Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:31): I seek leave to move a motion relating to climate change.

Leave not granted.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:31): I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to climate change.

What we've seen today is the total and complete capitulation by Malcolm Turnbull to the hard right of his party and to his big coal donors—a total, complete and utter capitulation by a cowardly and spineless Prime Minister, who doesn't have the ticker to stand up to the pro-coal lobbying side of his own party and stand up to the likes of the Nationals, who are more interested in doing the bidding of Gina Rinehart and the mining lobby than they are in standing up for their rural constituents. We've got the Nationals over there who are basically in this place doing a three-year long job interview so they can nick off and do the bidding of the coal and gas industry. Let's see who is part of the coal and gas industry in this country? It's a who's who of the National Party and the Liberal Party: Mark Vaile, John Anderson and Ian Macfarlane. Of course, Labor's not immune. They've got Martin Ferguson on the other side.

Do you know what today is, Mr President? It is payday for those fossil fuel companies who have given millions of dollars in donations to all sides of politics for one reason: to get an energy policy in this country that serves no-one other than the big fossil fuel companies. This plan that the government has announced today will result in the death of the Great Barrier Reef. It will kill the Murray-Darling Basin. It will kill the jobs that rely on them. It will drive up pollution and it will drive up power prices.

The evidence is very clear. The energy regulator made it abundantly clear what would happen if the government had the courage to take on those big network companies: we would actually make some progress in bringing down power prices. The experts have made that abundantly clear. Yesterday, the ACCC said that power prices are so high because of market concentration. What we have got is a handful of energy generators who are milking Australian consumers dry and we have a government who says: 'We want you to have more of it. We want you to keep shafting consumers in the way that we've just shafted the Chief Scientist Alan Finkel.'

Imagine what Alan Finkel would be thinking right now? There he was bending over backwards to write a plan, with riding instructions from this government so that all he could come up with was a plan so narrow that it would have meant more coal in the system by 2050 than business as usual—but at least there was some incentive for clean energy. But Malcolm Turnbull has turned around to the Chief Scientist and said, 'Well, stuff you. We don't want a bar of what you are presenting us. We don't believe in science. We don't believe in what is absolutely crystal clear and what the business community is telling us and what the general community wants. What we want to do is keep propping up the business model for our coal and gas mates'. That's what this plan is.

This is a plan written by the coal and gas industry that shafts the people that the Nationals over here say they stand for—people living in regional areas, farmers, regional communities. So, instead, what do the Nationals want to do? They want to open up more farmland for coal seam gas. They want to see more of their constituents having to fight those big gas companies who want to frack land, contaminate their water and, ultimately, turn Australian farmland into an industrial-scale wasteland. Why do they do it? It's because they're in the pocket of the coal and gas industry., and they get those big cheques coming in. That's why you see Barnaby Joyce taking international flights with Gina Rinehart rather than—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, could you refer to members in the other place by their correct titles. I've allowed you on more than one occasion now to refer to members incorrectly, so please refer to members by their correct titles.

Senator DI NATALE: That's why we see the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, flying around the countryside with the likes of Gina Rinehart—because he's more interested in doing the bidding of the mining and gas industry than he is in looking after farmers.

The bottom line is that we have thousands of jobs that are being sacrificed right now because of this government's commitment to the coal and gas industry. We're losing that great innovation here—it's going overseas—because we're locking ourselves into the sinking ship of fossil fuels. That's what it is. And it's a huge tragedy, because this could be a good news opportunity for Australia. We could be talking about bringing in jobs and investment and making sure that we've got a pathway for those people in regional communities. Instead, this government has locked us in into rising power prices, job losses and skyrocketing emissions. This is a disgrace, and the Prime Minister should hang his head in shame.

The PRESIDENT: It would be helpful, Senator Di Natale, if you could provide in writing the words of your motion.

Senator Di Natale: I'm happy to do that.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:37): Another stunt from the Greens, with all of this confected outrage from Senator Di Natale, pretending to be the friend of working Australians—this wealthy medical practitioner who lives in inner-city Melbourne and retreats to his hobby farm for the weekend, with every gesture, every posture of a left-wing hipster, pretending to be a champion of working Australians. Well, Senator Di Natale, I'll tell you what working Australians want. They want affordable energy electricity prices and they want reliable supply. That's what they want. And there is only one political party represented in this parliament that will give it to them—and that is the government parties of the Liberal Party and the National Party.

Senator Di Natale, you spoke about an announcement. There has been no announcement. So your entire speech is based on press speculation that you have, no doubt, tried to trick up into a speech. However, I can tell you, Senator Di Natale, having come from the government party room a short while ago where this matter was discussed, that I am expecting the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, to be making some announcements in the coming hour or so. When those announcements are made, contrary, Senator Di Natale, to what you have just so foolishly asserted, you will learn that the announcements the government is making—which, out of courtesy to the Prime Minister, I will not be anticipating in these remarks—are informed by science, are informed by engineering and, more particularly, are informed by the most experienced experts in the field. But, as I say, out of courtesy to the Prime Minister and Mr Frydenberg, I won't be anticipating in this speech anything that they may shortly be about to say. What I can also tell you, Senator Di Natale, is that when the announcement is made—

The PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator Di Natale?

Senator Di Natale: I have a point of order, and it relates to addressing senators by their correct name. I have heard Senator Brandis consistently refer to me as Senator 'Di Na-ta-lay'. I know Senator Brandis prides himself on his diction, but my name is 'Di Na-ta-li', not 'Di Na-ta-lay'. So if he would like to refer to me by my proper name I would be most appreciative.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Di Natale. You have made that very clear, and I think the Attorney-General has heard you.

Senator BRANDIS: I have. And I mean no offence, Senator Di Natale, but that is just the way I pronounce the English language. I am sorry if my pronunciation is imperfect. In any event, Senator Di Natale, I can assure you that when the announcement is made you will discover that what has fallen from your lips in the last few minutes is completely wrong. And you will be ashamed, Senator Di Natale, when you learn on whose advice and guidance the policy measures about to be announced have been based.

Senator Di Natale, if I may address you and the Greens, we know the political game you have been playing—and if I may say so you've been playing it pretty well. You have got the Australian Labor Party on the run, because you are in a competition with them for the inner-city green hipster vote, and you are winning. You are taking the Labor Party to more and more extreme positions every day. It probably does the Greens a lot of good, but it is devastating for the Australian Labor Party. Unfortunately, it is also a recipe for bad policy. The ultimate victims of your political strategy, driven by ideology—and, as the Prime Minister unkindly said the other day, driven by idiocy—are the Australian people themselves.

We will be announcing a suite of measures the effect of which will be to reduce electricity prices and guarantee reliability of supply. I know, Senator Di Natale, you have a problem with that, but the Australian people don't have a problem with that, because that is what they want. They want their electricity prices reduced and the reliability of their supply guaranteed, and that is precisely what the effect of the measures the Prime Minister is shortly to announce will be. They are informed by science, informed by engineering and informed by economics, but avoiding like the plague the ideology that drives you. We are not interested in Green ideology, Senator Di Natale; we are interested in outcomes. That is what the Australian people are interested in too. So when the next election comes around in about 18 months or so, there will be a stark choice: the Green-Labor Party alliance, with higher electricity prices and insecure supply, or the government's policies, with lower prices and secure supply. (Time expired)

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:42): After those very unkind remarks by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I feel like changing Labor's position on this suspension. However, I think for good reasons the Labor Party will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders today. I point out that it seems like at the beginning of every Tuesday of every sitting week we have a suspension motion by the Greens party on the issue of the day, to chew up time without much notice—probably 10 minutes notice to other parties that they are moving a suspension.

From Labor's point of view, it is premature to have a debate on a motion that condemns the government's latest energy announcement when that announcement hasn't actually been made. Don't get me wrong—we can debate for hours the failure of the Turnbull government on energy policy, and we would look forward to debating that. We would look forward to debating the dumping of the work of the Chief Scientist at the behest of the former Prime Minister. For four years this government has trashed energy policy and turned itself inside out, fighting amongst themselves on climate change and energy policy. It hasn't been able to govern in the national interest, putting the interests of Australians first. I think it is fair to say we will all suffer from that, not just those of us in this place but generations to come. Looking at the different positions the government has had on energy policy, I remember the time when the Prime Minister supported a price on carbon, an EIS and a CET, and now all of a sudden he is walking away from all of that because the former Prime Minister and his supporters in the coalition party room not only hold the government to ransom; they hold the whole country to ransom and they are still stuck in a vortex where they're discussing whether the science of climate change is actually settled yet.

We will need to see the detail of the next iteration of the government's energy policy prior to debating it in this place. As I said, the Prime Minister has had a number of positions. We don't hold much faith that this new policy will last any longer than those that have come before it. We want to see a responsible energy policy put in place. We want to reach agreement. We have offered to talk with the government on the clean energy target through our own preferred mechanism, through an EIS. We did that very early after the Finkel report came out. That was us prepared to compromise, but, unfortunately, the government have refused to talk with us because they haven't actually settled the issue between themselves. We want to see households given relief from the rising cost of bills. We want certainty in the policy so that the investment strike ends and, importantly, so that Australians can get their fair share of the jobs that are being developed in the rapidly expanding global renewable energy industry. All of that is for debate.

