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

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (09:31): Thank you, Mr President. I'm very proud to bring my Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017 to the Senate. On behalf of those many thousands of Australians who are suffering as a result of this government's failure to secure timely access to a medication that we know relieves people of suffering.

I'm introducing this bill in the name of Australian patients who are sick and tired of the obstacles that are put in front of them and of the regulatory nightmare that this government's medicinal cannabis framework has become. Doctors who desperately want to give treatments that relieve people of distressing symptoms are facing hurdle after hurdle after hurdle when they try to access medicinal cannabis. I have to say that it is remarkable that we have a government of this nation that would make life for terminally-ill patients so difficult, and I am proud that the Senate, based on the preliminary discussions we've had with members of the chamber, looks like it will support this move to secure timely access to medicinal cannabis.

We worked very constructively during the early days of the government's legislation on medicinal cannabis. The history of this legislation is one that we Greens are very, very proud of. We established a cross-party working group—members of the government, members of the opposition, members of the crossbench—to work constructively to try and bring the stories of people who are suffering here to Canberra and put them in front of politicians so that they could understand just how important it was that individuals who are suffering needlessly and have potentially a remedy that could relieve them of symptoms like intractable nausea, pain, muscle spasms and so on.

We worked very constructively through that cross-party working group, and the pressure came to bear on the government, who ultimately said, 'We will move. Please don't introduce your legislation, because we are prepared to act.' The Greens had legislation ready to go. In good faith, we accepted the government's word that they would introduce legislation that would make sure that individuals who were suffering got timely access to medicinal cannabis. I'll be very frank: it was a mistake. It was a mistake to trust this government. It was a mistake to hand over the legislative response to medicinal cannabis to a government who has shown itself to be more interested in giving the appearance of doing something when, in substance, it is making life so difficult for suffering people. Instead of having a pathway to access, what we do have is this disaster of regulation and red tape, which I can only assume is because they have some ideological objection to providing life-saving medicines to people simply because there's stigma associated with cannabis.

When it comes to the patients who we know will benefit from this bill, let's remember who they are. We are only talking about patients who are suffering and who, by definition, have a terminal illness. What the government are doing by opposing this legislation is saying, 'We want to make your life more difficult in your final months when you're suffering from terminal cancer which might produce symptoms like intractable nausea.' That is, you're having chemotherapy and you can't keep your food down because of the nausea that's not responding to the traditional agents that we give you. If you have a response to medicinal cannabis that allows you to tolerate food, that helps you maintain your condition and that can give you, in your final months of life, a higher quality of life, the government are saying, 'We don't want that. We're going to stop that.'

The Australian Greens are standing up for those patients. We're standing up for those patients because we don't believe any government should get in the way of access to medicines that make their final few months a little easier with a little less suffering. This bill makes two small changes—they're only small—to give dying patients rapid access to medicinal cannabis when a doctor has prescribed it. Let's be clear about this: this is only after medicinal cannabis has been prescribed by a doctor.

The first amendment is to ensure that the government follows what the Senate has already ordered this government to do, and that is to allow the importation of medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients through what's known as category A of the Special Access Scheme. Only a few short weeks ago in this chamber we saw a Greens motion supported by the Labor Party and members of the crossbench—I see Senator Hinch is behind me; he's also been a strong advocate for medicinal cannabis. We saw members of the crossbench and the Labor Party introduce a motion that should have made access to medicinal cannabis through category A of the Special Access Scheme much easier and, instead, the government refused to accept the will of the Senate. The government has ignored the Senate, has threatened importers and has gone so far as to say that they would have their permits revoked if they followed the law. This bill ensures that the government can no longer block that importation of medicinal cannabis for category A—that is, those people who have a terminal illness.

The second amendment to this legislation just levels the playing field so that, when they become available, Australian medicinal cannabis products, not just those from overseas, can be provided through category A. The problem we have at the moment is we don't have a mature medicinal cannabis industry in this country, and that is why we needed, through our previous motion, to allow the importation of medicinal cannabis for people with a terminal illness. But we think that the moment Australian product comes online that should also be made available through the Special Access Scheme. We want a vibrant, mature, effective medicinal cannabis scheme in Australia. We know it's good for patients, but it's also good for Australian farmers. We want to make sure that that industry thrives, and we want to make sure that they have the best incentives to supply medicinal cannabis to terminal patients who need it most.

I know that this bill won't fix everything. One of the problems we have is that we have different layers of regulation. Once people get through the first hurdle—that is, federal red tape—there are also the layers of regulation at a state level which need to be addressed. We can't do much about that right now, except continue to put pressure to bear on those states who are also dragging their heels. What we can do is make sure that that first barrier—that is, the restrictions that are put in place by the federal government—is addressed.

I have spoken with many patients and their families; I know how much this change means to them. We all know the story of Lucy Haslam's son, Dan, who was a young man with terminal bowel cancer. This is a man in his 20s who developed bowel cancer, was having chemotherapy and wasn't getting any relief from his nausea from those traditional agents that we use to treat chemotherapy induced nausea. He got instant relief from medicinal cannabis after it was suggested to his family by a friend, and as a result he was able to tolerate food and his quality of life improved immeasurably. I have spoken to patients who have had brain tumours and, again, have found that the relief that medicinal cannabis provides them is significant. While it might not save their lives, it improves their quality of life in those final few months. We Greens stand here today with those many thousands of Australians who are suffering, or indeed are caring for someone who is suffering, and who know that as a result of the lack of access to these treatments they are being denied treatment that could make such a difference to their quality of life. We are going to keep fighting until patients can safely and quickly access these medicines.

I'm so proud to bring this bill to the Senate. I'm absolutely delighted that we're achieving a rare victory here today, and that is that the majority of the Senate looks like it will stand with us in opposition to this government's cruel intransigence. We will also pursue this in the lower house. I know there are members of the LNP who say they support medicinal cannabis, who want medicinal cannabis to be made available from doctors through a regulated framework and who want to make sure that patients who live in their own constituencies get access to these medicines. I know they're out there because I've spoken to them. I say this to them right now: this legislation looks like it will pass the Senate. Have the guts and the decency to stand up when this legislation makes it through to the lower house. Cross the floor if you have to. We only need one or two of you to stand up and have a bit of courage to say you stand with patients and their needs, not your own political self-interest, and we can get this through both houses of parliament. In the meantime, I'll be pursuing a meeting with Minister Hunt. I'll be doing what I can to ensure that he understands just how critical it is that this bill gets through the Senate.

When we are elected to this place, we make a commitment to those people who elect us that we will act in their interests—that we will come to this place and represent them. We have an opportunity to help people who are now suffering, whose lives will be cut short because of the tragedy of a terminal illness. We have an obligation to them to make sure we do everything we can to make their final days on this earth as tolerable as possible and to relieve them of the pain and suffering that they're experiencing. I can think of no greater obligation given to us in this place, and today's an opportunity for members to stand up and indicate that they stand with those patients.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (09:44): With indulgence, I want to thank all the members of the Senate for their warm words of support and encouragement following my first speech a couple of days ago.

The government will not be supporting this bill. The issue of medical cannabis is a recurring one that the government has resolved in a way that provides access to those Australians who need it, makes the use of medical marijuana a medical decision and keeps adequate safeguards in place to ensure access is not misused. It has been made clear that medical cannabis is potentially valuable in some cases, particularly in a palliative care setting, but the media surrounding this bill has, unfortunately, been extremely misleading. Central to this false campaign is the allegation that the Office of Drug Control is breaching legislation by not permitting the import of medical cannabis products for use in Special Access Scheme category A. There is no truth to this. It is based on a misinterpretation of a letter sent to existing importers under the bulk import policy reinforcing the standards of their import permissions and how they are conditioned for supply under the Special Access Scheme category B and Authorised Prescriber Scheme. This letter was a necessary measure to ensure the regulations were being followed, due to the fact that at least one importer interpreted the disallowance motion as meaning that they could supply under the Special Access Scheme category A, which was not allowed. Doing so would breach the conditions of their licence and potentially be subject to regulatory action under the Customs Act 1901. The letter contained no language that stated or implied in any way that they could not import product for the purpose of supplying under category A. The Office of Drug Control has always been very clear about this and has always given Special Access Scheme category A swift application processing times—I understand it's a one-day priority processing time.

There have been five notifications to the TGA since the disallowance motion, but the Office of Drug Control has only received and processed one import permission application for category A. In accordance with the regulation, namely regulation 5 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, the office must thoroughly and necessarily make an assessment of each Special Access Scheme category A importation.

I feel it's important to note at this point that this scheme was established by the government in October 2016, with bipartisan support, in order to ensure access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients. This issue has been looked at extensively by the parliament—and often with a bipartisan approach. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report in 2015 was one such example. This report covered extensively the safety and efficacy of medicinal marijuana and the regulatory framework around its use. One thing that was very clear from this report was that, at best, medical benefits of marijuana are equivocal, untested and in need of further research. The report said:

For example, Professor Wayne Hall, Director of the Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research at the University of Queensland, expressed the view that the current research indicated medicinal cannabis is 'at best, modestly effective for some purposes (for example vomiting and nausea) and probably for others (for example chronic pain, depression, muscle spasm)'. Professor Hall stated:

'An informed policy towards the medical use of cannabinoids requires much better evidence than we currently have...we need clinical trials of the safety and efficacy of CBD and other cannabinoids in treating intractable epilepsy and chronic pain. Evidence from these trials is essential for rational decisions to be made about the medical use of cannabinoids.'

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians considered that 'while medicinal marijuana shows some potential for certain patients, further research is required to determine its efficacy and it should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other medicine'.

Painaustralia expressed the view that, for individuals with chronic non-cancer pain, there is little proven evidence for the effectiveness of cannabinoids in helping patients, and that it did not endorse the use of cannabinoids for this group of patients 'until such time as a clear therapeutic role for [cannabinoids] is identified in the scientific literature'.

On a point of clarification, medicinal cannabis can be administered in a variety of ways that do not include smoking, which very obviously carries heavy known risks. These include oral administration by a pill, oromucosal spray, tinctures, ointments, the ingestion of oil derived from cannabis plants and vaporisation of a herbal product. As a side note, the Turnbull government also does not support changing the current legal status of vaping for a number of reasons, but, first and foremost, that there is limited scientific and medical understanding of the effects. Evidence, when making these kinds of regulatory decisions, is vital.

The science and evidence behind medical cannabis is complex and incomplete. The Australian government is taking advice on the matter from the Therapeutic Goods Administration and medical professionals, including the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. These professionals agree with the current arrangements and do not support the changes as set out. It is potentially dangerous to patient safety to allow access to medicinal cannabis products through the Special Access Scheme category A, due to the fact that unlike other unregistered medicines under this scheme, with the single exception of Sativex, which is a formulated extract of the Cannabis sativa plant, no medicinal cannabis products have been subject to a full safety, quality and efficacy assessment by a competent medicines regulator anywhere in the world.

If government allowed medical products onto the market that have not been properly tested, we would be rightly criticised and all those opposite would be the first ones to stand up and criticise us. There is no easily accessible evidence of safety available that can be used to guide prescribing decisions that work in conjunction with the various medico-legal obligations that doctors have to their patients. Despite all this, I want to make it quite clear that terminally ill patients already have access to medicinal cannabis products and are gaining access to them. In consultation with their clinicians, patients are able to gain timely approvals from the Therapeutic Goods Administration to prescribe the medicine under Special Access Scheme category B, and that can happen in as little as one day. Any rhetoric about excessive delays or wait periods is false. The delays are occurring where the prescribing doctor has insufficient knowledge of the product, along with the risks and benefits associated with the medicine, and, therefore, cannot justify their decision in prescribing it, or cannot describe the product which they wish to prescribe.

For any condition, it is never in the best interests of the patient to have an ill-informed medical practitioner prescribing their care. However, this is a delicate matter and an area where having an informed doctor at the heart of these decisions is crucial. The government's policy on medicinal cannabis is central to a medical decision. It puts the medical professional at the centre of the decision to prescribe. In this way, the government adheres to the advice of the medical profession. If the medical professional does not support the use of a particular pathway, then the government will listen to that advice. Naturally, there are those who are strong supporters of medicinal cannabis being extremely accessible and seek to increase the availability of the drug. However, this is not necessarily a choice that the medical profession endorses. For example, on 13 June this year, AMA president Michael Gannon said:

… doctors are reluctant to prescribe medicinal cannabis. This is no different to any other new drug, new technology, new operation; we want to be assured of the safety, assured of the effectiveness.

Again, if governments weren't able to be very sure of the safety and effectiveness, and if doctors are not sure of the safety and effectiveness, then I think criticising the current regulatory regime is a mistake.

The Australian government has a responsibility to the Australian people to ensure the changes we make in this space are not done recklessly or without adequate forethought and research. Michael Gannon later said in the same interview:

… let's not forget, we're talking about cannabis, we're talking about a substance that, used in the form it's used by most people, is a major source of mental illness in our community. It's absolutely essential that we're assured that whatever's being brought into the country, whatever's being brought in for prescription is safe …

Beyond our own legislation, Australia is subject to a number of different international obligations that exist under various treaties, including the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, which specifies the obligations of signatory states for narcotic drugs listed in various schedules to the UN convention. The Department of Health in its submission to an earlier inquiry into this issue noted that the Commonwealth is responsible for the implementation of Australia's treaty obligations, stating:

The Commonwealth is responsible for the implementation of international agreements that it enters into and generally has the power to make legislation to implement Australia's treaty obligations. Accordingly, the Commonwealth is responsible for ensuring that any Commonwealth, State or Territory medicinal cannabis scheme is consistent with Australia's treaty obligations under the three drug control conventions …

Further to this, obviously, we do have an additional layer of complexity in our federation, which is that states and territories have their own initiatives in this space.

While the government will use many different sources to make decisions about the use of medicinal cannabis, we listen to the medical profession, and I think we need to continue to do that into the future. There is a demand for medicinal cannabis, and the path we currently have in place allows a safe, legal and effective way for terminally ill patients to gain access to medicinal cannabis. As of 17 October, there have been 287 individual patients who've been given access to medicinal cannabis either via the Special Access Scheme or an authorised prescriber. Additionally, there have been 21 licences granted for domestic cultivation: nine for medicinal cannabis cultivation, six for further research and six for manufacturing. So, we can see that the scheme is working. It is allowing patients who feel that they need this drug, with the support of their medical practitioner, to gain access. On that basis, the government will not support this bill and will not be looking at making changes to this regulatory environment.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (09:56): In June, the Senate voted to improve access to medicinal cannabis for dying Australians. In particular, Labor and most of the crossbench voted to disallow the government's restrictions on access to medicinal cannabis under category A of the Special Access Scheme. I want to emphasise two things about category A from the outset of this debate. Firstly, this is a pathway for accessing therapeutic goods for people who are terminally ill. According to the Therapeutic Goods Administration—the TGA—category A is strictly limited to:

… patients who are seriously ill with a condition from which death is reasonably likely to occur within a matter of months, or from which premature death is reasonably likely to occur in the absence of early treatment.

