that advice, and we call on the Queensland government to supply this information as soon as possible. It is important to note, however, that the coalition government is already funding 75 per cent of Cyclone Debbie's damage bill, currently estimated to amount to $683 million, and it has provided more than $16.8 million to individuals through Commonwealth-only disaster payments. Our disaster arrangements exist to alleviate damage caused as a direct result of a disaster, not fund new large-scale infrastructure projects. We have a responsibility to Australian taxpayers to ensure these vital funds are used appropriately.

Question agreed to.