I note the Greens have all of Thursday morning as time for private senators' bills and business. We could spend the whole morning debating the policy once the actual policy has been released and we have the detail of that policy. We are not at all scared about debating the policy. We welcome debate on the policy. There are a range of mechanisms within the Senate through which we can pursue that this week—MPIs, urgency motions, questions, senators' statements, the adjournment debate and, indeed, all of the time on Thursday morning. There is more than enough time. However, our job here is also to progress legislation on the Notice Paper, whether we agree or disagree with that legislation. That is the job we have been asked to perform by the Australian people. This wastes that time. It wastes time for debate on other important bills. It is premature in terms of being able to debate seriously and honestly the policy that this government may or may not have finally resolved for themselves—for the time being, until it is nobbled by Tony Abbott again. But the form being used and the mechanism being used by the Greens to suspend the program today to have this debate, prior to a package being released, is not appropriate, and we won't be supporting it.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (12:47): I agree with the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate that this is becoming a pattern for the leader of the Greens—at kick-off on a Tuesday afternoon to seek leave to move a motion and, when it is denied, to then follow through with a suspension of standing orders, the outcome of which I think we can all predict. This has become a pattern which has disrupted the working of this place, disrupted government business time. There are many forms in this place to address issues that colleagues wish to put a focus on. Obviously there is question time. There is matters of public importance. There is matters of public interest. There is general business time. There are a range of forms in this place for colleagues to avail themselves of. That's the first point—that this is not the time, this is not the opportunity, to seek to ventilate these issues.

The second point I wish to make is that the leader of the Greens is seeking to debate matters which are yet to be put into the public domain. It is a matter of record that the government have agreed to 49 of the 50 Finkel recommendations and that we are going through our internal processes to look at other matters that Mr Finkel touched upon. And, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate alluded to, it is highly likely that we will have more to say in the coming hours. This would be an odd time to have a debate, when the chamber is not in possession of what the government has to say later today.

I also think it's worth just pausing for a moment to reflect on what the government has done on the issue of energy. We're absolutely seized of the importance of reliability, the importance of affordability and the importance of meeting our international commitments. Since we've been in government, we have abolished the carbon tax, which is the single most significant thing to address affordability, and I don't hear calls from the community for that to be reintroduced. We have, obviously, made our commitments in Paris, which we intend to honour. We have put in serious work with the energy retailers. As a result, consumers have been written to advising them that there are better deals available and that they should take advantage of those, and many Australians have done just that. We have also taken steps in relation to the domestic gas supply to ensure that that is met and that there is downward pressure there. We instituted the Finkle review, and, as I mentioned, we've adopted 49 of the 50 recommendations. The Finkle review recommendations went to COAG. They then went to the energy ministers, and the energy ministers collectively adopted 49 of the 50. We now have an internal process underway which we'll have more to say about shortly.

On this side of the chamber, we don't take a theological or an ideological approach to energy policy. We look at the engineering. We look at the economics. We already have a plan which is before the Australian people, and we'll have a little bit more to say very soon about the next iteration of that. The Greens have not made a compelling case for the suspension of standing orders this morning. There are forms in this place to address issues, and we will all have the benefit of what the government has to say a little later today.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:52): We have heard clearly from the former Prime Minister himself, Tony Abbott, on progress at today's party room: the clean energy target has definitely been 'dropped'. You can see who's in charge here. Tony Abbott, former Prime Minister, is back running the show over there on the other side. And, of course, what have we had announced? The National Energy Guarantee, the NEG. I'll tell you who's been negged and who's negging. It's Tony Abbott, former Prime Minister, negging Malcolm Turnbull. Do you know what a neg is? It's a trick. It's designed to undermine somebody's confidence. This is exactly what is going on inside the coalition party room right now.

The former Prime Minister spent 10 years trying to destroy climate policy in this nation. Ten years on, he delivers another wrecking ball right through the renewable energy industry and right through households who have done the right thing by putting solar on their roof and embracing clean energy to bring down their power bills. This is an attack on Australians right across the country. Malcolm Turnbull has capitulated. He's been negged by Tony Abbott, and it's going to be Australians, householders and businesses that suffer. This is a terrible day for climate change, for the planet and for householders who want lower bills. Nothing announced today is going to reduce people's power prices. That is the only guarantee we've got.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:54): I'm outraged at this policy. I'm outraged that George Brandis can call what we are trying to bring this Senate's attention to a stunt. This is about the future of the planet. This is about the future of our children and our grandchildren, and he has the audacity to call it a stunt.

I'll tell you what a stunt is. A stunt is the Prime Minister's weak attempt to pretend to this country that he is doing something about climate change and that he is doing something about power prices. He isn't. He's just pulling a stunt to try to appease Mr Abbott, who thinks climate change is good for this planet and who is a laughing stock around the world. Mr Abbott is the guy who wants to throw goats in the volcano. He's not the one who is trying to undermine how the globe responds to climate change. Mr Turnbull is fully owned by Mr Abbott and big business, who want nothing but to make a few short-term profits at the risk of future generations. That's what this debate is about.

All the coalition can say in response to this motion is, 'This is a stunt,' because they don't want to own up that they have completely capitulated and they don't want to own the fact that we will never meet our Paris targets now. We will not. They have handed climate change policy totally to Mr Abbott. The flat-earthers of this country should hang their heads in shame rather than come in here and try to justify their appalling policy. They are setting us back decades and are condemning this planet.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:56): We Greens make absolutely no apology for bringing this motion to suspend standing orders to the Senate at this time. Tackling climate change is the most significant thing we need to be doing in the world today, and it is absolutely critical that this parliament realises the urgency and the importance of dealing with climate change. The announcement that is being made today is setting us so far back in that it's propping up support for coal, gas and oil and destroying our country's ability to move forward to an energy supply that is clean and green.

I feel like I am living in an alternative universe. I studied climate science 37 years ago; it was 1980 when I first learned about the then newly emerging science of global warming. In those 37 years, that science has become clearer, more stark and absolutely more disturbing in terms of the impact climate change will have on the planet and on the peoples of this planet. We know that we can move forward. There is an absolutely positive future for Australia as part of the global community dealing with the challenges of global warming. It is a future in which we won't be looking down the barrel of increasing heatwaves that are going to kill thousands of Australians over the coming decades and we won't be looking down the barrel of more extensive fires. It won't be a future in which we're unable to grow food in our community. Today's announcement trashes that positive future that we could be looking forward to.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:58): I will start by observing that there is, of course, some irony for opposition senators in having the Greens bring this motion to suspend standing orders today. Senator Gallagher outlined our general objection to this repetitive procedural technique to drag the Senate off the order of business that has been established and the discourtesy that that approach represents. But on the substance of the matter the Greens bring forward today I will make this observation: we would not need to be having this debate today if you had brought yourself to vote for the CPRS when it was brought into this chamber so many years ago. There have been many opportunities in the last decade for you to support a serious emissions trading scheme proposed by a Labor government committed to tackling climate change, but you squibbed it. You squibbed it for a range of reasons, but my deepest suspicion is that you did so because it was electorally convenient for you to maintain a point of differentiation with Labor. And, if that meant throwing away the one opportunity that you had to establish a coherent, global approach to tackling emissions reduction in the country, that was a sacrifice you were willing to make. It was a sacrifice you were willing to make for absolutely base political reasons, and you ought to be reminded of it every time this chamber comes back to climate change.

I have spent a decade of my life fighting for rational climate change policy. I am horrified at the debate this nation has gone through over the last 12 months and I am genuinely surprised to see a coalition government unable to commit to even basic principles of policy design around the National Electricity Market. It has been hopeless; it has been embarrassing. But I will say this: the Greens have not helped. You have spent a decade trying to politicise this for your own purposes, and that has been at the expense of serious policy debate in this country.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator McALLISTER: And it is no good laughing and calling out, because everybody understands this to be true.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rhiannon, you have 14 seconds in which to conclude.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (13:00): Today, 17 October, will be remembered as the day when this country, under Turnbull, turned its back on the Paris agreement. It is the day when 2,000 people came to Bondi Beach, standing together to stop Adani.

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Rhiannon! Point of order, Senator Williams—although the time for the debate has now concluded.

Senator Williams: Why does Senator Rhiannon refer to the Prime Minister as Turnbull? This is totally unacceptable. This is a common thing we complain about: the Greens' lack of respect for people in this place and the other place.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Williams. Senator Williams reminds us all that we need to address people in the other place and, indeed, in this chamber by their correct titles, positions or names.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Di Natale to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:04): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Kitching, Dastyari and Singh today.

What an interesting garble we heard from the other side today in relation to relation to this new plan from the Liberal government! The party room, as I understand from media reports, agreed to ditch the CET and adopt a National Energy Guarantee that requires electricity retailers to have a minimum amount of power constantly available. Prime Minister Turnbull said that the new plan is a 'game changer'.

It's really interesting because, over a number of years, Minister Turnbull has backed and supported an emissions trading scheme, a carbon tax, an emissions intensity scheme, a clean energy target and a stronger renewable energy target. Now he's backing a National Energy Guarantee. It makes you wonder what he's going to be supporting and backing in tomorrow. Each of these positions, basically, is being pushed by the previous Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, who, it appears, has much more say on that side of the parliament than Mr Turnbull does. Mr Turnbull made his announcement this morning—and we are yet to see detail of it, I might add. I can't find any detail.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator URQUHART: It's been released, says Senator Brandis. Where would we find that, Senator Brandis? It's interesting—I haven't been able to find it. What Prime Minister Turnbull has done is turn his back on his own Chief Scientist. They have turned their back completely on the report that Dr Finkel put out. They have turned their back on renewable energy. Renewable energy is one of the things on the horizon that will create jobs and provide lots of opportunities in regional Australia. We heard Senator Scullion a moment ago talk about how they know regional Australia and how wonderful they are, but he read word for word off a piece of paper. How well does he know regional Australia when he has to read the answer to a dorothy dixer question from his own side? He can't even talk about regional Australia. Well, I tell you, I can—I talk to people on the west coast of Tasmania, who are waiting and have been waiting since Mr Abbott was the Prime Minister and absolutely wrecked the clean energy target, absolutely wrecked the wind industry and absolutely wrecked any renewable opportunities for industries to grow and grow in places where we absolutely need jobs.