We should be very clear in this debate that we are talking about dying Australians. Secondly, under category A of the Special Access Scheme, medicinal cannabis can only be accessed with a prescription from a doctor. We're not talking about illegal recreational use or inappropriate medicinal use; we're talking about dying patients who have a legitimate clinical need for medicinal cannabis as prescribed by their doctor.

In the debate in June, Labor did acknowledge the complexities of this issue. We acknowledged that some groups have raised concerns about the possible abuse of category A. We also acknowledged the need to strike a balance between access for dying patients and protection of the broader community. But, on balance, Labor was proud to stand up for the rights of terminally ill Australians who have been prescribed medicinal cannabis by their doctors. The Senate overwhelmingly agreed with Labor, voting 40 to 30 to disallow the government's restrictions. There ain't many votes in this place that unite Labor, the Greens, One Nation, Senator Lambie, Senator Hinch, Senator Gichuhi and Senator Leyonhjelm, but this one did exactly that. Among the crossbench, only the Nick Xenophon Team and Senator Bernardi supported the government. I would urge them to explain that vote and to reconsider their position today.

The Senate vote in June should have resolved this issue. Terminally ill patients should have had easier access to a prescribed therapy that can ease their suffering. But what we've seen from this government in the months since June is an attempt to block the parliament's will and to continue denying relief to dying Australians. Straight after the vote, we saw the health minister equate dying Australians and their families with drug smugglers. In the sort of temper tantrum that we saw from the Prime Minister on election night, the health minister said the disallowance was—and I quote from Fairfax—'Reckless and irresponsible,' saying it would put lives at risk and, potentially, make it easier for criminals to get drugs. It was a disgraceful slur for which the health minister still hasn't apologised. Mr Turnbull should be ashamed of the way his government has tried to scaremonger on this issue, stigmatising the dying people who are trying to access medicinal cannabis. Even worse, the government has put in place a new barrier to prevent people from accessing medicinal cannabis. In June, soon after the disallowance vote, the government wrote to medicinal cannabis importers, instructing them not to supply products to anyone holding a prescription under category A of the Special Access Scheme. This was despite the fact that the Senate had just voted to reopen that pathway. It says everything about Mr Turnbull. Instead of helping Australians with terminal illnesses and their families, his priority is to find a way to get around the Senate's decision to give dying Australians access to the pain relief they need.

That brings me to the bill before us today: the Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017. Labor will support this bill which simply enshrines the intent of our disallowance vote in legislation. The bill would make two legislative changes to improve access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients under category A of the Special Access Scheme. First, the bill would ensure that terminally ill patients can access imported medicinal cannabis products under category A. Again, this was the intent of the disallowance motion in June, but, because the government hasn't respected the parliament's will, this bill would amend the Customs Act 1901 to clarify that a licence, permission, consent or approval to import medicinal cannabis applies to category A as well as other pathways. Second, the bill seeks to ensure that terminally ill patients can access domestic medicinal cannabis products under category A when they become available. It would amend the Narcotics Drugs Act 1967 to add category A as one of the purposes for which the secretary of Health can grant a licence to manufacture medicinal cannabis in Australia.

I also want to use today's debate to make some broader comments on medicinal cannabis in Australia. Labor understand that medicinal cannabis can ease suffering for Australians who are dying. We also accept that there is evidence to support the use of medicinal cannabis for a number of other conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms. That's why Labor led the way and introduced legislation for a national medicinal cannabis scheme in 2015 and supported the government's legislation when it was finally introduced in 2016. Over time, medicinal cannabis should be treated in the same way as other medicines. Products will be assessed for safety by the TGA and, where they pass that test, they will be prescribed by doctors, dispensed by pharmacists and possibly one day subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. A system of licences has also been established to govern research, cultivation, production and manufacture of medicinal cannabis products in Australia. But the government remains sceptical of medicinal cannabis and they have been too slow to implement the national scheme. Labor is particularly concerned that the government has done little to ensure a consistent supply of regulated and affordable product. The government has also failed to drive consistency across states on the legal treatment of people currently accessing medicinal cannabis. Bill Shorten has written to Mr Turnbull three times urging action and offering support, but patients have seen no change. That's one reason why Labor is supporting the bill that is before us, because the government has failed time and time again to improve other pathways.

I'd like to give some context to why this is an important issue by sharing one family's experience. Lucy Haslam is a Tamworth advocate and a mother who has campaigned for the legislation of medicinal cannabis after her son Dan was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Dan passed away in 2015. Lucy has continued to push for better access to medicinal cannabis for patients. In February, on the first anniversary of the passage of the federal medicinal cannabis legislation, Ms Haslam wrote that little had changed. Because of the time, I can't read the entire letter, but I would like to share some excerpts from it. She wrote:

On the first anniversary of Australian medicinal Cannabis legislation which was supposed to be the "missing link" for Australian patients (according to the previous Health Minister Sussan Ley), I want to shout from the rooftops that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, although it pains me to say it, it is coming very close to being an outright lie.

Off the back of strong public support for patients like my son Dan who sought relief from serious disease and symptoms with medicinal Cannabis, the Government rode the wave of popular opinion, made all the right sympathetic noises, and passed legislation to allow for the cultivation, manufacture, and research into Cannabis for therapeutic purposes.

That sounds wonderful and I used to feel very proud that Dan's courage to speak out had some impact for the welfare of other patients. I thought it a beautiful tribute that the Legislation was passed on the first anniversary of his death.

However, Ms Haslam said that this pride of passage of the legislation has been replaced by anger that little has changed in reality. She wrote:

People often say to me you must be very pleased with how things have progressed ... so let me honestly answer that right now:

Patients are still criminals. This includes the terminally ill and children with intractable epilepsy.

Patients are still reliant on the black market and will be for a long while yet. They are still taking medicine procured from illicit sources which is like playing the lottery ... the medicine could be contaminated, each batch is likely to contain different cannabinoids, there is no certainty that there will be continuity of supply, there is no appropriate supervision by health professionals, there is no practical and viable alternative.

The black market is thriving; in fact, compassionate suppliers cannot meet demand. This is compounded by police raids which seize the medicine destined for patients who are reliant upon it. What happens when a child whose epilepsy is controlled by illicit Cannabis cannot access their next supply because police have confiscated it? Who will take responsibility for that?

The score card for the Government is looking very sad. In fact, I would say that on all aspects I give them a fail.

Now I can immediately hear the gatekeepers and authors of the regulations jumping up and down and saying "but there is a pathway for patients to lawfully access medicinal Cannabis." I agree in theory, but the problem is in putting it into practice.

The Special Access Scheme (SAS) provides that pathway. Let me explain very briefly as the process is so convoluted that word limits make full explanation an impossible task in this context.

To begin the process the very sick patient needs to find a doctor who is happy to prescribe Cannabis and who has the time to firstly undertake the arduous time consuming process to become an "Authorised Prescriber". This involves applications to State and Federal agencies. Once approved the doctor must then demonstrate to a committee the evidence for the patient's illness. (A little difficult after decades of blanket prohibition making research illegal).

The very sick patient then needs to find the product overseas (bearing in mind these products are not allowed to be advertised). Once found, the patient must negotiate a price and apply to the TGA to have it approved and they must also apply for Federal and State permits to have it imported. The patient bears the full cost plus the doctor's costs.

If they are successful in getting "Special Access" the approval only lasts three months and they are only allowed three months' supply. Think on this for a while ... A sick person must apply repeatedly placing an enormous burden on someone who is already battling illness and possibly even dying. This was the reality for a young Queensland patient with a brain tumour who took nineteen months to navigate the SAS. He is now several months into his second application and supplies are exhausted.

So, on the topic of patient access I would definitely give the Federal Government a huge fail!

This is a firsthand account of why things need to change, bringing us back to the bill here today.

If the Senate supports this bill, it will be a step in the right direction. But I want to assure the patients and families who are listening that Labor knows that much more needs to be done to ensure safe and timely access to medicinal cannabis across Australia, where it is clinically appropriate. Unlike the government, Labor is committed to working with patients and clinicians to make that a reality.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (10:10): I rise to support the Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017, and I thank Senator Di Natale for introducing it. The bill will allow medicinal cannabis to be imported for terminally ill patients through category A of the Special Access Scheme. It can already be imported for other purposes, such as for general patients, under category B of the scheme. This would remove all doubt that importers of medicinal cannabis can import medicinal cannabis for the terminally ill under category A and not just for category B patients. The bill also allows the government to authorise the manufacture of medicinal cannabis in Australia for terminally ill category A patients. This makes it clear that there's nothing in the law stopping the terminally ill from accessing domestically manufactured medicinal cannabis under the existing category A arrangements, so there would be no reason for the government to force terminally ill patients onto the slow road to pain relief that general patients are suffering along—the category B route.

The government loves generic arrangements like the category B arrangement. Its plan is for all patients to get access to medicinal cannabis in this way in a timely and low-stress manner. But the terminally ill patients of Australia don't live in the plans of the government; they live in reality—a reality in which the government's generic arrangements for access to medicinal cannabis are murderously slow. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the government and its health department officials have blood on their hands. Through their lack of urgency, through their comfort in slow bureaucratic processes that might eventually lead to access, once the working groups have met and written their reports, and through their unwillingness to change course once it became clear that these processes weren't working, they are responsible for terrible, unnecessary suffering and very likely a number of premature deaths.

The Liberal Democrats saw this coming. We supported the government's legislation, establishing a process to legalise medicinal marijuana. But we warned that the maintenance of a ban on recreational cannabis would ensure that the regime for medicinal cannabis would be a red-tape minefield for patients, and so it has come to pass. Recreational cannabis is not something I recommend, but it should be a matter of choice for adults. It's already a choice in a number of countries, including eight states in America. In any case, recreational cannabis use is less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco, according to bodies such as the UK's Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. The Liberal Democrats are the only party in this parliament that supports legalising the supply, distribution, possession and use of cannabis, whether for medicinal or recreational purposes. This approach would not only let people pursue their own lifestyle choices and allow a better use of scarce police resources but also, by cutting the red tape surrounding the supply of medicinal cannabis, be the surest way to relieving suffering in Australia.

It is an unfortunate characteristic of Australia that we ignore the experience of the rest of the world and continue to rely on policies of prohibition. Cannabis, e-cigarettes and online gambling are three current examples, and yet prohibition will be no more successful than it ever has been. It's time we got our heads out of the sand. I commend this bill as a means to relieving suffering, but I commend even more the Liberal Democrats' policy of legalising cannabis regardless of its use.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (10:14): For me, nothing demonstrates the capacity for community opinion to change and evolve more than the issue of medicinal cannabis and its use in our community. I hear very regularly people's personal accounts of loved ones, people in their friendship circles, who are benefiting from access to medicinal cannabis. I readily admit that, on this particular issue, I come with little personal experience. So I'm inclined to trust the position of those in our community who are trusted to make difficult decisions around access to drugs—the Therapeutic Goods Administration and, indeed, the government and the Honourable Greg Hunt, who, as the current Minister for Health, has responsibility for health matters.

But that's not to say that my opinions won't evolve or change over time. As a member of the Senate Community Affairs Committee, I regularly sit in the Senate estimates process—probably on 15 occasions now since I've been a senator—and I've regularly heard Senator Di Natale's questioning of health officials from the Department of Health and the Therapeutic Goods Administration around the access arrangements. I don't doubt his great passion and sincerity in the issue; Senator Di Natale was, of course, a general practitioner before coming to the Senate.

That said, it is wise to adopt a precautionary principle when it comes to giving people access to medicinal cannabis. And it is important to clear up some of the facts, to correct the public record, in regard to some of the media commentary that occurred around the 'securing patient access category A' issue in this parliament back in June. In June, we did talk about the disallowance motion which effectively has given passage to the bill we are talking about now. Key among these points for me is the allegation that has been made that the Office of Drug Control is breaching legislation in not permitting the import of medicinal cannabis products for use in Special Access Scheme category A.

Those who have paid attention to this particular allegation would know that the allegation rests on a misinterpretation of a letter that was sent to existing importers, under the bulk import policy, reminding them that their existing import permissions are conditional for supply under Special Access Scheme category B and authorised prescriber schemes. This letter was necessary as at least one importer interpreted the disallowance motion that was agreed to in June as meaning that they could supply under the securing patient access arrangements category A. So what we had was a situation where an importer misinterpreted what the disallowance motion meant, which made it necessary to write to every importer to make it very clear what the arrangements were. This particular importer would have breached the conditions of their permission and potentially been subjected to regulatory action under the Customs Act of 1901.

This letter did not say they could not import for the purposes of supplying under SAS category A. The Office of Drug Control has always given SAS category A import applications a one-day priority processing time and continues to do so for medicinal cannabis products that are characterised under the SAS category A. Since the disallowance motion, though there have been five notifications to the TGA, the office has only received and processed one import permission application for SAS category A. To discharge its regulatory obligations set out in regulation 5 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, the office must necessarily make an assessment of each SAS category A importation. In addition, the scheme established by the government, with bipartisan support, in October 2016 ensured access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients.

I think it is important on matters such as this to lean heavily on the advice of those in our community who are trusted with looking after our health. On this issue I would argue that the view of the established medical community in our country—indeed, they are same people that the Greens and Labor would go to, and then they would come back to in this place with numerous quotes about why the AMA's views on particular issues should be heeded to. For consistency sake, if you are going to stand behind the views of the AMA on some issues then it's important perhaps to stand behind the AMA on issues of great sensitivity like issues of medicinal cannabis.

On that point, I think it is worth noting that in June 2017, with the disallowance motion having been debated, AMA President Dr Michael Gannon said—these are his quotes now; and I think this is particularly important given some of the discussions that have happened in recent days in this building around the mental health and wellbeing of people:

And let's not forget, we're talking about cannabis, we're talking about a substance that, used in the form it's used by most people, is a major source of mental illness in our community. It's absolutely essential that we're assured that whatever's being brought into the country, whatever's being brought in for prescription is safe…

Those are not my words and not the words of well-meaning senators. They are the words of the Dr Michael Gannon, the president of the Australian Medical Association. In that same Sky News interview in June of this year, he went on to say:

…we're satisfied with the process being put in chain by Minister Hunt and the Government using the Therapeutic Goods Administration, using appropriate care and diligence that is used for all other therapeutic products.

… … …

The Australian community would be outraged if prescription medication was rushed in, if someone said that it was okay to use. The Australian people would be outraged if new operations got brought in or, for that matter, new foodstuffs were brought in without appropriate care and safety.