From the package of leaks to different newspapers this morning, we can clearly see that this government is hell-bent on absolutely destroying the renewable energy industry and severely restricting growth in Australia over the coming years and decades. That's what this demonstrates. It's like they said: 'We've got a thought bubble today, so we'll run with that. It sounds like a great idea. We won't take any notice of what the Chief Scientist says—oh, no, he wouldn't know. He doesn't have the expertise. So we'll just come up with what we think will placate our backbench and other people and go along with Mr Tony Abbott.' It is a thought bubble to dump the Chief Scientist's recommendation. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party this morning was unable to answer any basic questions of detail on the package.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator URQUHART: He could not answer any questions at all. Clearly, the announcement made this morning is the capitulation by the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, to Tony Abbott's hard right-wing agenda for Australia, which is now utterly complete. He's almost got there—the only thing that he's not doing is getting the salary of the Prime Minister.

It was reported in newspapers this morning that renewable energy growth will be restricted over the coming three decades to just 4½ per cent—4½ per cent growth in the renewable energy industry over 30 years. That places at risk thousands and thousands of jobs in the renewable energy industry and makes it utterly clear that Australia is completely unable to satisfy and discharge its commitments around carbon pollution reduction that were made at the Paris conference in 2015. This government should be ashamed of itself for moving the goalposts. (Time expired)

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (15:09): It's great to be following Senator Urquhart in taking note of the answers that were provided during question time, but I struggle to understand the point of view that Senator Urquhart is conveying in this chamber. She commenced her contribution by talking about rumours and media reports about what was announced today, rather than actually focusing on the facts.

Talking about ignoring experts was one of the points that Senator Urquhart made. As the Attorney-General pointed out in his answer to questions asked by the opposition today, it was, in fact, experts that were relied upon for the creation of this policy—people on the Energy Security Board, many of whom were appointed by the former Labor government. These are people that the shadow spokesperson for energy has termed as excellent appointments as well. Obviously, what they do is good, so why are these experts now not producing work that's acceptable to those on that side of the chamber?

Not once in question time today did we hear the opposition talk about the issues of reliability and affordability—not at all. It was all about a particular obsession with one thing, and that's renewables—this talk of renewable jobs. I heard Senator Urquhart say that there will be thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs at risk because the renewables sector will only be growing at 4½ per cent. I thought I heard in there the word 'growing', which means that there should be more jobs being created. But it's like they're looking at that issue in isolation, not thinking about those who have to pay power bills—those factories that need affordable, reliable energy to be able to function and to produce the goods that they are there to produce and to support the workers who work in their factories, like dairy operations.

A couple of times during question time today there were references to obsessions with coal as well. Well, Senator Urquhart is a senator for Tasmania, as is Senator Singh, who asked one of the questions, the answers to which we are taking note of today. We also have a coalmine in our state, the Cornwall Coal Mine down on the east coast in the Fingal Valley, which employs a great many people in the regional community. Those opposite aren't concerned about those jobs. What about the people who work at the Cement Australia cement factory in Railton and the hundreds of people there? Does Senator Urquhart want to come with me to a factory located close to both of our electorate offices? Would she like to come out with me, meet the workers there and see how they feel about this notion of abandoning all support for industries that rely on that source of energy—a cheap source of energy? Probably not. I doubt she would accept my invitation to come out with me.

The notion of doing away with subsidies is at the heart of this great policy, which draws a line in the sand and provides certainty moving forward. It creates a situation where we will have reliable and affordable energy. It is something people have been calling out for—business groups, individuals down the street and people on the other side of the chamber. It's something they've wanted for so long. But here we are providing it, and all we get are complaints and criticism. No real analysis, just typical opposition tactics.

But the subsidies proposed by the opposition in their policy are $66 billion worth of subsidies to prop up the jobs that Senator Urquhart was talking about. That's what they cost. Who pays for that? The taxpayer. They're paid for through people's power bills! It's okay for people who live down in the capital city and who don't have to earn their money—

Senator McKim: Who pays for climate change? Your children!

Senator DUNIAM: Indeed, this does honour our international commitments, taking Senator McKim's interjections. It does deal with that as well. But we seem to be hearing complaints from those opposite that it's all about one part of this debate. People need to turn their power on at home; they need power to live. Businesses need power to function. It's a simple thing that many on the other side seem to have missed. So I do urge senators opposite to go and familiarise themselves with the detail in the policy that was announced today and understand what it's all about. Grab a copy of the document and go and find out what it means to be committed to ensuring we have a reliable and affordable source of energy for our communities—

Senator McCarthy: Where is it?

Senator DUNIAM: It's right here, Senator McCarthy. I'll walk you a copy around shortly. But it's so important, and so drop the ideology and stand up for Australians and for what they really need. (Time expired)

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:14): In this question time we asked the question, and it's a logical question to ask: given the Prime Minister's many commitments to various approaches to climate policy, and given how many times he has adopted a position and abandoned it at the first headwind, how can we trust him on this latest announcement?

This latest announcement—a three-letter acronym, the NEG—is the new thing we're all supposed to believe in. But why is this any different from the litany of programs adopted by the Prime Minister and abandoned the moment Mr Abbott raised his voice? I can run through them again. He was a supporter of the ETS, he was a supporter of the carbon tax, he was a supporter of an EIS, he was a supporter of a CET and he was a supporter of a RET. Now he's the supporter of a NEG. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, does it? We're now into the fifth year of this government—the fifth year in a period where there has been an investment strike. The day this crowd came into the parliament and assumed government they decided to abolish any coherent policy approach to dealing with climate change; and the investment community, quite reasonably, just didn't know what to do. Without clear policy settings about how we intend to address climate change as a nation, it is impossible to make rational assessments about how to direct your investment. And indeed that is what we have been told over and over again.

I was interested to hear Senator Duniam implore us to 'listen to the experts'. Well, I'll remind him of this: the experts have been talking to us for some time. The experts from industry, the expert academic economists and the expert market economists have been talking to us. And what they've been saying to us is, 'You need to put some certainty around the investment environment.' We have waited for four years and we're into our fifth year ,and now we're expected to believe that the NEG is the thing that is going to create that certainty.

I saw Senator Duniam waving around a glossy brochure, and I look forward to receiving my copy of that glossy brochure. I have spent the last hour and a half trawling the internet trying to find written down details of this policy that has been announced by a press release and, I understand, perhaps on a social media video from the Prime Minister. I think we deserve a little bit more than that. I think we need to understand the analysis and the modelling that lies behind the set of propositions that are being wheeled out now.

But I will tell you what I've been able to find out in the short time that's been able to me. This thing, this policy, involves an emissions guarantee. What is that? How will it work? We don't really know. We had some explanation read out rather laboriously by Senator Scullion. As far as I can tell, the actual target that will form the basis of this emissions guarantee is yet to be set. As far as I can tell from the reports being made in the media, this guarantee is something that is going to be 'worked through' in the lead-up to COAG. So, in fact, we've got absolutely no idea what it is that this guarantee represents. What part of the emissions reduction task that we are committed to in our Paris agreement will this emissions guarantee play? We don't know, because the level hasn't been set, and quite obviously the modelling associated with it has not been done.

It's the same with the reliability guarantee. What is the standard that is to be set? That hasn't been announced publicly and again, as I understand it, this is something to be 'worked through' as we approach COAG. This isn't a policy; this is a set of aspirations and a kind of plea that hopefully they can get together with state and territory governments and work something out as they approach the next COAG. Mr Frydenberg was asked today: 'How can you make these commitments about the cost to households, how can you make these commitments that costs will go down, if you have made none of the decisions about the actual targets to be established in this guarantee?' He responded in this way: 'The Commonwealth will be asking the AEMC to do detailed analysis and modelling of the specific proposal in the lead-up to discussions at COAG. We will provide, if you like, firmer estimates of those price effects. The price numbers you are referring to are based on, if you like, analysis and modelling of the market and the alternative schemes we have looked at in the past. It's an average over the 10 years.' Nothing there. Completely hopeless. All hot air.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:19): The announcement this morning and this afternoon of the latest developments in the government's energy policy comes on the back of numerous other policy achievements. At the end of the parliamentary fortnight of this parliament four weeks ago the government successfully passed its media law reform package. In addition to that we've had success just this morning, today. The foreign minister has successfully argued and campaigned across the globe to make sure that Australia had a seat at the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Senator Urquhart's contribution was to reflect on Julie Bishop, the member for Curtin, the foreign minister, on how she wasn't completely aware of the details of this policy. Senator Urquhart did not even have the decency or the graciousness to acknowledge the great work the foreign minister had been doing with her No. 1 priority, which is, of course, managing the foreign affairs of this country.

But, ladies and gentlemen, we could have climate peace in our time, and it's beholden only to the attitudes of those on the other side, because there's a very, very clear choice here. They can choose to accept the expert advice, which was made clear in the blueprint which was laid out in the Finkel review—and I'll come to that in a moment—or they can choose not to trust the experts.

Senator McAllister interjecting—

Senator SMITH: Senator McAllister, some experts are more expert than others, I'm afraid. I suggest that the experts that the government has gathered together on energy policy are the right experts to be listened to. They are more expert than you, and, dare I say it, they are more expert than myself and than many, many senators in this place.

Before I get to the Finkel review, because this is very, very important—the Energy Security Board was a deliberate, conscious and well thought out recommendation of the Finkel review—Labor senators in this place have been keen to scoff at the suggestion that Australian residential energy consumers will be $100 to $115 better off a year as a result of the energy reforms of this government. They scoff at that. Let me remind you that under the carbon tax in my home state of Western Australia residential consumers would have been $134 a year worse off under Labor's carbon tax policy. All I do this afternoon is implore Labor senators to go back to the evidence.