Dr Gannon is saying that if you have a regulatory regime that keeps the community safe, that does allow for products to be brought to market and that does allow for products to be given to people to support their care, then it's important that there be some consistency around that regime in order to not only relieve people of pain and suffering but also protect them and others from unsafe products

I argue that a consistent national regime is important. I accept the point that Senator Leyonhjelm was making—that it's important that the regime be as responsive as it possibly can. But I would argue that, on this particular issue, the regime is a good one, is responsive and is meeting community expectations. What gives me confidence in arguing the government's position is that it is built on the clear medical evidence informed by the attitudes of those people who are trusted in the medical profession to provide advice to government. The government continues of course to take advice from the TGA and the medical profession, including the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine, which I think is a particularly important organisation when considering the safe and proper medicinal use of cannabis. It is taking the advice of the Australasian College of Physicians and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. The advice is that it is potentially dangerous to patient safety to allow access to medicinal cannabis products through the Special Access Scheme category A. Unlike other registered medicines, they are prescribed through this scheme with one medical exception: no medicinal cannabis product has been subjected to a full safety, quality and efficacy assessment by a competent medicines regulator anywhere in the world. There is not easily accessible evidence of safety available to guide prescribing conditions in accordance with doctors' medico-legal obligations to their patients.

I think this is the most important point in the brief time that is available to me: terminally ill patients already have access. This does not mean that terminally ill patients cannot have access to medicinal cannabis products. Where doctors have educated themselves and demonstrated a clear understanding of the risk or benefit profile, they gain timely approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration to prescribe the medicine under the SAS B category. This happens in as little as one day. Let me paraphrase: the current regime protects safety, protects patient safety, puts requirements on medical practitioners, and that regulatory process is achieved within one day. The argument that ill people are suffering delays in regards to the use of medicinal cannabis in their care is not true. That statement provided to me by the Minister for Health demonstrates that point very clearly.

Let me end where I started. I'm lucky enough that in my family and in my circle of friends they are not suffering illness where they require medicinal cannabis. Would my attitude be different if I had a personal experience much closer to these sorts of issues? It may well be, but on this issue and at this particular point in time I think the Australian community should trust the advice of the government, which is informed by specialist medical practitioners and the Therapeutic Goods Administration to ensure that Australians don't just get the best possible care but are protected from unsafe and unproven medical products.

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (10:26): I rise to indicate the Nick Xenophon Team's support for this bill. At the outset, I wish to note that NXT has always enjoyed a very constructive working relationship with the Minister for Health, and we expect that this will continue.

However, respectfully, I think in this incidence the government ought to be doing more than it is. When the disallowance motion to which this bill relates was dealt with in June of this year, the minister provided NXT with a list of actions the government was prepared to take to ensure faster and more streamlined access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients in particular. NXT acknowledges the government has made some progress in relation to the actions and undertakings, but there is still a long way to go. The longer we wait for the government to act, the longer we prolong the suffering of terminally ill patients.

This bill sends a very strong message to the government that we cannot continue to allow terminally ill patients to suffer unnecessarily. The Special Access Scheme category A is used for terminally ill patients for whom other treatments have failed. This bill does not broaden the scope of patients who would have access to medicinal cannabis under category A; nor does it weaken that regulatory framework. But it does seek to ensure that Australian medicinal cannabis and imported medicinal cannabis is available to those who need it most.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:27): I rise to speak on the Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017 and to indicate our support for the bill. It is a bill that seeks to simply reflect the will of this Senate from June this year, when the Senate disallowed the government's amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 so that medicinal cannabis could be imported for use for patients under the Department of Health's Special Access Scheme category A, as well as category B. Three days after the disallowance motion was passed the government sent a sharply worded letter to importers, threatening them that, despite the Senate's disallowance motion, it would be a breach of permit and licence conditions if they were to supply any imported medicinal cannabis product to a patient under Special Access Scheme category A. I feel that was a bit of a heavy-handed approach by the government. It was an approach that failed to recognise the will of this Senate, but that can now be corrected through the passage of this bill.

The bill makes two legislative changes to improve access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients under category A of the Special Access Scheme. Category A allows terminally ill patients access to unregistered therapeutic goods with a doctor's prescription, but without preapproval by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It is, therefore, quicker than other pathways. Because of the threat made by the government to import permits, it amends the Customs Act 1901 to clarify that 'a licence, permission, consent or approval' to import medicinal cannabis applies to category A, as well as other pathways.

The second change is to ensure that terminally ill patients can access domestic medicinal cannabis products under category A when they become available. It amends the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 to add category A as one of the purposes for which the secretary of Health can grant a licence to manufacture medicinal cannabis in Australia. These amendments are for category A of the Special Access Scheme. Category A applies, as previous speakers have indicated, only to terminally ill patients.

As I've said for many years, when debating medicinal cannabis, this is a matter of compassion. That's what it's about; it's about compassion. It's about politicians, doctors and bureaucrats demonstrating some compassion towards a group of people who suffer from an incurable condition, with no idea what tomorrow will bring, or even if there will be a tomorrow. This is about a group of people who experience unimaginable pain on a daily basis, a group of people who have found that traditional medicines do not assist in suppressing their conditions. Whether it's a case of seizures in a young girl, like that of April, who I know, or a case of a mother's lung function, like that of Natalie, who I also know, this is about a minister hearing their pleas, listening to the community and doing the right thing.

If the vote goes the same way as the disallowance in June then this bill will pass the Senate. But it is then up to Minister Hunt to bring the matter to the House of Representatives, recognise that he made a mistake and that the amendment was too heavy handed, and accept the will of the Senate. The minister could even achieve half a what this bill seeks to achieve without even taking the bill to the House of Representatives. If the minister directed his department to change import permit conditions to allow imports for category A patients then the spirit of the disallowance would be enacted. This is about helping people who have been assessed by their doctor as terminally ill. We're not looking at a free-for-all here.

The Special Access Scheme is administered by the Department of Health, like all of our health regulations. It is a very rigorous process for a patient and their GP. It comprises three categories: A, B, and C. Under the government's policy, access is only available for Australians under category B. Category B is an application pathway, while category A is a notification pathway. The critical difference is that under category A the doctor only has to notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration that they are accessing medicinal cannabis products for patients who are seriously ill with a terminal illness, but under category B the doctor must first apply to the TGA and receive an approval letter before medicinal cannabis products can be accessed.

What we're debating today is recognising the mounting global evidence that medicinal cannabis is a safe, effective product for many, many people. We're debating the rights of doctors to work with their patients, to work with the TGA and to work with suppliers so that we can improve access to medicinal cannabis for the many thousands of Australians who need it. This bill today is just one small part of the huge web of legislative changes needed to improve access to medicinal cannabis.

With brave community advocates and many parliamentary colleagues, I've been fighting for a long time for improved access to safe, reliable, legal and affordable medicinal cannabis. There is no doubt that cannabis has brought relief to and a dramatic reduction in pain and suffering for so many Australians. In my home state of Tasmania I have personally met with many individuals who have seen their lives and the lives of their loved ones turned around through this treatment.

Sadly, though, there are just as many heartbreaking stories of those who continue to suffer because they are unable to gain access to this treatment. There are many others who are still branded as criminals under Australian law for accessing and using this treatment, despite the incredible and proven health outcomes to them and their loved ones. For too long Australians have been forced to navigate underground criminal networks in order to secure a medication that we know works, because it works for them; they demonstrate it.

There is no doubt in my mind that change is desperately overdue. I would like to formally acknowledge all the brave Tasmanians who have had the courage to go public with their own stories, despite potential personal risks, in order to mount the case for reform. Some of these people are elderly; they look after their children. Some of them are very young. They are very nervous about the prospects of what dealing with an illegal substance may mean for them, but they cut through that, because it means to them that they can provide the help for their loved ones in suffering.

Last year, I spoke in this place about Natalie, about Lyn and Jeremy, about Nicole and Alice, and about Jessie and April, in the debate on the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016. Tragically, Natalie Daley, a young mum with three children, lost her battle with cancer mid-year last year. Natalie was from my home town of Ulverstone. She was a pioneering advocate for medicinal cannabis, and her resilience was an inspiration to so many people. Despite the risks, Natalie went public with her very, very personal experience of the incredible change that medicinal cannabis made to her life after she was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer.

Another Natalie, who is still fighting, is Natalie Vassallo from Burnie. I have known Natalie for some time. Earlier this year, at a forum in Burnie, we had a lengthy chat about her current situation, and she penned a powerful, logical email to me detailing her experience with medicinal cannabis and the Tasmanian health system and about her strong will to keep fighting to live so she could see her boys grow up. Natalie has spent time educating her GP on whole-plant medicinal cannabis therapy. Natalie said to me that she's one of the lucky ones: she is lucky enough to have a reasonable GP who is willing to listen but also to do his own research. But, under the Tasmanian government's scheme for accessing medicinal cannabis, only a specialist can make prescriptions, and Natalie, unfortunately, rarely gets to see her lung specialist. Her first appointment is scheduled for November this year. But she doesn't know if he'll have the time, or the interest, to help her apply for the state government's prescribed access scheme. Natalie says that her lung function improvements under medicinal cannabis have been nothing but remarkable. When she wrote the email to me in August, she was off all pain medications after using cannabis oil over the past two years, and she says that cannabis oil is the reason she's still here for her three boys, one of whom is still in school, while an older boy is her carer. The main issue is of course supply. The lack of pathways to access cannabis oil is a story told countless times to me and to all of us in this place, and it is the absolute core of this debate here today. Thank you, Natalie, for sharing your story, and thank you to your GP for listening but also for having the willingness to learn. And thank you to your boys for their support of each other but also of you. Every change that we can make in this place and in the Tasmanian parliament to empower our GPs and improve access is a step in the right direction.

I also want to commend Andrew Irving from Tasmania for his enduring leadership of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp Tasmania. Andrew had been a full-time carer to his wife, Marilyn, until she, sadly, passed away earlier this year. Marilyn had a neurodegenerative condition and used medicinal cannabis. When she passed away, Andrew's resolve was to educate our community on medicinal cannabis and advocate for patients' rights, and he wanted to continue that legacy. Andrew publishes a regular newsletter called The Leaf, for Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp Tasmania members, and last year successfully crowdfunded for thousands of dollars and provided many hours of his own labour and other people's to create two educational trailers for the state. The trailers are packed full of information that can educate people and dispel the myths surrounding medicinal cannabis.

The trailers have been a huge success. They have been such a success, in fact, that Andrew is now building a third one, ready to go to the mainland. I was at the launch in Ulverstone last year for the trailer that was dedicated to Natalie Daley, and I know that Senator Brown, who is here in the chamber, was also at the launch in Hobart. That demonstrates Labor's commitment, right across the state, from the north to the south.

Also in Tasmania, we have had absolutely tremendous advocacy from our Tasmanian Labor politicians. That advocacy has been led by our former Premier Lara Giddings. While both the Labor and Liberal parties are supportive of improving access to medicinal cannabis, just like here in Canberra, the Liberal Party is overly cautious in its approach. It is leaving people to suffer, leaving people in fear of prosecution and creating uncertainty at a time when all we need to do is make access simpler. Under the Tasmanian Liberal government, specialists can apply to the health department to prescribe the drug, but the government can't say how long it will take to access medicinal cannabis. Labor's position is that doctors should be able to prescribe it, to make the drug more accessible. It has taken the Liberal government 3½ years to come up with a system that is simply too slow and doesn't facilitate safe and prompt access.

I've just told this place about Natalie's delays in accessing her specialist. I said her appointment is in November, but she doesn't actually have a date yet. All she has is: 'It's November.' As I said, she's concerned that the specialist won't have the time to help her apply through the state government's scheme. An ABC story from 5 October reported that in the first month of operation the Tasmanian government's Controlled Access Scheme received only three applications from medical specialists, with none having been approved at the time of writing. The health department has no timeline on a decision regarding pending applications.

While the Tasmanian Liberal government is off being overly cautious, GPs are confused with how the scheme works. Dr Bastian Seidel from the college of GPs said in the 5 October story that it is difficult for GPs to refer to the appropriate organisation or hospital specialist. He went on to say that states each have their own scheme and that patients who might benefit from medicinal cannabis can't get it, while GPs who want to prescribe it are not able to. Meanwhile, hundreds of Tasmanians are using medicinal cannabis every day. As I said earlier, they are risking prosecution. They don't have an easy, or good, supply chain—the quality quite often is questionable. They're suffering. I really hope that the government will hear the pleas not only in the stories I've shared today but in the stories I'm sure they've heard, as well as from the many others who are constant in their strong advocacy for improved access. What we need is support for this sensible legislation and movement to improving access for Australians who need it.

I thank Senator Di Natale for introducing this bill and for his longstanding commitment to working across the parliament—with me and other members of the Labor Party and with members of the coalition—to improve access to medicinal cannabis for people in Australia. In the last parliament, medicinal cannabis access was a great story of people coming together from across the political spectrum to do the right thing for those people in our community who are suffering, for those people who are helped in some way by medicinal cannabis. I remind the Senate that passage of this bill won't allow free access for all. To access products under category A a patient must be terminally ill. The heavy handed, cruel approach by the Minister for Health is undermining patient safety, it's undermining collaboration between the federal and state governments and it's miring GPs and patients in hours and hours of unnecessary red tape. Minister, please respect the will of the Senate, acknowledge the skills and expertise of our medical fraternity and move urgently to improve access for people who need our help.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (10:44): I also rise to speak in support of the Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017. It is a great pleasure for me to follow Senator Urquhart in this debate, because Senator Urquhart has been, not only in our home state of Tasmania but also here in the parliament, a tireless advocate for improving access to medicinal cannabis. I echo my support for Senator Urquhart's contribution here today.

There will be many people watching and listening to the Senate this morning to see how this chamber votes on this bill. Included amongst those people listening will be Andrew Irving. As Senator Urquhart mentioned in her contribution, Andrew Irving and his wife, Marilyn, were key drivers in the creation of medicinal cannabis education trailers. They built and launched two. Senator Urquhart and I were at the launch of one of them up on the north-west coast. Indeed, that trailer was dedicated to Natalie Daley, who unfortunately passed away.

Andrew Irving has been a tireless advocate in producing educational information and ensuring that information is provided to not only those people who require medicinal cannabis but members of the community across the board to raise awareness about what we're talking about when we talk about medicinal cannabis. As Senator Urquhart indicated, we lost Marilyn earlier this year, but that hasn't stopped Andrew's drive to ensure that Tasmanians are informed about the benefits of medicinal cannabis and to engage Tasmanians to support the use of medicinal cannabis. I take this opportunity to commend and congratulate him on the work that he is doing.

Labor supports the changes proposed in this bill, which will improve access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients. I again echo Senator Urquhart's comments where she congratulated Senator Di Natale on bringing this bill to the chamber.

Earlier this year we saw—and Labor supported—the disallowance motion, which the Senate passed, that allows patients to access imported medicinal cannabis products under category A of the Special Access Scheme. In one of those rather rare occurrences in this chamber, Labor, the Greens, One Nation, Senator Lambie, Senator Hinch, Senator Gichuhi and Senator Leyonhjelm were united in voting to disallow the government's restrictions. Only the Nick Xenophon Team and Senator Bernardi supported the government. As we've already heard in the previous contribution by Senator Kakoschke-Moore, the Nick Xenophon Team will be supporting this bill, so that is indeed very good news.