For those of you who watch question time, you might recall that over the last few weeks and the last few months Labor has been quick to criticise the government for not accepting each and every one of the Finkel review recommendations. Today, the Prime Minister has announced, after very careful consideration, a plan that builds on a very specific recommendation of the Finkel review. To make it easier for people who might be listening at home or listening and watching in the gallery, all you need to do is go to page 26 of the Finkel review, recommendation 7.2 under the title of 'Stronger governance'. It makes it very clear. The Finkel review says:

The COAG—

the Council of Australian Governments—

Energy Council should immediately agree to establish an Energy Security Board to have responsibility for the implementation of the blueprint and for providing whole-of-system oversight for energy security and reliability.

It says:

• The Energy Security Board should be provided with the necessary funding to operate.

• The Energy Security Board should be comprised of an independent Chair, supported by an independent Deputy Chair, with the Chief Executive of the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Chairs of the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission as members.

As part of the same recommendation it goes on to say:

• Administrative support for the Energy Security Board should be provided by the Australian Energy Market Operator.

Why is that, recommendation 7.2, important? Because it is the Energy Security Board that has advised the government and recommended the National Energy Guarantee.

The government has chosen to trust the experts, because this is an area where experts can and should be trusted. For those people who are interested in a more thorough explanation about why it is that the Energy Security Board is necessary—and I invite Senator McKim to start with this in his contribution—you only need to go to page 157 of the Finkel review to see why this is an important and solid first step in providing reliable energy to Australian— (Time expired)

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (15:24): The worst-kept secret has been revealed today. Who would have thought that we would be in some way shocked to hear that the coalition government has decided to baulk on the Finkel review's clean energy target. The worst-kept secret that Australians have been waiting to hear has come to fruition. And not only has the Prime Minister turned his back on his own chief scientist, but, in doing so, he has embraced the former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's vision of Australian energy, which brings Australia's energy policy back to the 1950s.

But what is really, really unclear is what this new energy policy of the government is really all about, because we are hearing conflicting views when it comes to detail—as usual—from this Turnbull government. The AEMC CEO, Mr John Pierce, today told Sky News that there are indeed different modelling scenarios when it comes to the National Energy Guarantee. This is where Australians are again completely bewildered as to what this government's policy is.

We know that the Prime Minister and the energy minister have been spruiking an average annual power bill reduction of $115 under these new energy reforms. But now we hear from the AEMC's John Pierce that there are different modelling scenarios, and it may indeed be as low as $25 a year according to some confidential modelling. So what is the reality here? How can this government try and hoodwink the Australian people into believing there will be a saving of $115 a year when a very pre-eminent individual by the name of John Pierce, from the AEMC, who the government has been relying on, has made it very clear there are different scenarios and one scenario is as low as $25? That just completely blows this policy out of the water. And all of the rhetoric that Malcolm Turnbull, Minister Josh Frydenberg and the Leader of Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis, have been spruiking is why Labor today asked pertinent questions as to the detail of what this is all about.

Senator Brandis: You were the only one who asked a question.

Senator SINGH: Indeed I did ask questions, Senator Brandis, around investment in renewables and around investment in jobs—because we rely very much on analysis such as that done by Ernst & Young, which said Labor's 50 per cent renewable target will create 28,000 jobs, whereas Prime Minister Turnbull has turned his back on renewables and therefore turned his back on thousands of new renewable energy jobs.

So not only are we losing out on jobs, we're also losing out on the savings that this government continues to rely on because of what I have just alluded to in the Senate and made clear in the Senate—that the Australian Energy Market Commission's chair, John Pierce, has made it very clear that there are different modelling scenarios and, under one scenario, the savings for families will be just $25 a year in 2020. What a great policy this is that this government is trying to hoodwink the Australian people with! Well, the only one who is buying this policy, the only one who's probably cracking open the champagne right now, is former Prime Minister Tony Abbott—because, let's face it, he is the one who's still really running this country. He is the one that Malcolm Turnbull continues to capitulate to. He is the one, along with the other hard-right members in the coalition, who this government has completely sold out to. Senator Brandis, you should be ashamed and embarrassed because I know you're not one of those hard-right members of the coalition. But, in doing nothing and in going along with them, you certainly have sold yourself out, as has the Prime Minister. But you didn't only sell out what's important for Australia—to be a leader in energy and renewable energy, to have the right energy mix for the country; you also hoodwinked Australians in the process. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (15:30): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to renewable energy.

This policy that we have seen from the government today is perilously close to a clinically insane policy. We know that Australians want more renewable energy. Poll after poll shows that Australians want more renewable energy, yet this announcement, on the face of it, sounds the death knell for the renewable energy target and sells out every single Australian who wants to see strong climate action and wants to see more renewable energy in the mix. It sells out those Australians. It sells the Great Barrier Reef down the drain. It sells the Murray-Darling Basin and its ecology, on which so many regional jobs depend, straight down the drain—flushed after the Great Barrier Reef. It's worth pointing out that as we stand here today the Great Barrier Reef is dying, there are horrendous wildfires burning in Portugal and—hello!—there's a tropical cyclone bearing down on Ireland. Yet this is the day, of all days, that the Prime Minister announces he is selling renewables down the drain and is going to hop straight into bed with his mates in the coal sector. Make no mistake, this government has not only sold out future generations; it has sold out our climate for a few months respite from the climate criminals like Tony Abbott on its backbench.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, I remind you to refer to members in the other place by their correct title.

Senator McKIM: In that case, Deputy President, they've sold out to climate criminals like Mr Tony Abbott on their backbench. You have to ask yourself: how do those in this government sleep at night when they're selling the Great Barrier Reef down the drain and selling renewables down the drain with it? I've got an answer. I know how they sleep at night: on mattresses stuffed with hundred dollar bills donated by their mates in the coal industry. That's what this policy has delivered on today. It's delivered on the wishes of the coal industry in this country.

It's payday today for the coal industry in Australia. The fossil fuel industry donates millions of dollars to the Labor and Liberal parties in every election cycle, and for that money they get policy outcomes from the Liberal-National party such as those we've seen today. The LNP don't care about future generations, because they want the economy to work for the big polluters and no-one else. They don't care, because young people actually don't matter to them. We see that in housing policy settings and private health insurance policy settings and we've had it confirmed again today—as if we needed it—in the government's energy policy announcement. They don't care about young people today and they don't care about young people into the future. If they did they would be announcing policies that drove a more rapid uptake of renewable energy, a more rapid transition out of coal-fired power in this country. But they don't do that, because they only care about their massive donors in the fossil fuel industry in this country and their post-parliamentary careers in the fossil fuel sector.

This government is growing increasingly delusional. Those opposite are attacking Australia's biggest polluter, AGL, for not being pro coal enough. They are attacking Australia's biggest miners because they are moving away from coal. They're attacking the big banks because they don't want to risk their shareholders' money by investing in coal. This government has completely lost the plot. I am sorry to say that in this country energy policy is one of the major casualties of that losing of the plot. It is chopped and changed day to day. New thought bubbles are announced from week to week. Last week we had Tony Abbott sacrificing goats to volcanos, and this week we have Malcolm Turnbull asking, 'How high?' when Mr Abbott has told him to jump. Energy policy in this country is a disgrace and I apologise to future generations for the misery that announcements like today's are heaping on them.

Question agreed to.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (15:44): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) over one million Australian tertiary students are forced to pay up to $294 per year as a Student Services and Amenities Fee (SSAF),

(ii) students at the moment have very little say in how the SSAF monies are spent by their universities and student associations, and

(iii) SSAF is levied regardless of students' need, willingness and ability to access the services and activities they are paying for; and

(b) calls on the Government to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 so that the SSAF can only be levied with the support of the majority of students at each university campus in a mandatory ballot conducted once an academic year.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:44): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute, Senator McGrath.

Senator McGRATH: Thank you. The coalition strongly opposed Labor's repeal of the voluntary student unionism laws passed under the Howard government. For many Liberals and conservatives, guaranteeing students the basic right to freely associate and not be forced to join or contribute funds to a student union has been a lifelong principle. The government will support part (a).

However, part (b) does not reflect the key principle of ensuring freedom of association for all students at all times. It creates an illusion of voluntary student unionism through the use of campus- or institution-wide ballots. Compelling all students to join and fund an organisation by a ballot of their peers is just as illegitimate on campus as if it happened in a workplace or anywhere else in our community. As such, I ask that the question on part (a) be put separately from the question on part (b).

The PRESIDENT: In that case, I will comply with that request. Under general business notice of motion No. 514, we will first of all consider the question of part (a). The question is that part (a) of notice of motion No. 514 be agreed to.

S enator Wi lliams did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Ludlam.

S enator Smith did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Waters .

The PRESIDENT (15:52): The question now is that part (b) of notice of motion No. 514 be agreed to.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:57): I, and also on behalf of Senator Singh, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) was launched in Melbourne in 2007, and is now made up of more than 450 civil society organisations in more than 100 countries;

(b) welcomes ICAN's work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and its efforts to achieve the prohibition of such weapons; and

(c) congratulates ICAN on winning the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.

Question agreed to.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:57): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes with concern that the current wildfires in California are the deadliest and most destructive cluster of fires in California's history;

(b) expresses sympathy for the loved ones of the more than 40 people who have died, and for the thousands who have lost their properties;

(c) notes that extreme weather events, such as these fires, will become more frequent and more extreme as the climate changes;

(d) further notes that in Australia, in 2009, 173 people died as a result of the Black Saturday bushfires and 980 people died in the lead-up to those fires; and

(e) rejects claims by former Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, that climate change is "probably doing good; or at least, more good than harm", and confirms that climate change will result in an increase worldwide in deaths from heat stress, malnutrition and extreme weather events.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:57): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government extends its condolences to the victims of the current wildfires in California. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who have lost their loved ones, and our great admiration is with the firefighters, emergency workers and volunteers as they battle against the fires. Australia will continue to work with other countries to ensure we put in place best-practice approaches to resilience, mitigation and disaster relief responses to extreme weather events, including bushfires.

Question agreed to.

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

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Garvan Institute for Medical Research (the Garvan Institute) is conducting ground-breaking work on cancer, including cancer genomics, which is proving an important approach for rare and high mortality cancers,

(ii) the Garvan Institute has limited access to supercomputers to process big data for precision cancer research, and so has teamed up with the Vodafone Foundation to create a new app, DreamLab, to help it overcome this obstacle,

(iii) the DreamLab app pulls together the processing power of users' smartphones at night and other times the phones sit idle to give Garvan free access to a supercomputer resource,

(iv) the DreamLab app has been available on Android phones since launching last year and, on 23 October 2017, the app will also be available on iPhone,

(v) so far, more than 100,000 Australians have downloaded the application on Android phones, which the Garvan Institute says has helped it fast-track the rate of its cancer research by 50 per cent, and

(vi) the Garvan Institute hopes to encourage 1 million people to download the app, to help it fast¬ track important cancer research; and

(b) calls on all senators to download the DreamLab app on 23 October 2017 and do their part to help propel the Garvan Institute's cancer research capabilities.

Question agreed to.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (15:59): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that this week is Bone and Joint Awareness Week, and today, 17 October 2017, is World Orthopaedic Trauma Day,

(ii) that Australians who suffer orthopaedic trauma have access to excellent emergency care (ambulance and paramedic services) which positively impacts the outcomes they experience, however, some experience fragmented ongoing care,

(iii) the primary role played by the Australian Orthopaedic Association (the Association) and its fellows in providing Australians with excellent orthopaedic fracture care,

(iv) the important role of the Association's Orthopaedic Outreach in assisting our Pacific Island neighbours with developing fracture care and improving outcomes, especially in the wake of orthopaedic trauma,

(v) that Orthopaedic Outreach is entirely funded by donations and by pro bono care provided by fellows of the Association, but this only funds a limited service, requiring the Association to seek external funding in order to grow this successful program,

(vi) that the Federal Government provides some funding towards the Pacific Islands Project (PIP) administered by the Royal Australian College of Surgeons for surgical care delivery, and

(vii) the pivotal role of the Pacific Islands Orthopaedic Association in developing an innovative program to train doctors in orthopaedic fracture care in the major Pacific Island countries, including Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomons, Samoa, Vanuatu, Kiribati, American Samoa and Micronesia; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) work with state governments to ensure that Australia continues to develop integrated trauma services dedicated to providing Australians with high quality ongoing trauma care from accident site to rehabilitation,

(ii) work with state governments and the Australian orthopaedic community to reduce public hospital waiting times so as to ensure equitable and timely access for all Australians to life-changing surgical technology for artificial joint replacement for severe arthritis,

(iii) prioritise funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Pacific Islands Project and consider providing funding to Orthopaedic Outreach and the Pacific Islands Orthopaedic Association towards training for trauma care in the Pacific Islands, and

(iv) assist Pacific Island countries in the development of specialty health networks similar to the model developed by the Pacific Islands Orthopaedic Association.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:59): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government will continue to work with the state governments on this matter, as we do for all health related matters with the states. Australia supports improved health outcomes in the Pacific, including on health security and non-communicable diseases. The Australian government has committed $7.5 million to the Pacific Islands Program in 2016-17 to help deploy visiting medical teams to 10 Pacific countries in 12 specialised areas. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons works closely with the Pacific Islands Orthopaedic Association.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:00): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that this week is Anti-Poverty Week 2017;

(b) recognises that more than three million Australians are living in poverty and hardship;

(c) acknowledges that one in six children are living in poverty and almost half of all children living in poverty are in single parent households;

(d) notes that the main aims of Anti-Poverty Week are to encourage research, discussion and action to address poverty and hardship; and

(e) calls on the Government to commit to reducing poverty by at least 50 per cent by 2030, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:00): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The coalition government believes in a welfare system that tackles poverty by helping people achieve independence and breaks cycles of welfare dependency. The best way to make a child's life better is to ensure parents are not dependent on welfare. That's why the primary focus of the coalition government is moving people from welfare to work, and that's shown by the over 800,000 jobs this government has created. This government is protecting children from poverty by guaranteeing homelessness funding that Labor left without a single dollar in their last budget. Our commitment to protecting children is evident in our No Jab, No Pay policy that keeps children safe from horrible diseases. The coalition government will continue to deliver policies across government to provide security and opportunity for the children of this country.

Question agreed to.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (16:01): I wish to inform the chamber that Senator O'Neill will also sponsor this motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator O'Neill, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Government has proposed cutting public subsidies to the higher education enabling programs and introducing fees for these students for the first time,

(ii) from 2011 to 2015, the University of Newcastle had the highest number of students in enabling programs, and

(iii) enabling programs are essential for the University of Newcastle and many other universities to meet the needs of their diverse communities; and

(b) calls on the Government to abandon plans to cut public subsidies and introduce fees for students in the enabling programs.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: No student will pay up-front fees for an enabling course under the coalition government's higher education reforms. The average enabling course is about $1,000. Fifty-two per cent of Commonwealth-supported students who commenced an enabling course in 2014 continued studying in 2015, compared to 61 per cent for domestic fee-paying students. There is no evidence students are deterred by fees when they are deferrable through the loans system. Professor Bruce Chapman has noted:

The evidence is now overwhelming that changes to the level of the charge, or other aspects of HECS-HELP … have no discernible effects on student behaviour or choices.

Question agreed to.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Reynolds ) ( 16:04 ): I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, six proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Georgiou.

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The Government within a month, reports to the Senate, on the number of jobs which would have been available to Australians but were taken by individuals on international student visas."

Is the proposal supported?

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

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

Senator GEORGIOU (Western Australia) (16:05): I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The Government within a month, reports to the Senate, on the number of jobs which would have been available to Australians but were taken by individuals on international student visas.

Why is it that almost a third of our youth are either unemployed or underemployed? I'm talking about kids between the ages of 15 and 24. And that stat isn't anything new. These figures have been around since the global financial crisis. I do note that our labour participation rate this year, which is around 62 per cent, is the highest it's been for around five years, and I hope it continues to grow, but I am surprised to learn that last year over 343,000 international student visas were granted. The department of immigration and citizenship does know this figure. How many of these students work, where do they work and do they get paid in cash or report it to the ATO? Apparently, around 100,000 young people on student visas work up to 20 hours a week. That's great. What happens to the other 200,000 people? We don't know. How is this possible? Meanwhile, we've got 273,000 local kids between the ages of 15 and 24 who are struggling, not working, and could be contributing to our local economy. I think it's important that we discover just how many jobs out there could have been taken up by young Australian people but instead were taken up by individuals on international student visas.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (16:07): This motion, while it suggests that there's a concern from One Nation about levels of unemployment, is again a dog-whistling attempt to divide Australians, pit people against each other and turn Australians and people who live in this country against international students. We need to be concerned about underemployment, unemployment and the pressure that they're putting on people. The economy is not working for so many people, but attacking international students is not the way to go. International students actually are a source of cheap labour in this country. I congratulate the unions, who have taken a very fine lead here. They're working with many people from overseas, many of them students, who end up being so exploited. Often they're being paid between $10 and $14 an hour. Many of us would be served by these people when we go to cafes and restaurants, when we buy petrol and in convenience stores. It is a very serious problem, but not in the way it's defined by this motion. This motion is, in fact, very divisive and a real setback. As I just said, I congratulate the unions, who have been working to assist international students who are being exploited. Sometimes these companies are pretty ruthless. They often go belly up because they just want to reinvent themselves as phoenix companies, and the former workers are left with no money—and this can happen overnight. They even lose the meagre weekly income that they have.

There is the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. That scheme was set up to step in when workers are left with nothing. What we find, though, is that they only provide support for people who cannot recover their entitlements and are Australian residents. Again, this is where these international students are so hard done by. They are paid appalling wages, and working conditions are absolutely shocking. Often there's a bit of racism on the side. Often they end up out of work, and there's nobody there to defend them. But, again, some unions have stepped in to fight for their conditions, even though they're often not members of the union.

Their situation with regard to unemployment and underemployment is very serious in this country. And this is what we should be concentrating on: ensuring that there are well paid jobs that are unionised and have good working conditions for everybody. The Unemployed Workers' Union is doing some fine work in this area. From their analysis of the figures, there are more than 725,000 people unemployed and 1,059,000 underemployed. And this is very characteristic of Australia, as it has been for about the last 10 years.

International students are an easy target for One Nation, and that is another disgraceful example of their tactics. There are more than half a million international students in this country—at our universities, at our TAFEs, at the private vocational schools—and many of them need to work. They're legally allowed to work for 20 hours a week. And they have to work, in many cases, because the cost of living is considerable in this country, and it is going up all the time. We know how tough it is to find rental accommodation at any reasonable price—many either have to, because of some of the private colleges they're at, or feel they should pay up-front fees. And so they do get caught up in illegal work. You've got the legal aspects of the work that many of the international students get involved in, and there's the illegal employment market as well.