This bill will uphold the Senate's intent by amending the Customs Act 1901 to clarify that a licence permission, consent or approval to import medicinal cannabis applies to category A as well as other pathways. The Therapeutic Goods Administration states that category A is strictly limited to:

… patients who are seriously ill with a condition from which death is reasonably likely to occur within a matter of months, or from which premature death is reasonably likely to occur in the absence of early treatment.

We need to be clear in this debate that this is what we're talking about: we're talking, unfortunately, about Australians who are dying. We should also be clear that under category A of the Special Access Scheme only a doctor will be able to prescribe medicinal cannabis. What this bill and the debate in this chamber are about is whether dying patients who have a legitimate clinical need for medicinal cannabis should have access to it. Labor believes they should, and that is why Labor will be supporting this bill.

This bill will go some way in ensuring there is a legal and regulated market so that family members and carers aren't forced to rely on the black market to relieve the pain of their loved ones in their final stages of life. This is a complex issue, which Labor acknowledged in this chamber back in June when the Senate voted to improve access to medicinal cannabis for dying Australians. On balance, Labor is proud to stand up for the rights of terminally ill Australians who are in need of medicinal cannabis. The fact is that some terminally ill Australians cannot find relief from pain within existing therapeutic goods. Patients who are suffering from a terminal illness should have access to safe, reliable and legal medicinal cannabis if it is prescribed by their doctor.

I have been fortunate to meet with people who have been suffering unbearable pain and to see firsthand the benefits of medicinal cannabis. Sadly, not all Australians who need medicinal cannabis have access to it. That must change. This chamber's vote in June should have resolved this issue. Terminally ill patients should've had easier access by now to a prescribed therapy that can ease their suffering. Unfortunately, in the months since June the government has continued to deny the parliament's will and much-needed relief to dying Australians. Straight after the vote, we saw the health minister equate dying Australians and their families with drug smugglers. The health minister said the disallowance was—and I quote from the Fairfax newspapers—'reckless and irresponsible'. He said it would put lives at risk and potentially make it easier for criminals to get drugs.

Mr Turnbull should be ashamed of the way his government has tried to scaremonger on this issue, stigmatising dying people who are trying to access medicinal cannabis. Even worse, the government has put in place a new barrier to prevent people from accessing cannabis. In June, soon after the disallowance vote, the government wrote to medicinal cannabis importers instructing them not to supply products to anyone holding a prescription under category A of the Special Access Scheme. Instead of helping Australians with terminal illness and their families, Mr Turnbull's priority has been to find a way to get around the Senate's decision to give dying Australians access to the pain relief they need.

The bill before us today, the Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill, will enshrine the intent of our disallowance vote in legislation. Because the government hasn't respected the parliament's will, this bill will amend the Customs Act 1901 to clarify that a licence, permission, consent or approval to import medicinal cannabis applies to category A as well as other pathways. Secondly, the bill seeks to ensure that terminally ill patients can access domestic medicinal cannabis products under category A when they become available. The bill will also amend the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 to add category A as one of the purposes for which the secretary of health can grant a licence to manufacture medicinal cannabis in Australia.

Ultimately, in Labor's view, medicinal cannabis should be treated in the same way as medicines: products will be accessed for safety and efficacy by the TGA and, where they pass the test, they will be prescribed by doctors, dispensed by pharmacists and, possibly one day, subsidised by the PBS. Labor understands that medicinal cannabis can ease suffering for Australians who are dying. That is why Labor led the way and introduced legislation for a national medicinal cannabis scheme in 2015 and supported the government's legislation when it was finally introduced in 2016. It's a terrible shame that we have a government that remains sceptical of medicinal cannabis and has been much too slow to implement the national scheme.

The government has also failed to drive consistency across the states on the legal treatment of people currently accessing medicinal cannabis. Mr Shorten has written to Mr Turnbull three times urging action and offering support. But patients have seen no change. That is another reason why Labor is supporting the bill that is before us, because the government has failed time and time again to improve other pathways. Passage of this bill will be a step in the right direction. However, it will not be the end of the matter. I would like to see, and Labor is committed to, ensuring safe and timely access to medicinal cannabis is made available across Australia where it is appropriate to do so.

Unlike this government, Labor is committed to making sure those who are terminally ill have the access to treatment options they need and deserve. That is why we'll be supporting this bill. And I hope, when this bill is passed today, that the government will do the right thing and we can see this bill passed in the House of Representatives.

Senator HINCH (Victoria) (10:55): This is a disgrace. This is an absolute disgrace what the government is doing here. I agree with Senator Brown when she quotes Mr Hunt in the Sydney Morning Herald saying it was reckless and irresponsible. It's not the people who brought this bill to the House that are irresponsible; it's the Minister for Health and the government. I don't give a damn we are seeing that they are thwarting the will of the Senate. I don't care they're thwarting the will of the Senate. They are thwarting the will and the rights of sick people in Australia. They are thwarting the will of sick people.

Before I jumped the shark and came here to the Senate, I worked for Saturday Night and did a lot of stories about medical cannabis. And I have talked to mothers of little kids who have had hundreds of thousands of convulsions that were cured by the efficacy of medical cannabis. I have been to Nimbin, to the Mardi Gras for the last two years for this very issue, to talk at a conference on medical cannabis, why it should be allowed and why it should be easily imported. I talked to man who had a brain tumour, and what keeps him peaceful, what keeps him out of pain is medical cannabis. And what is wrong with that? Everything else was not working for him. A mother brought her baby to Nimbin to see us and said, 'Here he is and now he's well.'

For the government now to do the shameful thing, to thwart the use of it, is a disgusting thing. If down the track, as Senator Di Natale says, we build up an Australian industry of medicinal cannabis, I'll be the first person to join the government in saying, 'We stopped the imports; we are building the Australian industry up.' I would love to see Norfolk Island become the producer of medicinal cannabis the same way we have morphine coming from poppies in Tasmania. That would be fantastic if we could do that and I would support the government to say, 'Okay, now we have got a business running here.' As Senator Hanson said, we want to build up the local industry, and I'd go along with that.

But, right now, the government has callously, methodically and indecently blocked the will of the Senate, blocked the will of the people, blocked terminally ill people and people in pain from getting access to something that eases their pain, makes their life better, makes their life bearable, and I think the government and the health minister should be ashamed of themselves. They ambushed some crossbenchers the last time around. They ambushed the Xenophon Team when we got this letter from the health minister suddenly tabled by Senator McGrath at the last minute. I don't want to see that happen again. What has to happen today is we must pass this. You must make it right, make it work for the last time, so that families of terminally ill people, mothers of kids with fits can get access to a health product that works, that is proven to work. That should happen in this country as we speak.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (10:59): One Nation will be supporting Senator Di Natale's bill and supporting the thousands of the Australians who have called for the change of attitude and, more importantly, the change in legislation that allows those people under category A facing terminal illness, imminent death, access to this miracle drug. One Nation federally and our Queensland state leader, Steve Dickson, have worked tirelessly to decriminalise this medicinal cannabis. I will say it again: this is a miracle drug, and this monumental change will be remembered long into the future.

I cannot understand why the government is so against fighting for this and is against this change. It is important that we do it, and this is why we support it. It's known that a lot of Australians want this and want to see this drug used. I have spoken to a patient who came back from America and who had the use of medicinal cannabis there. She had a brain tumour. After using it, there was clearly a shrinking of the tumour. Yet she got no help in Australia. Under this bill, licensed importers will be permitted to import and supply to category A patients. We are now on the precipice of real change in the way that category A patients can access much-needed pain relief.

I know a young lady by the name of Caitlin who suffers from 19 medical conditions, including cerebral palsy, epilepsy, chronic lung disease, obstructive sleep apnoea and hyperventilation and autoimmune disease, to mention just a few. She is just nine years old. Her mother is forced to produce illegal medical cannabis oil to keep her daughter alive; failing to give her the six daily doses would lead to endless seizures and permanent hospitalisation, with her connected to oxygen.

What we are doing here today will lift the legal hurdles and, if you like, stop making criminals out of caring mums and dads, family members and a raft of people in our community who are simply trying to ease the suffering of loved ones during their final months of life. Who are we to deny these people that choice? The denial, I hope, will stop today.

I welcome the future of Queensland company Medifarm in bringing proven genetic plant strains, extraction and manufacturing processes to Australia from their Israeli partners, who have over 20 years experience in producing medical cannabis oils that work. In a recent survey of over 1,540 responsibilities, 95 per cent of Australians from all states and territories supported the use of medical cannabis oil. Of that 95 per cent, 75 per cent of respondents called for whole-plant medical cannabis oil, not synthetic pharmaceutical rip-offs.

Our next step is to lift the numbers of doctors throughout the country willing to prescribe medical cannabis oil. It's not good enough that my own home state of Queensland has just 20 doctors registered to prescribe the drug. Worse still, current legislation prevents the medical board from revealing those registered GPs' names. This is just another barrier between the patient and true care. I can hear the frustration from my constituents in Queensland from here in Canberra. My Queensland state leader, Steve Dickson, and future elected Queensland One Nation members of parliament will do everything in their power to broaden those GP numbers and to make their names accessible. In the meantime, my One Nation colleagues and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:03): I move:

That the question now be put.

Question agreed to.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (11:04): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call Senator Di Natale to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:05): The Greens are once again bringing the Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017 to stop Adani's massive polluting coalmine because we think it's about time that other parties in this place finally see some sense. We know that the ABC program Four Corners recently did a damning expose that highlighted the litany of corrupt activities—tax-dodging on a monumental scale and environmental destruction—in Adani's operation elsewhere around the world. That Four Corners expose made it very clear that this is a company that should never be supported by the Australian community. Indeed, we're hoping that in this place both the government and the opposition will stand up for the Australian people and for a healthy environment and stop Adani in its tracks.

This bill would make sure that the government can't hand a billion dollars of taxpayer money—that is, money that belongs to every Australian citizen—to facilitate the development of this mine because it won't stack up on its own two feet. It would do this by introducing what's known as a suitable person test. It would also strengthen our environmental laws to make sure that the environmental history of a company needs to be considered when approvals are given. It would trigger a review into the approvals that Adani has already been given by this government, including the review done into the Carmichael mine. It would also look at the approvals given for the coal railway infrastructure project and the Abbot Point coal port.

It is remarkable that a company like Adani could have been given those approvals after what was revealed by the nation's premier current affairs program just a few weeks ago. Just think about their activities. They have been proven to have engaged in corruption. They have their tax affairs managed in such a way that money is funnelled to tax havens like the Cayman Islands for the benefit of a few individuals. How on earth are we considering allowing this company, with its track record, to build a giant mine when it has this clear history of corruption, of tax dodging and of environmental vandalism? Most importantly, how is it that both the major parties in this place say that they support the development of the Adani mine? In Queensland, the Queensland Labor Party have said that they will give Adani a series of royalty holidays. Federally, here, the coalition have indicated that they are prepared to throw a billion dollars of taxpayer money at the mine.

Four Corners went into great detail about the behaviour of this company. We heard stories about young kids who have debilitating asthma because Adani doesn't do what we know it should do in securing those giant piles of coal. Coal is a very dangerous and dirty substance. Coal, when it's burnt and indeed when it's mined, produces particulate matter. This is something that the World Health Organization and, indeed, all medical bodies accept—that the mining and burning of coal creates significantly harmful effects to individuals who are exposed to the products of combustion and coalmining. Particulate matter, getting deep into the lungs, causes lung disease—including diseases like emphysema and high rates of lung cancer—cardiovascular disease and a range of other serious medical conditions. There is no dispute within the medical community about the association between the mining and burning of coal and the serious and devastating impacts that coal has on individuals. Adani has shown itself to be reckless when it comes to protecting the health of individuals, because of the way it operates its coalmines. Adani has also, through its environmental vandalism, ripped up mangrove conservation areas without seeking prior approval, and it has blocked the access of fishing families to their traditional fishing grounds.

Adani was fined almost a million Australian dollars for failing to clean up after its unseaworthy ship sank off the coast of India. Yet here we are with both the Liberal and Labor parties still wanting to allow this company to export coal through the Great Barrier Reef. It is remarkable that a company with that track record would still be given licence in this place by both Liberal and Labor. I haven't even gone into great detail about Adani's record of corruption and their record of tax avoidance, but we know that five Adani companies are now under investigation for using so-called black money. It's bribed officials with huge sums of money, and it was involved in a massive illegal iron ore export scam. It seems that all of the money that flows to tax havens across the world flows in a way that makes sure that Adani doesn't pay its tax. It's a company that pollutes. It's a company with a track record of corruption. It has a track record of not paying its fair share.

The bill would finally put an end to the massive disaster that is the Carmichael coalmine. If it was a country, it would be the seventh-biggest polluter on the planet. It would release a dirty, great climate bomb that would see 2.3 billion tonnes of coal dug up over 60 years. It would open up the entire Galilee Basin, which has enough coal, if burnt, as I said, to make it the seventh-largest polluter on the planet. Yet here we are with both the Liberal-Nationals and the ALP going full steam ahead with Adani, rolling out the red carpet and falling over themselves to facilitate a massive billion-dollar taxpayer loan. And, of course, they're also looking at giving it unlimited groundwater licences at the expense of the farmers who rely on that water resource. This is polluting the land, polluting the air, and stripping away a water resource that belongs to all Australians.

I say to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition: you've got an opportunity to stop this in its tracks. To be frank, we've given up on the Liberal Party. We have given up on the Liberal Party taking a stand. But Bill Shorten has an opportunity here. Say that you're going to review those environmental approvals. Do everything you can to say that you will, if elected, review those approvals, and no-one, no financier, will touch this with a barge pole. Together we can make sure that this mine is defeated. But, if the parliament fails, make no mistake, we will be there standing with the community, making sure that, one way or another, this polluting, jobs-destroying, climate-killing mine never gets built.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Senator O'Sullivan, I know that you are seeking the call. You have previously spoken on this matter, and you were in continuation when this debate resumed. You missed your chance to speak, or to continue from your previous remarks, so under standing order 188 you would need to seek leave to speak again on this matter if you want to make a further contribution.

Senator O'Sullivan: I seek leave to speak further on this matter.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?

Senator Di Natale: No.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted.

Senator O'Sullivan: I seek clarification. Can leave be denied by one voice?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Under the standing orders, any senator is able to deny leave. I just want to confirm this. Senator O'Sullivan is seeking leave to speak on this matter. Is leave granted?

Senator Di Natale: No.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted, Senator O'Sullivan. Resume your seat.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, resume your seat. Order!

Senator Fawcett: On a point of order, Senator O'Sullivan is not seeking another entire 20-minute block of time; he is seeking to continue his remarks. The normal practice is that people in continuation are able to complete their remarks. I accept that he wasn't the immediate speaker when the debate resumed. Procedurally, that is unfortunate, but, from the point of view of fair debate in this place, I request that the Greens consider whether they wish to deny the opportunity for somebody to make a contribution up to the full 20 minutes, which is the time that senators in this place are normally entitled to.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: By means of clarification, yes, you're right in the terms of what might be reasonable for people to consider. However, under the terms of the standing orders, Senator O'Sullivan did miss the call for his continuation, which means his contribution has been completed. If he is granted leave to speak further, he would have the opportunity to speak for a full 20 minutes. If Senator O'Sullivan chose to confine his comments to, perhaps, the balance of his previous speech, that would be entirely fitting, but he needs leave in order to do so. And leave has been denied.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:16): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on this private senator's bill, the Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017, introduced by the Greens party. The Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017 proposes to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016 to expand the suitable persons test in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in order to make it mandatory rather than discretionary to introduce the test in the NAIF Act.

I point out at the outset that this bill, as proposed by the Greens, in their usual style, is a stunt that is not a solution to the problems of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility—and there are very substantial problems with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility that need to be addressed. At the last estimates session, we discovered that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility board member Karla Way-McPhail is a person whom we should be watching very closely. Indeed, it was revealed that she is a personal friend of the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, that the minister himself put her forward for appointment to the board, that Ms Way-McPhail regularly attends LNP fundraisers and is, indeed, a donor to the LNP, and that Ms Karla Way-McPhail is also the CEO of two companies and the director of a third company that could benefit directly or indirectly from Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility board decisions. That alone is one very significant matter that deserves much better consideration, and what is being proposed here by the Greens party this morning does not go to that very, very important matter.

There is clearly a conflict of interest. When the minister was questioned about this during estimates, his answers, I have to say, were found wanting. We asked the minister whether Ms Way-McPhail had recused herself from discussions involving projects on which she had a conflict of interest, and to date we have received no answers. This is a very significant matter of concern for all those who believe in the potential of northern Australia to be opened up and developed in an appropriate way. The funds that have been declared by this government to exist to undertake such projects and grow jobs should be processed in an open and transparent way. Again, let me put on the record that what has been proposed here in this private senators' bill by the Greens does nothing to address this critical issue and just focuses on one issue and one issue alone.

The minister had an opportunity to show that this is a transparent government and that his actions were aboveboard, but failed to do so. In fact, he went as far as to declare public interest immunity. I have to ask: what public interest is served by the minister refusing to answer questions about how decisions are being made on $5 billion—not that we've seen much of it flow through—of taxpayers' money? There's another dimension of failure. It's $5 billion of taxpayers' money which should be open to clear scrutiny, but which seems to be protected by the minister declaring public interest immunity and failing to respond to questions at estimates. Earlier this year, during the consideration in detail in the House, the shadow minister asked the minister representing the Minister for Northern Australia if he would answer the questions that Senator Canavan had refused to answer; again, there was a deafening silence. There was no response, no answer, no transparency and no accountability from this government which simply seems to think it's above and beyond the need to answer to the Australian people or to put exactly what is happening on the record in the Senate.

This bill, as proposed by the Greens party, will not address the governance and transparency issues that have certainly been uncovered through estimates in relation to the NAIF. We know that the board of the NAIF has been paid at least $600,000. Hopefully, we'll get an update on the amount of money that's been spent so far at the upcoming estimates session. But $600,000, to most Australians, is a very significant amount of money indeed, and we still have no investment driving job creation in the North. Despite all its talk, this government has failed to deliver.

The NAIF, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, is a body that was established by this government two years ago. I repeat my concerns about the fact that there is not a single job-generating infrastructure project for north Australia that's been funded. Not one. Zero. There is $5 billion sitting there and jobs are needed in the North. The work of the last parliament put forward very significant propositions to this government and the actions of the board seemed very questionable. On the record, there is still no money spent other than the $600,000—perhaps more by now—for the members of the board. This bill does nothing to address that very significant problem. There's an opportunity for the Greens to do something substantive here for north Australia to address the issue of jobs, but they continue to walk away from it.

The bill will not improve the NAIF assessment process so that they would be able to start providing these funds and allow the capture of the incredible opportunities that actually do exist in northern Australia. We want, as the Labor Party, to take a constructive and deep look at the NAIF through the Senate inquiry process. There are, as I said, huge opportunities in northern Australia, and we should make the most of those opportunities. With $5 billion sitting there, the people of the North must be wondering what on earth they got for their election of Liberal and National Party members who came down to Canberra, saying that they were going to advocate for them and that they had this great vision for the North. They said, 'We're going to do wonderful things for you.' But all we see is a fund of $5 billion sitting on the side and still nothing being done. There are concerns about the NAIF, how it's structured and its inability to deliver on those commitments that were made. Infrastructure does build jobs, and jobs build communities. This $5 billion should be working for Australians but, instead, this out-of-touch government, with its incompetent and opaque processes, is simply not delivering for the people of the North.

This bill also completely unnecessarily expands the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in respect of the suitable persons test. The suitable persons test includes consideration of the person's history in relation to environmental matters; if the person is a body corporate, the history of its executive officers in relation to environmental matters; and, if the person is a body corporate that has an associated entity, the history in relation to environmental matters of the associated entity and the entity's executive officers. It also includes consideration of any other matter that the minister or the NAIF board consider to be relevant for consideration under the EPBC Act. Section 136 of the EPBC Act already sets out the considerations that the minister must take into account when deciding whether or not to grant an approval under the EPBC Act and what conditions to attach to that approval. Section 136(4) of the EPBC Act currently provides the minister with the discretion to consider a person or company's environmental history. This will now make that test mandatory. The test would be applied by the minister in relation to decisions on projects taken under the EPBC Act, and by the board of the NAIF in relation to decisions regarding financing of projects by the facility.

The range of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation contains an analogous fit-and-proper-person test. In environmental legislation, this often includes the consideration of a person's or company's environmental record. However, unlike the EPBC Act and the proposed bill, some of this legislation also provides further guidance or criteria. It's also worth noting that ministerial decisions under the EPBC Act are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, including by conservation organisations, and under the extended standing provisions of section 487 of the EPBC Act.

In addition, the bill amends the EPBC Act to cause the secretary of the department of the environment to review the decision on the Carmichael mine, known as the Adani project, with regard to that suitable-persons test. These decisions are related to Adani's projects—the Carmichael coalmine and rail project, which was EPBC referral 2010/5736, the Abbot Point coal terminal, referral 2011/614, and the North Galilee Basin Rail Project, referral 2013/6885. This singles out one project, the Adani project, and reviewing projects of one company has no policy basis and would raise retrospective sovereign risk issues that could have negative impact on business investment in Australia.

For all of the gobbledygook language that's part of what I just had to say, there has been careful consideration to make sure we have laws that are robust enough to allow proper discernment of appropriate projects going forward and that are constructed in a way that avoids the sovereign risk threat to the nation. No such suitable-person test currently exists for other Commonwealth government financing facilities, including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and Efic.

This bill, I'm afraid to say, when you start to look at it in that kind of detail, reveals exactly what's happening here this morning: that this is a bill that's nothing other than political point-scoring by the Greens party. For the Greens, it seems northern Australia matters less. One project and one project alone is their focus, and they're using whatever vehicle they can to continue a political campaign. But the cost, it would seem to me, of the political point-scoring that we're seeing here this morning is the failure to call the government to account on inaction with regard to the NAIF for the whole of northern Australia. Rather than targeting one particular project, the work of this Senate should be calling this government to account to attend to the reality that, across the north of Australia, $5 billion of Australian government committed money is still not acting in and through our economy to generate jobs, growth and infrastructure that the north of this country so desperately needs.

What we're seeing this morning is an unrelenting opposition to Adani without consideration for the broader issues that are of great concern to those in northern Australia, and in particular Northern Queensland. It's another example of the Greens using Adani as a political football to further their own agenda, regardless of the cost to the community of northern Australia. And we've seen this behaviour continuing for some time, using Adani as a political tool in the native title amendment bill that we were debating earlier this year and turning a debate about land rights into one about mining rights simply because it suited their own political agenda, with no care for the cost to advocates of those other vital issues. That very significant elder of the first peoples of Australia, Dr Marcia Langton, an expert on native title, had this to say in June, where she spoke of the Greens and the other anti-Adani protest groups. She said—and this is not a mild word—that they had used 'deception' and had 'deliberately thwarted' the aspirations of the majority of Indigenous people, and they're doing that same thing again with this bill they have got before us this morning. We should hear that. We should hear the voices of our Aboriginal brothers and sisters.

It's time for this place to have a serious discussion about job creation and infrastructure projects for this country. People across the country, north and south, and in our regions in particular, are telling us that they're worried about jobs right now, they're worried about jobs for their kids and they're worried about their future. We need to make sure that we are creating jobs of the future without compromising our environment. Labor has a strong history of acting to protect the environment. It was Labor that initiated the protection of the Great Barrier Reef during the Whitlam government. Remember that. These are the realities that the Greens party would have us forget: the history, the great history of Australians, Labor Party action on environmental protection. There's been nothing that the Greens party have achieved since their entry into this parliament that can match those great achievements of our wonderful Labor leaders. It was the Hawke and Keating governments that protected the Franklin and the Daintree. Antarctica and Kakadu were signature environmental policies of Labor environmental action. That's Labor: we did the hard yards, the heavy lifting with regard to environmental protection.

The most recent Labor government ended 30 years of conflict over Tasmania's forest and 120 years of disagreement over the Murray-Darling Basin. It also put in place the world's largest network of marine reserves. These are facts the Greens will continue to try and disturb to reconstruct the history of this country as if they're the only champions of the environment. But the reality and the history show a very, very different world view. Labor will continue to act. We will not back down on protecting our environment and we recognise that conventional fuels will be part of the energy mix into the future. But we believe and have built policy and delivered in government commitments to renewable energy that will have a growing share of the total energy mix given it's now the cheapest form of new electricity generation.

So, instead of debating a single project and getting column inches out of it, we should be having in this place a much broader discussion about the future of energy for our nation. And through the NAIF, we should be thinking about what can happen in the north with that $5 billion to address this issue that is touching every household and every business across the country. That's an issue that the Australian people are interested it. That's an issue that people are facing at 10 o'clock at night when they are trying to find the money, pulling it from different accounts, possibly even from the kids' Christmas accounts, so that they can pay for electricity. We should be having that kind of a conversation here, but, sadly, we're not.

The issues on the minds of Australians right now are jobs and energy prices. But that's not what we're talking about here. We should be talking about the transition to clean energy that is already happening, that we want to encourage. We should be talking about supporting this transition through our commitment to 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. That's what we should be doing instead of this stunt that we are seeing here this morning.

Last week Labor announced new policies to boost renewable energy generation and storage, create new jobs and put downward pressure on power prices. I want to state clearly here that a Shorten government will modernise the energy market rules to give more power to consumers—because that's what Labor does. It doesn't lose sight of the people on the ground, which absolutely is a trait of the Greens party and this government, which has lost touch and is completely out of touch with what's going on with ordinary households. It will create renewable energy zones to drive investment and jobs in the sector, and it will change the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's investment return benchmark so that it can invest more in electricity generation and storage projects. So, in this place, while we see a government fighting with itself and blaming everyone else, Labor is outlining a positive alternative to tackle out-of-control power prices, reduce pollution and, very importantly—something that we just won't hear from the Greens at all—create jobs for Australians.

Labor is about fighting for secure employment and fighting for ordinary Australians who just want to get out, do a fair day's work, get a fair day's pay and be able to come home and pay to keep the lights on in their own homes. We are seeing that constantly under attack. In question time this week some of the attacks on the union movement that we heard from the government opposite were cringe-worthy. They are a disgrace to break the voices of those who support Australian workers and deal with the realities of confronting life with insecure employment.

Labor is serious about renewable energy for Australia, with a plan to get there. We will do the policy work and the hard work in these chambers to make sure the focus is on things that matter to Australians. That's why we should not be supporting what the Greens are proposing here. It's a stunt. It doesn't deal with complex policy realities. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim—just a moment; please resume your seat. Senator Fawcett?

Senator Fawcett: On a point of order: Senator Hume was seeking the call, and the procedure is that the call should pass across the chamber after an opposition speaker.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have the speakers list in front of me, which I appreciate is an informal list. I don't know who jumped first. I was expecting to give the call to Senator McKim, as that is on the list, which, I presume, has been agreed to by senators. Given that I've given him the call, I need to stick by that.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (11:38): Thank you. I move:

That the question now be put.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (11:46): The debate shall now resume, and the speaker on the list is Senator Hume.

Senator HUME (Victoria) (11:47): I rise today to speak on the private senator's bill submitted for consideration by this chamber by our former parliamentary colleague from Queensland, Senator Larissa Waters. Before I begin speaking on the specifics of this bill, I would like to make a comment on the behaviour of senators in this chamber this morning. Senator McKim—who, as we all know, is forever trapped in a first-year-arts-student mentality—normally plays his cards disingenuously, but today—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senators, if you are not participating in this debate, please resume your seats or leave the chamber. Senator Hume has the right to be heard in silence.

Senator HUME: As I said, Senator McKim is a man normally trapped forever in a first-year-arts-student mentality. We are used to him playing his cards most disingenuously. However, today I think that he has gone to new lows; he has sunk to new depths. His treatment of Senator O'Sullivan was nothing short of appalling. And then shutting down the debate in this chamber—the place that is supposed to be a contest of ideas—was nothing less than disgraceful. I can't understand what it is that Senator McKim is frightened of. This is a debate worth having. And you, Senator McKim, are a representative of a party that apparently upholds the virtues of freedom of speech and yet at the same time shuts down debate in the place where the contest of ideas should occur. I cannot understand what it is that you fear so much about this—

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

Senator HUME: Thank you, Madam Deputy President; you are absolutely right, and through you: I can't believe how appalling the behaviour of Senator McKim has been in this debate. If you want, Madam Deputy President, to look at the face of the totalitarian left, look no further than Senator McKim's appalling behaviour today as he shut down the debate in this chamber. Quite frankly, I can't understand how he doesn't get altitude sickness, because the air is thin up there on the moral high ground.

In the unfortunate absence of former Senator Waters from the Senate, her few remaining colleagues in the Australian Greens have attempted today to ram home a radical environmental agenda to stop Adani. In the face of overwhelming support for the Adani project from almost all stakeholders, I remain aghast that the Australian Greens could continue to pander to their well-to-do constituencies in the inner cities, for whom increased power prices and jobs in regional areas are simply not a concern. Once again, I'm terribly disappointed that the Australian Greens would so coldly and so callously ignore the pursuit of sensible energy policy for the sake of political pointscoring, to sandbag their electoral support from the armchair environmental warriors of the inner cities.