We depend on these international students. Remember the huge revenue that they bring into our country. And there has been some shocking racism. There was a tragic situation with some Indian students. How we were treating these students here became a very big issue in India in terms of racism when they were studying and how they were treated at work. For the federal parliament to be debating a motion with this type of wording is destructive. It's more than unhelpful. It sends a very bad message not just to the international students themselves but to their communities and to the countries that they come from about what sort of country we are and what sort of people we are. It says that we're not really welcoming here.

Clearly many of these people need to find work. And I want to emphasise that that work should be paid according to award wages. They should have decent working conditions, they should be able to join the union and they should be respected at work. They should not become just a cheap source of labour that allows so many of these companies to profit and to really boost their profits in such a shocking way. They take advantage of the fact that these students, many times, are very concerned that they'll get caught out and so they don't complain. This motion is a destructive, divisive motion and clearly should be defeated.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (16:13): I welcome the opportunity that this motion provides to refute some of the misconceptions that exist in relation to international students and the role they play in Australia. This motion propagates some of those misconceptions; indeed, there are others, including some that Senator Rhiannon just spoke of. There are a number of misconceptions. Importantly, it is critical in the first instance to highlight that international students studying in Australia make an enormous net positive contribution to Australia in a number of ways. They make an enormous net positive contribution to the Australian economy, to education in Australia, and, indeed, to employment in Australia.

The growth of international education provision in our universities, in non-university higher education institutions, in our vocational education and training institutes, including TAFEs, across our schools and across English language providers, has been a remarkable success story of modern Australia. It is perhaps the most significant example of the way in which our economy has transitioned to create jobs and export income through a knowledge based services economy.

The numbers are quite stark now. International education is the third-largest export earner for Australia. It generates an estimated $28 billion in activity in Australia. That's students, and their families and friends who visit while they're here, spending on accommodation in Australia, on restaurants and services in Australia, on travelling and touring in Australia and, yes, on their education while in Australia. All of those different activities stimulate, of course, jobs and other opportunities for Australians. Deloitte Access Economics estimates that international education underpins now and supports some 130,000 Australian jobs.

So, contrary to the notion put in this motion, it is very, very clear that international education is stimulating jobs and opportunities elsewhere across Australia. As an area of earning export income into Australia, it's now our third-largest international earner—the third-largest export earner for Australia—such is the role it's played in the transformation of our economy, and, of course, it is the largest such earner in the services sector.

It's important to appreciate that there are strong protections and frameworks within which international education operates. Only providers who are registered can offer international education services to foreign students. Those providers then have strong safeguards put around their operations. There are protections for those international students, but there are also protections for Australians in terms of what those international students can do whilst they're in Australia.

There are limits on the number of hours the international students can work whilst they're in Australia. Indeed, they are limited to working 40 hours a fortnight. But, notably, most don't do that. In fact, estimates predict that only around 36 per cent of international higher education students, or around 40 per cent of overall international students, seek any kind of work whilst they're in Australia. The significant majority are here to study and to live and learn the Australian experience, and that's precisely what they get on and do. And they do that while spending their money, often their parents' money or their country's money, here in Australia, creating jobs and opportunities for Australians.

We are proudly now the world's third most popular destination, after the United States and the United Kingdom, for students to come and study in. Even with limits on their work rights whilst here, and even with limits on their work rights post graduation, we still now stand, for the vast majority of students who come here, as their first-preference destination. They choose to come here, knowing that we limit their work rights, because of the quality of education and experience that we offer to those students.

In doing so, it's not just our economy that they enhance. They also enhance our educational institutions and, within that, the experience of domestic Australian students as well. They enhance our educational institutions because, yes, they are a significant additional revenue source for those educational institutions, which can enhance other activities, such as research undertakings by Australian institutions and, indeed, other investments that they put into universities and those other educational institutions. But, as I said, they also enhance the opportunity for domestic students whom they're studying alongside, because in the end they create a richer study experience—exposure to foreign cultures and different business approaches, language approaches or otherwise—which, importantly, ensures that Australian graduates get a more rounded education.

Again, those safeguards apply. Just last week the Turnbull government took steps to enhance those safeguards by ensuring that, in terms of the English language skills the international students have when they're completing an English language program prior to commencing a tertiary level of study in Australia, there are clear, required assessment processes in place to guarantee that they are able to fully participate. We do that to make sure that it's fair to those international students so that they get a quality education; to the domestic students, whom they're studying alongside, to make sure that everybody in their classes can fully and equally participate; and, of course, to the teachers in institutions at which they're studying, to make sure that they are able to give the best-quality educational experience possible.

Senator Rhiannon spoke with some negativity about the experience international students have in Australia. That's another misconception I'd like to refute. Surveys indicate that more than 90 per cent of people who study in Australia report an overwhelmingly positive experience of their studies. Work has been undertaken by the Fair Work Ombudsman and others to make sure that there is not exploitation of international students, and I would urge international students, who we now work closely with through our international education strategy, to engage with appropriate authorities such as the Fair Work Ombudsman if they have any concerns about workplace practices. Australia overwhelmingly provides a positive study experience, a positive lifestyle experience and some work experience for those who choose to take it—but a very positive, high-quality experience overall.

Recently, I note, there has been some more media commentary about the impact that international, and particularly Chinese, students may have on the operation of some Australian universities and providers. Our government has been very clear in the view that the academic integrities and freedoms—freedom of expression—at Australian universities are of paramount importance. They should be defended at all costs. Nobody should question the reality that freedom of expression exists at our universities, and everybody should fully expect to have their thoughts and ideas challenged. Equally, I'd say, in relation to misconceptions, that it's unhelpful sometimes when media outlets, in particular, decide to frame stories in a way that suggests there are profound problems, with little evidence in the stories to back up those suggestions. Just as we expect that students from China or elsewhere embrace the freedoms at Australian universities and campuses while they are here, we should acknowledge that whilst they are here they are free to gather to celebrate appropriately their national days or their national traditions as they choose and see fit.

Overall, Australia has an education system that is the envy of much of the world. That's why people vote with their feet and come here. It's a system whose contributions to our economy and to the experience of Australian students are enhanced by the international students who come here. Contrary to the impression that this motion gives, far from undermining Australian jobs, the international education industry with its $28 billion contribution creates some 130,000 Australian jobs, as I have said in estimates.

We in the Turnbull government remain resolute in our commitment to work with international education providers to give the best-quality educational experience to all possible and to continue to grow these opportunities because of the positive contribution they make to all of Australia.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (16:23): I too rise today to oppose this urgency motion on international student visas put forward by One Nation. At the outset, I have to say it seems to me that this is another attempt by the One Nation party to grab a cheap headline at the expense of the truth, playing on elements of racism and a version of the 'other', of someone who is different to me, through a motion which expressly goes to the issue of international students. This motion is an absolute contradiction, because it's not that long ago in this place that One Nation, along with a few of the other crossbenchers, supported the government's ABCC legislation. That legislation prohibits unions from negotiating to limit the number and use of overseas workers with building companies who tender for government contracts. I don't know how they missed that, but they clearly did. The One Nation party, with the government, expressly put in place a limit on a union's ability to limit in an enterprise agreement the number of overseas workers in a company engaged in government tendering. What a contradiction. They also went to limit rostered days off, limit the ordinary hours of overtime and so on and so forth. But the standout feature is we have this so-called urgency motion today on international students and yet we have a party that absolutely voted with the government to say to trade unions: when you're negotiating with building companies who tender with the government, you will be restricted in outlawing overseas workers. That's exactly what One Nation did.

The other surprising feature for me about this urgency motion is that Senator Georgiou like myself and, indeed, like you, Acting Deputy President Reynolds, is a Western Australian. We know in Western Australia we have, I think, three One Nation upper house members in the state parliament. So I can only assume that Senator Georgiou didn't talk to them; otherwise, they would have been able to tell him that the McGowan government has, indeed, put forward a very bold plan in partnership with the universities in Western Australia to make Perth a destination for international students to bolster our economy because, as Senator Birmingham pointed out, international students add to our economy. So once again we have this contradiction between what the One Nation senators in this place think and perhaps what their colleagues in the Western Australian state parliament think.

We also know that international students are not the problem with our job market. Twenty hours a week is what they work, as Senator Birmingham explained to the parliament. But we know that what's happening in our economy right at the moment is it's not the international students; it's the low wages growth. Low wages growth is now starting to have a real impact on our economy because, obviously, when families and individuals don't have decent wage growth—in the private sector it's been as low as 1.8 per cent; the lowest it's been in at least two decades—that impacts spending power, it impacts the way that households are able to meet their expenses and it also impacts on employment. So this furphy around international students is nothing but a cheap headline, another attempt by One Nation not backed up with any kind of facts or figures, trying to scapegoat international students, when, as I said at the outset, One Nation, by voting with the government, sought to restrict our unions' ability to limit the use of overseas workers in their enterprise agreements.

And who could forget the words of the Reserve Bank Governor, Philip Lowe, a couple of months ago, when he called on workers to demand higher pay rises? He said workers need to demand higher pay rises amid a wage growth crisis. When you look at all of those who analyse our labour markets, no-one of any competence is talking about international students; they are talking about low wages. We've seen the disgraceful way the government has failed to acknowledge its own public service and give public servants a decent wage rise. From the day that Mr Abbott was elected Prime Minister, there has been a war on our public servants. Very few of our public servants have had wage rises, and that policy has continued under Mr Turnbull. So we've seen very low or no wage growth in the public sector. We've seen an absolute stalling of wages in the private sector to the tune that analysts and the Reserve Bank governor—hardly a friend of workers—have started saying it's time that workers demanded a wage rise. That's the issue in our economy. It has nothing to do with picking on and scapegoating international students, many of whom have come here from near neighbours who are also often scapegoated by the One Nation party. They had obviously not bothered to talk to their colleagues in the WA parliament, because they would have certainly told them that we are very, very clear and committed to making Perth a destination for international students. Perhaps Senator Georgiou doesn't know this because he's a fairly new senator, but, nevertheless, he's a Western Australian senator and he gets a lot of staff, so he could have done the background work on this. Perth was the No. 1 destination for international students. We've lost that status, and we want to get it back, because we do appreciate that international students make our economy stronger. They bring a lot of wealth. They pay rent, they buy services and they sometimes work—they're limited in their ability to work to 20 hours—and that's the sort of growth that we want to see in Western Australia.