It is mind-boggling to me—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, please resume your seat. The time for this debate has now expired. You will be in continuation, Senator Hume.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (11:53): I present the 12th report of 2017 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 12 OF 2017

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 18 October 2017 at 7.17 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 November 2017 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2017 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2017

Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017

Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017

Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument Making) Bill 2017

Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017

Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017 ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 6) Bill 2017.

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

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Regional Australia) Bill 2017

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2017

Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017

Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage) Bill 2017

Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017

Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017

Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017

Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2017

Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Funds) Bill 2017 Migration (Skilling Australians Funds) Charges Bill 2017

National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits – Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (Voluntary Opt-out) Bill 2017

Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017

5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:

Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017

Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017

(David Bushby) Chair

19 October 2017

APPENDIX 1

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Whether it is in Australia's national interest for Australia to have a maritime industry;

What regulatory settings are appropriate to support coastal shipping as the base of a maritime industry;

Whether Australia should throw open its coast in a manner not matched by comparable developed nations;

Economic factors arising from throwing open the Australian coast;

Environmental factors from throwing open the Australian coast (including possible Reef impacts);

National security factors from throwing open the coast;

Australian maritime skills and workforce impacts from throwing open the coast;

The role of regulation in an overall package to support revitalising Australian shipping;

Whether Australian goods should be carried unfettered around the Australian coast by foreign ships paying third world wages (Workchoices on Water);

Effects on other freight modes from paying third world wages in coastal trading.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of Infrastructure and Transport;

Shippers;

Bulk industries;

Maritime Industry Australia Ltd (MIAL) — the peak body that represents Australian-based shipping operators and other Australian-based maritime businesses;

Maritime training organisations;

Shipbuilders;

Maritime unions;

Competing freight modes,

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Rural Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee.

Possible reporting date:

9 February 2018.

APPENDIX 2

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Bill requires further scrutiny

Possible submissions or evidence from:

National Shelter, State and Territory Tenants' Unions, ACOSS, State and Territory housing authorities, National Affordable Housing Providers Inc., Community Housing Industry Association, PowerHousing, Department of Social Services.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

27 November 2017

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Effect on income support recipients

Possible submissions or evidence from:

ACOSS, National Social Security Rights Network, National Shelter, Anglicare Australia, UnitingCare Australia, Catholic Social Services

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Committee Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

Feb 2018

APPENDIX 3

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To review and seek advice on the suitability of the implementation details surround a new legislative and regulatory regime and its interplay with other executive conduct regulatory regime.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

AICD

COBA, ABA, individual financial institutions

Choice

Treasury, APRA and ASIC

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

24 November 2017

Senator BUSHBY: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (11:53): I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 November 2017".

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:54): I need your direction, Madam Deputy President. I have circulated an amendment on the Selection of Bills Committee report in the chamber as well. It deals with a similar bill. I don't know now whether my amendment is an amendment to Senator Fifield's amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think what would be helpful at this stage, Senator Gallagher, is for you to move an amendment to the date amendment that Senator Fifield has dealt with, and then we can deal with your second bill, which is listed at (1).

Senator GALLAGHER: Thank you. I move an amendment to Senator Fifield's amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

(1) but, in respect of the provisions of the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report by 4 December 2017;

(2) and, in respect of the provisions of Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017, the provisions be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 February 2018.

The reporting date is the only change to Senator Fifield's amendment. We don't believe that, considering the legislative workload for the rest of the year, it's reasonable to expect, for a bill which we haven't seen, which we have only read about in the paper, that an inquiry and a report be done in essentially the next two weeks. I think it's entirely reasonable for a bill on this matter—on which, I imagine, based on the reports we read in the newspaper, there will be disputed views—to have a reasonable time frame. The reason it is February is more that we don't sit in January. We're not trying to unreasonably delay, but we believe that it is reasonable for the committee to have time to take submissions, to have hearings and to report back to the Senate in an orderly way.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (11:56): Can I ask that the dates in relation to the coastal trading amendment bill and the Fair Work laws amendment bill be dealt with separately rather than together? I intend to vote different ways on them.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. We're just dealing with Fair Work, but thank you for the clarity.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher to amend the reporting date on the Fair Work laws amendment bill be agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:04): The question now is the amendment as proposed by Senator Fifield to amend the reporting date of the Fair Work Laws amendment bill to 10 November.

Question agreed to.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:04): I now move the first section of the amendment that has been circulated in my name:

That the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 December 2017.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:09): I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated into the Hansard

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill amends the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to improve Australia's personal insolvency regime.

It will reduce the default period of bankruptcy from three years to one year but will preserve a trustee's ability to extend the period of bankruptcy in cases of misconduct.

Our current personal insolvency laws put too much focus on stigmatising and penalising failure. As part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, this reform aims to promote entrepreneurship and innovation and to reduce the stigma associated with bankruptcy.

This reform is designed to foster entrepreneurial activity by reducing the negative effects that harsh bankruptcy laws may have on prospective entrepreneurs. Further, a reduced bankruptcy term will decrease stigma associated with entering into bankruptcy by recognising the importance of giving bankrupts a 'fresh start'. This will encourage entrepreneurs to re-engage in business sooner and encourage people, who have previously been deterred by punitive bankruptcy laws, to pursue their own business ventures.

The amendments in Part 1 of this Bill will mean that current restrictions associated with bankruptcy will automatically reduce from three years to one year so that upon discharge a former bankrupt may:

travel overseas without trustee permission

apply for credit over the prescribed amount without obligation to actively disclose their bankruptcy, and

enter into certain professions or positions, for example, becoming a company director.

One year is sufficient time for the administration of the vast majority of bankruptcies. Currently, where more time is required, a trustee can continue to administer a bankruptcy after discharge. This may occur for various reasons, including: ongoing investigations, assets to be realised, outstanding income contributions, and incomplete distribution of funds. This safeguard will continue to operate to ensure trustees can properly administer a bankruptcy even after a bankrupt's one year discharge.

Currently bankrupts are obligated to pay income contributions until discharge where their income exceeds the prescribed threshold. Part 1 of the Bill contains measures that extend income contribution obligations for discharged bankrupts for a minimum period of two years following discharge or, in the event that a bankruptcy is extended due to non-compliance, for

five to eight years. This will ensure high income earners do not abuse bankruptcy laws by reducing their income for a year, hiding their assets and incurring excessive debt.

The amendments in Part 2 of this Bill relate to the application and transitional arrangements. Commencement of these new provisions will occur six months after Royal Assent to allow trustees, debtors and creditors time to adjust to the new laws. It will give trustees time to object to discharge in cases of misconduct.

On the commencement of this reform all bankruptcies, including those on foot, will be discharged if they are over a year old unless they are subject to an objection. This will remove any incentives for individuals to delay petitioning for bankruptcy as all bankruptcies filed after Royal Assent will only run for one year.

Broadly, this reform encourages Australians to take reasonable educated risks, to leave behind the fear of failure and be more innovative and ambitious.

Owners of small businesses in Australia often need to secure business loans with their personal assets or provide personal guarantees. This blurs the distinction between personal and business liability, but it is the reality for many Australians

contemplating starting or building a business or any enterprise. The current bankruptcy regime deters entrepreneurs from taking risk for fear of failure where the consequences include being locked out of one's profession, being barred from overseas travel, or identifying as a bankrupt for a period of three years. The 2015 Productivity Commission Report on Business Set-Up, Transfer and Closure also suggests that more forgiving personal bankruptcy laws encourage entrepreneurial activity. Reducing the default period of bankruptcy to one year supports this.

More often than not, entrepreneurs will fail several times before they experience success and will generally learn valuable lessons during the process. Helping these entrepreneurs to succeed requires a cultural shift. We need to provide the opportunity for a fresh start as soon as possible.

Reducing the default period of bankruptcy to one year will decrease the stigma of failure and encourage a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:14): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 544 standing in my name for today, relating to the establishment of a Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers, in the terms circulated in the chamber.

Leave granted.

Senator WATT: I move the motion as amended:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers, be established to inquire into and report on the impact of technological and other change on the future of work and workers in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the future earnings, job security, employment status and working patterns of Australians;

(b) the different impact of that change on Australians, particularly on regional Australians, depending on their demographic and geographic characteristics;

(c) the wider effects of that change on inequality, the economy, government and society;

(d) the adequacy of Australia's laws, including industrial relations laws and regulations, policies and institutions to prepare Australians for that change;

(e) international efforts to address that change; and

(f) any related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report on or before the first sitting Thursday in June 2018.

(3) That the committee consist of six senators, as follows:

(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(c) one nominated by minor party and independent senators; and

(d) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and

(4) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; and

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and as deputy chair the member nominated by minor party and independent senators.

(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(9) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate.

(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:14): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government does not support the establishment of this committee, which is nothing better than an attempt to circumvent established Senate processes. The Senate Education and Employment References Committee is not currently undertaking any inquiries, meaning a new select committee is entirely unnecessary.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:18): The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:18): by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Education and Employment References Committee—

Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Ketter to replace Senator Bilyk until 31 December 2017

Participating member: Senator Bilyk

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—

Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Carr to replace Senator Urquhart on Tuesday, 24 October 2017 between 8 and 9 am

Participating member: Senator Urquhart

Question agreed to.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:19): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:19): I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (HOUSING TAX INTEGRITY) BILL 2017

Housing is fundamental to the wellbeing of all Australians and is a driver of social and economic participation, promoting better employment, education and health outcomes.

To support Australian households, the Government has designed a comprehensive package of measures which includes assisting first home buyers, increasing the supply of affordable housing and reforms to housing-related payments to the States and Territories.

The Government is ensuring home ownership is more achievable for Australians, and that they have access to secure and affordable housing, while continuing to strengthen the integrity of Australia's tax system.

This Bill implements measures announced in the Government's 2017-18 Budget Housing Affordability package to both improve the integrity of the tax system and increase the supply of rental accommodation.

The first two Schedules of this Bill deliver on the Government's commitment to reduce pressure on housing affordability by better targeting deductions relating to residential investment properties.

Travel related to use of residential premises

Schedule 1 to this Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to disallow deductions for travel costs relating to residential investment properties.

The existing law allows deductions for travel relating to income produced or gained from residential investment properties. When a property is used for a mixed purpose, such as a holiday home and rental; or where the travel is for a mixed purpose, such as travelling to maintain an investment property and go on a family holiday; travel expenses need to be split between income-producing and private purposes.

The problem is there has been widespread abuse around excessive travel expense claims relating to residential investment properties.

As a result of these changes, travel costs for individual investors inspecting and maintaining residential investment properties will no longer be deductible.

This will stop residential property investors from using the tax system to pay for their holidays by claiming costs as a rental expense.

However, these changes do not prevent investors from engaging third parties, such as real estate agents, to provide property management services. These expenses will remain deductible.

We have consulted the community and stakeholders in developing this measure. Public consultation on the exposure draft legislation and explanatory material occurred over four weeks.

Some minor technical changes have been made in response to the consultations, to provide clarity to taxpayers.

Disallowing travel related to residential investment properties has an estimated gain to revenue of $540 million over the forward estimates.

The changes will improve the integrity of the tax system by addressing the systemic risk of excessive and incorrect claims for travel expenses associated with residential investment properties.

Limiting depreciation deductions for plant and equipment in residential premises

Schedule 2 to this Bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997to limit deductions for plant and equipment assets used for producing assessable income from residential premises to when the asset was first used for a taxable purpose.

The tax system currently creates opportunities for plant and equipment to be depreciated by multiple owners of a property in excess of its actual value. Plant and equipment items are usually mechanical fixtures or those which can be 'easily' removed from a property such as dishwashers and ceiling fans.

We have seen significant abuse of the tax system with property investors claiming excessive deductions for these items. These changes will improve the integrity of the tax system by better targeting deductions for plant and equipment forming part of residential investment properties.

As a result of the changes in this Bill, investors who purchase new plant and equipment for their residential investment property after 9 May 2017 will still be able to claim a deduction over the effective life of the asset. However, subsequent owners of the property will not be able to claim deductions for that plant and equipment. Instead, acquisitions of existing plant and equipment items will be reflected in the cost base for capital gains tax purposes for subsequent investors.

These changes will not affect capital works depreciation deductions relating to residential property investments.

These changes will apply on a prospective basis, with existing investments grandfathered. Plant and equipment used or installed in residential investment properties as of 9 May 2017, or acquired under contracts already entered into on 9 May 2017, will continue to give rise to deductions for depreciation until either the investor no longer owns the asset, or the asset reaches the end of its effective life.

Again, we have consulted the community and stakeholders in developing this measure. In addition to releasing exposure draft legislation and explanatory material

for a four week consultation, Treasury engaged with key stakeholders including quantity surveyors, accounting organisations and industry representatives.

In particular, this Bill allows investors to claim a deduction for plant and equipment installed in a new residential investment property where the property has been purchased within six months of completion, even if the property has been tenanted.

This means investors who have purchased a newly-built residential investment property are not disadvantaged when no other person has claimed a depreciation deduction.

The change to limit depreciation deductions has an estimated gain to revenue of $260 million over the forward estimates.

Together with the changes to travel deductions, this Bill will improve the integrity of the tax system by better targeting deductions for residential investment properties.

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

FOREIGN ACQUISITIONS AND TAKEOVERS FEES IMPOSITION AMENDMENT (VACANCY FEES) BILL 2017

To support Australian households, the Government has designed a comprehensive package of measures which includes assisting first home buyers, increasing the supply of affordable housing and reforms to housing-related payments to the States and Territories.

The changes contained in this Bill are part of the Government's 2017-18 Budget package to reducing pressure on housing affordability.

This Bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 to implement an annual vacancy charge on foreign owners of residential real estate where property is not occupied or genuinely available on the rental market for at least six months in a 12 month period.

The vacancy charge builds on the Government's existing foreign investment regime which seeks to increase the number of houses available for Australians to live in. The charge provides a financial incentive for the foreign owner to make their property available on the rental market.

The charge payable will be equivalent to the residential application fee that was paid by the foreign person at the time the application to purchase the property was made to the Foreign Investment Review Board.

The vacancy charge applies to foreign persons who make a foreign investment application for residential property from 7:30PM on 9 May 2017. For eligible foreign owners of residential real estate the vacancy charge will be levied on an annual basis.

The annual vacancy charge is expected to result in greater use of foreign-owned properties. Reporting and notification requirements are also expected to provide greater visibility of vacancy rates for foreign-owned properties.

The Australian Taxation Office will administer the vacancy charge.

This Bill represents an important component of the Government's comprehensive plan to reduce pressure on housing affordability.

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

Debate adjourned.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:20): I'm a co-sponsor of this disallowance motion. Before I start, I would like to acknowledge the first peoples of our nation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and acknowledge that they are the first peoples of these lands and waters and that the Australian Greens recognise that 26 January is a day of mourning for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This land was never ceded. We acknowledge that the issues around sovereignty and treaty have never been dealt with in this country, and it is high time that we as a nation acknowledge these issues, that the land was not ceded and that we have a great deal of unfinished business.

The Greens' policy very strongly supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and we strongly support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who are calling for a change to the date of Australia Day. Many Aboriginal people see 26 January, which is currently marked as Australia Day, as in fact Invasion Day. The first Day of Mourning held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples was on 26 January 1938. That was the official day. That was the 150th anniversary, for them, of British invasion. Interestingly, it was only three years earlier that all Australian states and territories commenced using the name Australia Day to mark 26 January, and it was not until 1994 that there was consistently a public holiday on that date.

We will never be truly reconciled as a nation while we put Australia Day on a date that is seen as a day of dispossession and invasion and that Aboriginal people officially claim as a day of mourning. As I said, this date was first marked officially for the Aboriginal community in 1938. In other words, for all those people who think that there is just a group of people that are suddenly trying to change the date because it's fashionable, let me tell you that this has long been marked as a day of invasion for many, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Turnbull government first threatened to ban citizenship ceremonies in Fremantle, in my home state, at the end of last year, when the City of Fremantle rekickstarted an important conversation about cultural inclusivity. This is the same Turnbull government that say that they want to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. They've claimed with their heart on their sleeve several times that they are committed to listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and that they need to follow their lead. Well, I'm sorry; that is not worth the paper it is written on when you consider their response to councils and local government authorities who have listened to their communities, have held discussions and are actually enacting what their local communities have asked them to do. So the government that say, 'We are listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,' is the same government that are now trying to stop citizenship ceremonies being carried out by local governments that do not want to mark Australia Day on 26 January because they have listened to their communities and are aware that many of the members of their communities are in fact concerned about it and also want to celebrate Australia Day on a day that is not the day that Aboriginal people see as the day of dispossession and invasion.

This is a conversation that we need to have. It was kickstarted in 1938 and has been ignored for many years so this is a continuation of a conversation that should have been held by now. Unfortunately it hasn't been. The Australian Greens commended the City of Fremantle for re-engaging in this conversation and for listening to the requests made by local Aboriginal leaders to change the date and put on culturally inclusive celebrations on 28 January. While the City of Fremantle was the first council to take action on the increasingly louder calls to respect those for whom 26 January represents a tragedy, not a celebration, the change in Fremantle was a huge success. Other councils could see the benefits of this and so have been listening to their communities and have been moving towards a day that is more inclusive. The day in Fremantle, 28 January, was a huge success and the City of Fremantle was congratulated by its local community.

The City of Hobart was then the next to start a local conversation with its community about Australia Day in their city. In August this year the City of Yarra, which represents Melbourne's inner north-east, made the unanimous decision to change the way it marks 26 January following months of consultation with the local Aboriginal community and the broader Yarra community. The Turnbull government responded by revoking the council's power to hold citizenship ceremonies at any time of the year. The City of Darebin became the second council to be stripped of its powers to hold citizenship ceremonies after it decided that 26 January was not an appropriate day for an inclusive national celebration. And then it was told that it would no longer be able to hold citizenship ceremonies on 26 January. The Turnbull government's response was the same—again, a government that say they want to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Unfortunately, they are obviously not using their ears to listen, because what was their response? They would stop those local governments that have consulted their communities, that have listened to Aboriginal communities and have responded by saying, 'Yes, we want to mark 26 January in a different way.'

The actions of these two councils helped spark a passionate national conversation about Australia Day, with people on both sides of the issues talking to the media and speaking out. They have also been talking about the role of councils in addressing issues of national importance. This is an issue of national importance and one that affects local communities. Obviously local communities have strong ideas and strong feelings about it and feel that they want to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who are saying, 'Please respect what we are saying. Please respect that this is not a day for celebration for us, that we want an inclusive celebration.'

And I should point out here that people are not objecting to celebrating Australia Day and celebrating this fabulous country. What they're objecting to is celebrating it on a day which Aboriginal people call and see as a day of mourning, a day of dispossession. I would like to note here the comment I started my contribution with, and that is: we have unresolved business, unfinished business, in this country. So not only have we not dealt with this unfinished business, but we add insult to injury by celebrating this great country on a day that constantly reminds Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of their dispossession and of that unfinished business—of the fact that we are not a reconciled nation.

The councils that have had the courage to take these actions have shown leadership by acting on their convictions and having celebrations that ensure that their communities are more inclusive and respectful communities that truly want to be inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is unfortunate that they have been treated with contempt by this government and had their autonomy over citizenship ceremonies removed. Councils have shown leadership in moving away from celebrating our nation on 26 January. They should not be punished by having their ability to hold citizenship ceremonies taken away. As the mayor of Darebin council, Councillor Kim Le Cerf, said:

Darebin Council hosts large, lively and joyous citizenship ceremonies all year round and we very much wish to continue doing so, just not on January 26.

So here we have a council that celebrates citizenship that, as they said, holds joyous, lively citizenship ceremonies. They also want to celebrate this great country. They want to celebrate the inclusive nature of this country. But they don't want to do it on a day that hurts many of their community members. This decision disadvantages new residents waiting to become citizens, and it makes no sense, as Councillor Kim Le Cerf said. It does make no sense. It is a punitive, top-down attack on local government—you can see it as nothing else—by a government that has turned its back on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, who have said: 'This is not the appropriate day to be celebrating Australia Day.'

In June this year the National General Assembly of Local Government passed a motion, 64 to 62, that urges all local councils to lobby the federal government on changing the date for Australia Day. In short, this means that just over half of Australia's councils are open to changing the date to be more inclusive. This is not just a few councils; this is over half of the local councils around Australia saying, 'We want to start talking about changing the date of Australia Day.' This is a significant motion to come out of the #NGA17 conference and shows a significant shift by local councils that are aligning themselves with the community view that Australia Day should be for everyone, including our first peoples.

The government needs to wake up to the changing discourse around Australia Day. They need to show some leadership and start leading the discussion on this. They are on the wrong side of history because history will show us that we will move Australia Day. We will! Get on board with this issue. Support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. And it is not only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that are calling for this, of course; other members of the community are doing so. Members of the CALD community have also been speaking to me about this and saying that they feel uncomfortable celebrating this nation then; they are new citizens and they want to be part of an inclusive society but not at the cost to our first peoples.

The government needs to listen to the community. It needs to engage in the conversations that are happening around Australia about the date of Australia Day. That is our clear message to the government: listen to the community. Don't punish those local governments for listening to their community and showing the leadership that the government should be showing in terms of changing the date. Change the date so that we can all participate in celebrating this great nation.

This great nation has been built on inclusiveness. It has been built, supposedly, on listening to all our citizens; yet they're shutting out our first peoples. They're shutting out the peoples whose land they took. They never negotiated a treaty despite having clear instructions to negotiate with the local peoples. They did not do that. They did not ensure that a treaty was negotiated with our first peoples, as, for example, occurred in New Zealand with the Waitangi treaty—which, I very strongly argue, has helped the Maori people in New Zealand address many of the issues that we are yet to address in this country. Having ignored those instructions, having taken this country and dispossessed our first peoples, having failed to negotiate a treaty or treaties and denied Aboriginal people sovereignty ever since, they continue to slight our first peoples by saying, 'We will celebrate this great nation on a day that causes you pain.'

Not only that, we have failed to establish something like a truth and justice commission, as, for example, occurred in South Africa; failed to negotiate treaties; failed—and are failing—to address Aboriginal disadvantage; failed to ensure that our stolen generations have adequate reparations; failed to implement the groundbreaking recommendations from the Bringing them home report; and failed to implement the majority of the 339 recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. At every stage where we needed to make sure we addressed these issues, this nation has failed.

This government is yet to respond to the Referendum Council's report that was delivered to the government at the end of June. They have failed to address the 'Uluru statement from the heart', which is such a passionate statement and which so eloquently sends a clear message to Australia about our unfinished business. All the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that came together at Uluru sent that clear, passionate, eloquent, strong statement to Australians and to this place about the need to address this unfinished business—for example, the need for a makarrata commission to start addressing issues around a treaty, the need for truth telling, and the need for a voice in the Constitution so that they can reflect, to this parliament, on matters of importance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Turnbull government needs to refrain from interfering in local government's business and stopping them holding citizenship ceremonies. It's an outrageous infringement on the right of local councils and local government to hold those ceremonies and the people who wish to become citizens in their communities.

I stand proudly here today to say: we want Australia Day to take place on a day that is not a day of mourning for our first peoples, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples around this country. We want a conversation in our communities around this country so that we can collectively decide on a date where we can celebrate this wonderful country and not marginalise and discriminate against the first nations of this place. We need to ensure that we have a conversation in this place and that we find a day we can truly celebrate this nation that does not cause so much hurt to so many people.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:40): The government opposes the disallowance motion. The Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code provides that citizenship ceremonies are non-commercial, apolitical, bipartisan and secular. They must not be used as forums for political, partisan or religious expression. In August, certain councils passed motions cancelling their Australia Day citizenship ceremonies to protest the practice of holding Australia Day on 26 January. They also endorsed the 'change the date' campaign and defied a warning from the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection that their motion seriously breached the code. Assistant Minister Hawke responded by revoking the councils' authority to preside over citizenship ceremonies. Good!

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (12:41): I move:

That the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson, that the question be now put, be agreed to.

Senator Paterson did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Ludlam.

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

The PRESIDENT (12:47): It now being 12.45, we move to government business. I advise senators that this matter will be called on again later today, after ministerial statements.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (12:48): Dumping, the sale of products on the Australian market below their normal price on a foreign exporter's home market is a major threat to manufacturers in this country. Dumped products are often inferior in quality to local products, and in some cases their export to Australia has the potential to undermine strategically vital industries such as steelmaking and construction.

Labor fully supports the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2017, which closes a loophole that allows overseas exporters to evade Australia's antidumping regime. At present, it is possible for exporters who have had dumping duties imposed to cease exporting or export low volumes at high prices before applying for a review of antidumping measures imposed on them. The 12-month interruption of normal export behaviour makes it difficult for the Anti-Dumping Commission to determine the appropriate export price, and dumping duties can be revised to zero per cent. This effectively clears the slate for the foreign exporter, allowing a resumption of dumping without penalty or restriction for up to 18 months.

This bill was unanimously supported by industry stakeholders who made submissions to the inquiry by the Senate Economics Committee. They included BlueScope Steel, the Manufacturers' Trade Alliance, the Australian Steel Institute and unions with members in manufacturing and construction: the AMWU, the AWU and the CFMEU. BlueScope's submission explained that they have witnessed a surge in the number of requests by Chinese and Taiwanese steel exporters for reviews of antidumping measures. BlueScope said:

It became obvious that a new strategy had been employed by a large number of these exporters to exploit a 'gap' …

The strategy was to withdraw from the Australian market for a year and then request a review with a view to securing a reduced duty. BlueScope surmised:

The outcome of such a strategy was to effectively guarantee a new interim anti-dumping duty of 0%.

The BlueScope submission stated that, in a three-month period, nine of 11 requests for a review of antidumping measures were made by foreign exporters who had ceased exporting to Australia for the 12-month period after duties had been imposed. All these exporters had their interim antidumping duty reduced to zero. As a result, they resumed exporting to Australia immediately.

Within three months of the minister's ruling, exports from China had increased by 300 per cent, with a price drop of 15 per cent. The exporters were therefore able to resume dumping products on the Australian market for 18 months. That is because affected local industries cannot apply for a review until a 12-month interval has passed, and it takes up to six months for a review to be completed.

This bill aims to eliminate this evasive tactic by foreign exporters. It sets out new methodologies to be used by the Anti-Dumping Commission in determining an export price when no goods have been exported or goods have been exported at low volumes. The changes are administrative. There is no substantial alteration to existing policy. The new review process will, however, allow the Anti-Dumping Commission to be more vigilant in blocking unfair trade practices that harm Australian industry. Labor is pleased that the government has heeded the concerns of affected local industries and their employees. We will therefore wholeheartedly support this bill.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (12:52): I too, on behalf of my colleagues, support the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2017. This bill will improve our antidumping regime, but for too long our antidumping regime has been too weak in this country. We have not ensured that Australian industry can compete on a level playing field with those countries that dump goods on our shores. The dumping and, in effect, foreign government subsidisation of goods exported to Australia hurt Australian manufacturers, producers and jobs, and we must do everything we can to stop it.

There are opportunistic and predatory exporters who dump such goods and who look for weak international targets that don't enforce their WTO rights. For too long, Australia has been seen as a soft target for those who want to dump goods on our shores. We've been seen as a soft touch for predatory practices and, in effect, an easy dumping ground for those who seek to bend and break WTO rules. So I support this bill.

The administrative measures that Senator Collins referred to are welcome. The government is doing the right thing in terms of these measures, but there are other things that need to be done, and I want to put that on the public record. Initiating and prosecuting an antidumping claim can be arduous and expensive. That's why there ought to be an independent advocacy and advisory service, similar to the previous International Trade Remedies Advisory Service, to assist those small and medium enterprises to determine whether a prima facie case of dumping and countervailing subsidies or duty circumvention exists and to help them prepare those applications.

There was a case I was involved in some time ago, advocating for a small Australian business with about 30 employees. They were quoted a million dollars in legal fees to run an antidumping case. That's why we need to have that service to help those small manufacturers and those small and medium enterprises to prepare these complex applications.

The current application process to complain about dumping has been criticised as extremely complex, expensive and bureaucratic by those in industry that I have spoken to. We need to adopt a simplified application process for SMEs. That is essential. The European Commission's approach would still satisfy the need to be WTO compliant but would reduce the burden on the Australian industry applicant to ensure that we don't have extraneous and irrelevant information, that we get to the core of the issues in terms of a dumping claim.

The shift to a European Commission inquisitorial style process would see the commissioner drawing out the relevant merits of the case without placing a blanket burden on Australian businesses. That is why we need to do that. We need to make is simpler for Australian businesses because they're up against these companies that dump these goods. Sometimes it costs them an absolute fortune in terms of legal fees. But what it costs them in terms of the impact it has on their businesses can be disastrous. We need to have an increased focus on countervailable subsidy investigations, and the Anti-Dumping Commission needs the resources to do that. As Australia has become more effective in investigating the dumping of imported goods causing material injury to Australian producers, the role of countervailable subsidies has continued to grow; and that's one way of circumventing the antidumping regimes.