The government hasn't always done the right thing by international students. We've seen the appalling rip-off at 7-Eleven. I presided over a visa inquiry when I was the chair of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee and, quite frankly, I was shocked by the level of exploitation of those students that I saw. They were working for minimal wages and they were being forced to pay back wages. Instead of trying to, wrongly, demonise international students, One Nation and the government should be making sure that we never, ever again see the exploitation that we saw of these guests in our country. Most of them are here for a short time. They come in and take advantage of our good education facilities, and yet, at the same time, they get treated in a way that none of us would stand for as workers in this country. No-one is convinced we have seen the end of that rip-off at 7-Eleven. It's probably still going on. In fact, I think it's definitely still going on, as I speak. We know most of those workers in the 7-Eleven stores are international students who are often forced to work more than 20 hours, forced to work for free and forced to pay back wages. They don't get their proper entitlements and they have never seen a penalty rate and so on.

If you want further proof, we also know that in the Western Australian state election this year One Nation gave its preferences to the Liberal Party that wants to reduce wages, that doesn't stand for penalty rates and that has presided over critically high unemployment in Western Australia. That's the party that One Nation chose to support in the recent state election: a party that doesn't support a minimum wage and that thinks workers can be ripped off on the weekends and not get penalty rates. I don't know where this concocted notion about international students comes from; it's completely wrong. One Nation should have taken a better look at the bills it supported in the past were it specifically outlawed overseas workers. This should be dismissed. It's nothing but a headline grabber.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:33): I'm delighted, this afternoon, to make my contribution to what I think is an important motion from Senator Georgiou—a One Nation senator from my home state of Western Australia—but I'm going to be a little bit more gracious. I think what Senator Georgiou is trying to do is highlight the important plight of young Australians that are looking for work. I don't think it's a bad idea that Senator Georgiou, who is a new senator here in the Senate from Western Australia, has spent some time thinking about what could be the various causes of that problem, or that he has invited us in this place to sit down and discuss whether or not we think this particular cause has merit or whether or not other causes have merit.

What I'd like to do, in the brief opportunity available to me this afternoon, is to talk about why I don't think it is right to look at international students but how I do think that there are other opportunities to provide jobs growth, particularly in our home state of Western Australia. Of course, Senator Georgiou won't be surprised to learn that I'm putting my effort and consideration into reform of the GST system and why I think that will be a great opportunity, not just in Western Australia. I think I might have heard Senator Polley scoff at my idea of goods and services tax distribution reform in our country. I'm pleased to say, Senator Polley, that none other than the Productivity Commission itself, in its draft report into horizontal fiscal equalisation, says that there is opportunity for reform in our country of the GST system. I'm pleased that the New South Wales Treasurer has even endorsed reform. I'm pleased that the new Labor government in Western Australia—as the previous Liberal government did—has also endorsed reform. I'm delighted that my parliamentary colleague the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, embraced an idea—led by me and endorsed by other Western Australian Liberals—that said that the GST system needs review. I will come back to that in a moment, and why I think that Senator Georgiou's sentiment is correct, even if I don't necessarily agree with the first proposition that he has put forward this afternoon. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss it, because we know that things change and our economic conditions change. Indeed, the contribution that international students make to our country will continue to change over time.

But I'm one who believes that the existence and the participation of international students in our education system and in the broader Australian economy benefits our community and our cultural development as a nation and of course enhances our economic development. The economic benefits of international students in Australia are undeniable. Education is our third-largest import. It has contributed over $28 billion to the Australian economy in such a short time—in the period 2016 to 2017. Estimates by Deloitte Access Economics are that international education creates over 130,000 jobs across a range of sectors. As Senator Lines alluded to, it's certainly my ambition and my hope that the new Western Australian government—I had hoped it would have been an ambition of the previous government, but it wasn't to be so—will commit its time and its energy to doing more to attract international students to Western Australia.

We know that, once students are here in Australia, they are expected to focus primarily on their educational studies, which is why international students can only work 40 hours in every fortnight. A national student survey found that only 36 per cent of international higher education students reported working while studying, while 87 per cent of vocational education and training, or VET, students did. This equated to around 200,000 students: 90,000 higher education students and 110,000 VET students in 2016. We also know that less than 40 per cent of international students seek any kind of work in Australia and some of those are engaged in volunteering activities rather than in paid work. When they compete against Australians in the job market, research—specifically, from the Australian Council for Educational Research—demonstrates that it is usually the Australians who win, not the international students. Importantly, most international student employment is in jobs that employers find hard to fill, meaning that international students might have an interest, a capacity and a need to fill those jobs that Australian students—young Australians—might not be interested in filling in the first instance.

But I think it is worth just examining the evidence in a little bit more detail, before I do move on to what I think might be a better way to address the issue of employment and educational opportunities for young people. We also know that the ABS has recently reported that international education income has reached $28 billion in 2016-2017. Significantly, it is up 16 per cent from the year before. Of course, as one of our largest service exports, Australian international education is leading the transition of our economy, the Australian economy, from one that's centred on mining to a broader knowledge and services based economy. This is very important and leads me to my substantive point about the importance of GST distribution reform. I think the argument has been well made in this Senate by Western Australian colleagues of mine. We don't hear Labor Senate colleagues from Western Australia talking too much about GST distribution reform. In arguing for an independent, economically focused review of Australia's horizontal fiscal equalisation arrangements, which the Treasurer commissioned and which is the subject of the draft report that was released only in the last few weeks, what Western Australian Liberals have been arguing for is that GST distribution reform, while important to Western Australia, is not just limited to benefiting Western Australia and that, in fact, if we're going to have the macroeconomic reform that is needed in this country to propel it to the next stage of growth, the next stage of productivity, it is important that every element of the economy come under close examination—forensic examination, in fact. I would argue that the GST system has gone unchallenged for too long. What's been very, very valuable about the draft Productivity Commission report is that it has at least opened up the issue of horizontal fiscal equalisation and opened up the issue of GST distribution reform to make sure that that system is doing everything that it possibly can to support growth and to support productivity in our country.

A couple of months ago, with the support of the Parliamentary Library—and I am very, very grateful for the work that they were able to do on my behalf—it was revealed that, in the period 2000-01 to 2015-16, WA had contributed $186 billion to the rest of Australia. That is a big figure, and I'll be the first one to say that, when you go out into the community and talk about $186 billion, people don't know what it means. How do you digest what $186 billion means to your local economy? So I'm grateful for the help of the Parliamentary Library. They were able to turn that into an infrastructure loss figure but also an employment loss figure. As a result of that, we know that Western Australia lost $73.1 billion in possible infrastructure spending as a result of a flawed GST distribution system. And, more particularly relevant to Senator Georgiou's motion this afternoon, Western Australia lost, on average, 94,000 jobs over that period. It lost 94,000 jobs over that period.

So this afternoon I agree with the sentiment of Senator Georgiou that we should be doing more to make jobs available to young Australians, but I would argue that Senator Georgiou should join with me and other Western Australian Liberal senators in arguing for GST distribution reform, because it will deliver important infrastructure spending, and it will deliver important jobs growth. You're right, Senator Hanson—I saw you nodding your head. To your credit, Senator Georgiou is on the bandwagon and is on the campaign supporting GST distribution reform in Western Australia. It was great to wake up to headlines like this in Western Australia, because we know that reform of anything in our country takes time and takes energy, but the most important thing is that it's a demonstration that, unfortunately, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I am pleased that Western Australian Liberal senators and members have been squeaking those wheels, and we are on the path to— (Time expired)

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (16:43): I rise to speak on this matter as well. When I first saw this, this morning, I thought, 'Maybe One Nation are going to express some concern for foreign workers that have been exploited.' We've seen various examples of that over recent years. But, no, I think what we've got with One Nation is just another dog whistle. We know that Senator Hanson has attacked foreign students in this country as early as in February this year, where she said: 'I was told—and I was just gobsmacked at this—that we had 400,000 foreign students in Australia, going to our universities. No wonder our kids can't find jobs. I think it needs to be addressed.' So what we see today is just a continuing attack on foreign students in this country and the importance of them to the economy of Australia and particularly regional economies.

If you'd spent any time in regional Queensland, you would understand the importance of foreign students to those universities and the fact that they add diversity to them, let alone the role that that plays in the broader Asia-Pacific and within the world. There are some Queensland issues that I want to come back to that I think just show you how out of touch Senator Hanson and her team are with what is happening in Queensland and indeed throughout Australia.

I know many other senators here have raised the importance of this to the national economy, but it's broader than that. You only have to spend any time in Brisbane to understand the economic boom that Brisbane has gone through as a result of foreign students wanting to come and study at our universities. We have seen high-rise buildings get built and we have seen students come and use that accommodation. We have seen that the resulting economic benefit has been substantial. This has been replicated throughout Queensland and throughout Australia. It shows the ignorance that we have seen from One Nation. They fail to understand the economic importance of this to our country. They say it's a bad thing that we have 400,000 international students studying right here in Australia. I see that as an opportunity. They get an education. Australia has so many universities ranked in the top 100, and our regional universities are doing particularly well. We're an attractive destination, and this is a great thing.

When they come, they also obviously want to work. They need some employment to keep it going. Quite often they are doing the jobs that some other people don't want to do, but we can't let them be exploited when they are doing that. There have been examples of that throughout regional Queensland, and I am sure there are examples throughout Australia as well. But One Nation don't want to put a focus on that. Every time they've had an opportunity to vote for antiworker or anti-union legislation, they've put their hand up as quick as a flash. If they actually wanted to protect international workers and vulnerable workers, they would vote to strengthen labour laws, not diminish them, and they would actually vote to strengthen the role of unions in the workplace who can protect these people. But we see from One Nation a consistent theme: the opposite. It just shows how dysfunctional they are. They come in here and pursue what is basically a dog whistle to parts of Australia to say, 'We don't want more foreigners coming in.'

The economic devastation that would follow from this would be unprecedented. As we know, there are 400,000 international students studying right here in Australia. We know that they are spread throughout Australia and that they include regional universities as well. The international education sector in Australia is valued at $28 billion. Our education system is our nation's third-highest export. This is how important it is. You only have to talk to a vice chancellor or a regional vice chancellor for them to extol how important it is for their university and their ability to offer courses for Australian residents as well. It should be a source of pride and something we should be talking about in a positive light—about the benefits that this brings and the expansion that it has enabled our universities—but One Nation want to put a negative light on it. It is really disappointing that they want to talk down regional universities and Australian universities, all to have a dog whistle for their supporters.

This urgency motion once again shows that One Nation simply don't understand how the economy works and the broader benefits that this brings, as I said, around construction and the spending power that these people bring to regional economies, particularly when we look at the state of Queensland. I look at examples like we have in Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton and the Sunshine Coast, which are home to universities like James Cook University, Central Queensland University and the University of the Sunshine Coast. If their foreign students numbers were to be cut, it would have a devastating impact on those local economies. James Cook University, in particular, has almost 2,000 international students studying on campuses in Townsville and Cairns. At the University of the Sunshine Coast there are 1,600 foreign students enrolled. It is estimated that the international student enrolments at the University of the Sunshine Coast inject $60 million into the local Sunshine Coast economy. These are significant numbers that have a real benefit for regional communities, particularly when you look at Townsville and Cairns. We understand that from time to time those economies do it tough. Townsville, in particular, has high unemployment at the moment. So the benefits of having those international students would be significant to boosting those local economies.

We also understand that there is an important role that our regional universities—particularly those in Queensland—play with our neighbouring nations such as Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. They rely on regional Queensland universities to educate their next generation of leaders. So this is providing a really vital leadership role in the Asia-Pacific region for students from other countries to come here and study, further their leadership abilities and then take that to their local communities to benefit their people as well.

Due to those links, there's the indirect benefit which our international students provide to our communities. For example, Townsville is now the beneficiary of direct international flights to Port Moresby, partially as a result of the number of Papua New Guineans studying at James Cook University. Due to James Cook University's strong links to Singapore, there is even talk that Townsville could benefit from stronger social and economic ties to Singapore. We potentially see that with the deal that the Singapore Army have done to do further training. That obviously has a direct link to Townsville, as part of that will take place there. I think this just goes to show you that, in the longer term, international education can also improve our links and relations with our regional neighbours, such as Singapore, Papua New Guinea and other important partners to Australia. These links are enhanced by international students coming to study in our region.

On top of the contribution that international education injects into our economy, the education system employs over 900,000 people, and 128,000 of those jobs are supported by the investment that is made by international students. If One Nation really cared about protecting jobs, imagine what such a stunt would do to existing employment levels at universities. If, all of a sudden, foreign students were taken out of the system, what an impact that would have! But, again, we don't see One Nation focusing in on the issues that we have seen around exploitation. We don't see any concern for the way that those workers have been treated. Instead what we see is just a scare campaign and a dog whistle. If they really cared about Australian jobs, they wouldn't be so hell bent on getting rid of an industry that provides a $28 million windfall for the economy. They would be happy to close the doors of the universities to foreign students, and that would have a devastating impact.

So I say to One Nation that they really need to get an understanding of the importance of universities to Australia. Maybe they could spend some time at a regional university in Queensland so that they could learn the important role that foreign students play and the economic benefits that are brought to those regions because of this. You only have to talk to a mayor from any of those regional towns, from Cairns, Townsville or Mackay, for them to talk about the benefits of having international students, the cultural diversity it brings, the importance of the financial contribution it adds to those economies and also the growing trade links that can happen as a result. I've mentioned the benefits in Townsville. I've seen the benefits in Cairns. There are so many students who want to come and study in Cairns because it is such an attractive lifestyle there and because of its vicinity to the Great Barrier Reef as well.

In conclusion, I think what we've seen from the efforts of One Nation in this debate really is nothing more than a dog whistle from them. They will stop at nothing to target xenophobia in Australia, and the damage that it does to the economy and to regional economies is absolutely a second thought that they have no regard for.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (16:53): Well, I'm gobsmacked again. I cannot believe the response to this urgency motion to question jobs in Australia that international students may be taking from Australians. I won't deny international students bring a lot of income—actually the third-highest income into Australia, by all means. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection granted 343,035 international student visas in 2016-17, and these visa types are growing at a rate of 10 per cent a year.

I have to say, in relation to a lot of these universities in Melbourne and Sydney, that I was at a meeting just recently and a student from down in Melbourne got up and was talking to me and she was actually crying. She said, 'I feel like a foreigner in my own university.' That's what she said, with no prompting—nothing. She wasn't the only one; another one said that to me. So this is actually how they're feeling in their own universities; they're feeling like foreigners in their own universities.

The vast majority of these international student visas have a work right of up to 40 hours a fortnight during the term and unlimited work rights at other times. Let me repeat that: unlimited work rights at other times. When they get the visas to come into the country they should prove that they are self-funding—that they really don't need to work. And it's true: we estimate that about 30 to 50 per cent of the international students with a work right do work. But it's ridiculous that no-one in government knows which students work, how much they work, where they work or whether they report their earnings to the ATO. So are we getting tax from them? Who knows? We don't know that.

What we are saying is that at the point in time they are granted visas to Australia, those foreign students should be applying and getting a TFN so that when they go to work we know what income they're making and that they pay taxes in this country. The whole fact is that if we have changed to having backpackers pay tax from the first dollar they earn, and at 15 per cent, why shouldn't international students do exactly the same thing instead of just being out there taking the jobs? This is the case.

These questions could be answered if the government routinely linked administrative data and cross-matched it with census data. We know from a study published this year, based on the 2011 census, that international students are employed predominantly in 10 occupations: hospitality; cleaners and laundry workers; sales assistants; food preparation assistants; food trade workers; personal carers; checkout operators; tertiary education teachers; automobile, bus and rail drivers; and packers and product assemblers. They don't need education; there are a lot of people out there who can do those jobs. These occupations are predominantly lower-skill jobs which could be done by Australians—in particular, by young unemployed Australians.

Listen to the Labor Party, who is supposed to be for the worker. Yes, they parade their unions around and say that the unions are fighting for the rights of the workers and all the rest of it, but what about the rights of the youth and unemployed? What about them? Why aren't they addressing that? It is One Nation with an apprenticeship policy: in the first year the government pays 75 per cent of the wage, in the second year it pays 50 per cent of the wage and in the third year it pays 25 per cent of the wage. Let's get apprenticeship schemes going in this country.

A government senator interjecting—

Senator HANSON: What have you done about it? Absolutely nothing! Let me tell you about some of the youth unemployment rates in these areas. Youth unemployment was a big problem in the year ending August 2017. In the 15 to 24 age group, 35 per cent are unemployed in Australia.

Senator Chisholm talked about James Cook University in North Queensland. In Townsville there is a 46.4 per cent unemployment rate for those aged between 15 and 24. Let's go to the Sunshine Coast: 37.1 per cent. In Brisbane, we're looking at an average of 43 to 45 per cent. These are people who are looking for jobs. These are our kids, Australian kids. They can't get jobs.

You're more concerned about international students. I'm not knocking them coming here; yes, it makes us a lot of money. But why don't you get out and look at what they're doing in this country by us giving them work visas? They should be supporting themselves. If we talk about housing: international students can buy established housing. But the fact is that their parents buy the houses for them, so the parents own them. They are supposed to sell that house before they leave the country. They don't; they actually then have a house in Australia. So therefore we've got another market out there. They're paying all the rent, are they? Well, a lot of them are actually in houses bought by their parents.

The whole thing is that it needs to be looked at. Are they paying taxes in Australia? How many jobs do they actually have? A lot of it is under the counter; they're being paid cash in hand. We need to look at this with international students. My concern is for Australia and Australian kids. They are who I am concerned about. They are who should be getting these jobs. As I said, 343,035 international student visas were allocated in 2016-17. That is in one year. How many foreign students do we have in this country now? Can anyone tell me? Is it up to a million students? How many jobs are they taking? No wonder we've go so much unemployment, underemployment and casualisation of jobs in this country. Where are the unions speaking up about this?

I've seen both sides of politics in here. This has been escalating the problems. Rural and regional areas are dying because kids are leaving the towns because they do not have jobs. And you are not doing anything about it! All I see in here are people who are hypocrites. Because we are doing something about this, all you can do is direct your fingers and say that raising this issue is about racism. Well, I can tell you that One Nation is a party that is standing up for the Australian people about jobs and about people paying their taxes. I am here to represent the Australian people, first and foremost, and to worry about everyone in this country, as are my colleagues. When you get your act together and know how to run this country, we might get ourselves out of $504 billion of debt that is heading towards $600 billion. I think both the coalition and the Labor Party, while you've both been in government, have done a very good job in raising the debt of this country. It is lucky that One Nation is here because we can keep you on your toes and start really addressing the true concerns of the Australian people.

Question agreed to.