Consistent with the recommendations of the 2012 Brumby review into antidumping arrangements, the Anti-Dumping Commissioner needs to further address the shortage of staff with appropriate skill sets to execute his functions. The increased use of independent non-government experts, especially during exporter verification visits, needs to be implemented as a matter of urgency; and the power to collect any shortfall in duty payable needs to be addressed immediately. The current optional duty assessment process encourages exporters and importers to continue to trade in dumped goods—in some cases, by a greater magnitude of dumping—with no risk of back-capture of underpaid duties. These are the issues we need to deal with. This bill is welcome but we need to go much further. We can be WTO compliant but ensure Australian industry has a fighting chance—and, with that, save many thousands of Australian jobs.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (12:57): Businesses fail. New businesses start up. Customers end up getting more of what they want. And workers, whose wages never prosper in a failing business, end up working in better jobs, more often than not. It's called free market capitalism. It's not perfect but there's nothing better. And it's the proven recipe for improving the welfare of Australians. Governments should be the guardians of free market capitalism. So when a failing business complains to government that competitors are selling products at a cheaper price, the government response that best serves the Australian people is to do nothing. For instance, suppose an Australian business facing competition can't cut its costs and the workers involved won't accept a lower wage to keep the business afloat—presumably because they think they can get a better-paying job else where. In this case, the business should close and those workers should take those better-paying jobs they think are available elsewhere. This is in the interests of both workers and consumers.

However, this government is not a guardian of capitalism and is not looking after the welfare of Australians. It responds to complaints by failing businesses by putting up prices for Australians. That is what the bill before us today, the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2017, seeks to do. It gives the minister more options to increase tariffs under antidumping law. Under antidumping law, the minister imposes tariffs on certain goods from certain importers. The lower the importer's prices in Australia compared to the country of origin, after accounting for transport costs, the greater the rate of tariff imposed. This is a ridiculous approach. Competition in Australia might be greater than in the country of origin such that lower prices in Australia is what we would expect and want. To calculate the tariff, the minister first declares the importer's price in Australia to be the observed price during a particular reference period or, if the information on this price is insufficient, whatever price the minister chooses. With this bill the government wants to change this arrangement. The bill would allow the minister in certain circumstances to deem the importer's price in Australia to be different from the observed price. So, essentially, if there is no case for claiming that dumping is occurring, the minister can invent a case.

This is a step from the ridiculous to the outrageous. If an importer's prices in Australia are observable, the minister should not be allowed to make up different, lower prices just so the minister can sustain the victim complex of those who bleat about dumping to maximise the tariff and to drive up prices.

There are few Liberal senators in the chamber at the moment, but most will be listening on their televisions in their offices nearby. I ask them: when will you stop in this place the daily flow of socialist, rather than capitalist, legislation slowly squeezing the prosperity out of this country? If it is not soon, comrades, we may as well rename the country the Democratic People's Republic of Australia.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:01): I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Sullivan ) (13:01): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (13:02): Labor will be supporting this bill, which will allow Wine Australia to administer two funds created as part of the wine equalisation tax rebate reforms. Firstly, $50 million will be allocated to an export and regional wine support package, and $10 million will be allocated to a wine tourism and cellar door grant program. Labor believes that these will be helpful schemes if they are well designed and money is allocated on a merits basis. We will be watching this particular issue closely. This government has demonstrated a preference for both pork-barrelling in coalition held seats and less-than-optimal programs designed more to win votes than to grow regional economies.

While we support the bill, we are critical of how we arrived here. Reform of the WET rebate was long overdue. The system was being rorted by bulk and unbranded operators and creative entity-structuring. Unfortunately, the Turnbull government attempted to turn reform into a revenue grab at the expense of our wine producers. Indeed, the government planned to raise $300 million from the first reform proposal it put forward. Following significant industry backlash and expressions of concern from Labor, the government backed down and went back to the drawing board. However, the government still plans to be $140 million better off as a result of the reforms and the implementation of this industry support package. There is no case for this. Those doing the right thing should not be made to pay for the crimes of others. Still dealing with an unhappy wine sector, the government offered the package before us today as compensation. It has been a messy process: it didn't need to be so hard, the outcome is probably less than optimal and Labor looks forward to working with all stakeholders to ensure that the $60 million we are approving today is money well spent.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:04): I thank Senator Collins for her contribution and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Sullivan ) (13:05): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (13:06): Labor is in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 6) Bill 2017. The bill contains two schedules, one to prevent double taxation of cryptocurrencies and the other to provide listing of deductible gift recipient status in tax legislation. Schedule 1 to the bill amends A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999, the GST act, to ensure that supplies of digital currency receive equivalent goods and services tax treatment to the supplies of money, particularly foreign currency.

This measure was announced in the government's 2017-18 budget under the policy banner, 'GST—removing the double taxation of digital currency'. The government argues that the measure is in keeping with the principles of ensuring double taxation does not occur in the tax system. As the bill's explanatory memorandum details:

Supplies of money receive special treatment under the GST law. Generally, a supply of money is not a supply … This means that entities paying consideration in money are not liable for GST on the supply of the money. Money is treated in this way because it is generally considered purely a medium of exchange that is not consumed and is therefore not subject to GST which seeks to effectively apply tax to final private consumption.

… However, a supply of money is a supply if it is provided as consideration for another supply of money. In cases where one entity is paying another entity for money, the money is not being used exclusively as a medium of exchange to purchase goods, services or property – a valuable service is being provided (for example, activities involving the exchange of money for other money such as debt trading and foreign currency speculation are carried on for profit).

Labor appreciated the Treasury briefing given in relation to this measure. In that briefing Treasury provided guidance on how this measure does not have any wider ramifications for currency in other areas of the law and, importantly, provided assurances that this does not undermine state-issued fiat currencies.

The drafting of the legislation has taken a conservative, or plain vanilla, principles based approach to the drafting. This is designed to prevent new loopholes or hybrid products. They cannot be created to exploit the GST-exempt status of digital currencies. Comparable nations, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, do not apply value-added taxes to digital currencies, and the European Union has ruled that bitcoin is exempt from the VAT. This bill aligns the treatment with those comparable nations.

The measure has support from legal and tax professionals and from the fintech sector. States and territories have been consulted on the reform, and they have agreed to it. The measure's origins can be traced back to both the Senate Economics References Committee and the Productivity Commission in separate inquiries in 2015. Both recommended the measure.

Concerns about the use of digital currencies for criminal activity and money laundering are addressed in anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing reforms, according to Treasury. The size of the digital currency market in Australia is unquantifiable, in part because it is inhibited by double taxation.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include the Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation, or CERI, on the list of deductible gift recipients. This allows members of the public to make a tax-deductible donation to CERI. CERI is located in Nedlands in Western Australia, near the University of Western Australia, and is in the federal electorate of Curtin. It was established in 2015 and initially funded by iron ore miner, Charlie Bass. CERI is registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. Having deductible gift recipient status ensures that gifts of $2 or more to the organisation will be tax deductible. The amendments apply to gifts made to CERI after 1 January 2017 and before 31 December 2021.

There are two ways an organisation can become a DGR—a deductible gift recipient—either to have DGR endorsement by the tax office or to be listed by name in tax law. Listing organisations in tax law is common and uncontroversial, such as in Labor's Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. Labor will continue to support sensible measures brought forward to parliament and we will be supporting this bill.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:11): Thank you to Senator Collins for her contribution. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Sullivan ) (13:11): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (13:12): The Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 update the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Labor supports the bills because they support the agreement. The updates will actually improve the operations of that agreement.

Together, the bills will introduce new rules of origin for goods imported from Singapore; they will introduce a new procedure to claim preferential tariff treatment for goods that originate in Singapore; they will extend record-keeping obligations; and they will provide for excise equivalent rates of duty on some alcohol, tobacco, fuel and petroleum products.

The updated agreement also restricts the applications of the investor-state dispute settlement and litigation. The ISDS provisions will no longer apply to regulations protecting public welfare—including health and the environment; Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; the Medicare Benefits Schedule; the Therapeutic Goods Administration; and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator—or to measures affecting creative arts and cultural heritage, including Indigenous cultural expression. It also includes Australian foreign investment policy, including decisions of the Foreign Investment Review Board.

All of these are changes that are definite improvements. However, I want to make it clear that Labor remains fundamentally opposed to ISDS provisions in trade agreements. We support the bill now before the Senate because the ISDS provisions were already part of the free trade agreement with Singapore, and the legislation winds back those provisions. Labor would have preferred that these provisions be removed in their entirety. They should not be included in any trade agreements that Australia negotiates in the future. Investor-state dispute settlement is an infringement of our national sovereignty. Sovereign governments should be able to legislate in the national interest; their ability to do so should not be constrained by litigious companies or groups.

There are well-known examples of how ISDS provisions are being used for pernicious reasons by commercial interests. We could take the examples of Philip Morris, the global tobacco company, taking action against Australia over the plain-packaging laws; the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis suing the Colombian government because it plans to reduce the price of leukaemia treatment; Lone Pine, the US mining company, suing the Canadian government over the environmental regulation of gas mining; or Veolia, the French utilities company, suing the Egyptian government over a contract that grants workers a pay rise. All of these are examples of what has, I think legitimately, been described as globalisation gone mad.

The aim of ISDS litigation is to make public policy makers defer to the interests of corporations that seek profit over public interest. That is why, at the last election, Labor declared that, in government, we would not sign agreements that included ISDS provisions and we would seek to remove those provisions from existing trade agreements.

There is another part of the updating of the agreement that Labor also opposes which is not in the bill before us. This government has removed the labour market testing for suppliers for contractual services. It has also removed the requirement from the free trade agreements in regard to China, South Korea and Japan. My colleague the member for Blaxland said during the debate on these bills in the other place:

This is the sort of stuff that makes Australians angry—

and legitimately so. Why should a company that wants to bring an electrician or a mechanic from overseas not have to check whether or not there is an Australian who can actually do that job? What's wrong with having to undertake that test? It is a simple proposition.

The Prime Minister has failed to live up to his rhetoric on this issue, and earlier this year he said:

… if a job is able to be done by an Australian it should be done by an Australian.

The Prime Minister also said:

… every nation is entitled to take that point of view and we certainly do.

Now, at a time when unemployment is higher than 10 per cent in some parts of the country and when youth unemployment is twice that, we have to make sure that local workers get the first chance to obtain a job. The government indicated that it would do this when it stated that labour market testing would be mandatory for all temporary skill shortage visa applications. But apparently it doesn't apply this principle when we're dealing with free trade agreements. We regard that as a sellout of Australian workers' interests.

Finally, Labor also notes with concern that there has been no independent economic modelling of this updated agreement. Australia's trade agreements should be transparent in their operations. The benefits claimed for them should be testable, and, again, that doesn't seem to have worried the government in its presentation of this update. And that's certainly not the way in which a Shorten Labor government would handle these matters. Subject to these reservations about aspects of this agreement, Labor will support these bills.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:18): I rise to speak to this piece of legislation as well. To be very clear and on the record: the Greens do not support this trade amendment legislation. We are concerned that the inclusion of things like ISDS clauses only serve to weaken Australia's ability to ensure that we—our nation; our parliament—can set rules for ourselves and for the people that we represent. We need to be able to do that without fear of being sued by foreign companies. These clauses, of course, have been effectively copied, slab by slab, from the clauses in the TPP, and, even though that trade arrangement has been put in the dustbin after the election of Donald Trump in the US, the fact that many of those clauses have simply been carbon-copied into other trade arrangements is very, very concerning. It sets a dangerous precedent for how we negotiate trade agreements going forward and what type of bar Australia is willing to set when we negotiate what we should be trading off in these negotiations.

Of course, Australia is a trading country. We always have been and always will be. The debate needs to be about whether it's good trade or not. We always hear that it's about free trade. Well, it's not that free when you start signing your government up to clauses which stop us from being able to implement laws and make changes because we're worried that a foreign company might have the right to sue. Countries right around the world are becoming more and more suss in relation to the ISDS clauses that are creeping into trade arrangements, and Australia should be learning from those concerns and from those mistakes. We should stop signing up to agreements that effectively gag democracy in this country and that stop the Australian people from being able to demand action from government and changes to laws which foreign companies can then argue are retrospective changes that might impact on their profit margins. If Australia is going to enter into negotiations, we also need to be able to have the right to implement our own laws and changes as called upon by the Australian community, the people that in this place we are meant to be representing and acting in the best interests of.

Of course, again we have seen a trade arrangement with these amendments negotiated in secret away from elements of transparency. As Senator Carr has pointed out, there hasn't been any independent economic modelling, so we are asked to simply trust that the government has got this right. I for one have very little faith that this government has considered the economic impact on everyday Australians, and future Australians, from these deals. If there isn't anything to hide, why not do it in the open, with full transparency, and allow the Australian people and businesses to see exactly what has been negotiated and what has been traded off? The lack of transparency in these trade negotiations continues to be a huge concern for the Australian Greens and many, many other Australians. We are asked just to give blind trust. Under this government—indeed, under any government, but under this government in particular—blind trust is not a smart or a wise thing to give.

We know, of course, that in this arrangement and the amendments put into the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a trading off of the rights of local workers. The weakening of protection for local market testing is a huge concern, and we've heard from Senator Carr in relation to this already this morning. I am disappointed that Labor are prepared to stand here and list all these things that they're not happy about in relation to this trade agreement but then they're going to sit here and flick it through. They pay lip service to this issue time and time again.

Australia has to be engaged with the rest of the world. We, of course, are going to continue to be a trading nation. Let's do it properly. Let's do it right. Let's make sure it's good trade, not bad trade. Let's make sure we have full transparency and the faith of the Australian community and the international community as we go forward with this. Giving more power to corporations through ISDS clauses that allow them to sue Australia and other countries because they don't like decisions that democratic governments make is a bad idea. That isn't free trade; that's bad trade. We're simply signing ourselves up to a list of obligations and clauses that gag democracy into the future. It's a silly and tricky way of arguing that you've done something right for the economic prosperity of the nation, when actually you've just signed a blank cheque. We will always stand in opposition to trade agreements that include these insidious, undemocratic and dangerous ISDS clauses. We believe that, at a time when we know there is a problem of exploitation of vulnerable foreign workers in Australia—we've seen it in the mining industry; we've seen it in other industries—we shouldn't be weakening the protection for foreign workers in Australia, and we shouldn't be weakening the elements of local labour testing either.

These are regressive amendments in this bill. They're not going to help Australia strengthen our position. Of course trade agreements are going to have to be updated and amended from time to time. The Singapore-Australia agreement entered into force in 2003—of course it's time to update it, but let's make sure it gets better, not worse. This amendment weakens Australia's position. It lowers the bar which we are prepared to accept in future negotiations with other countries and other trading partners and sets a very dangerous precedent for insidious, undemocratic clauses, like ISDSs, that will be used as the way forward for future arrangements.

The Greens will be voting against this. We're very disappointed that the Labor Party have again fallen foul and are simply rolling over with the government on this. They say they've got concerns, but, when it comes to crunch time, they fail to stand up.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:26): I have the good fortune to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and, like the other treaties which come before this chamber, this treaty was referred to that committee. I want to speak a little bit about some of the issues that opposition members of that committee encountered in examining the treaty as brought to it by the government. Before I do that, I make this observation: treaty making is the prerogative of the executive. The parliament has an incredibly important role in scrutinising that process and in providing feedback to the government about how it ought to proceed in relation to that process, but, fundamentally, the decision to interact with our international partners does lie with the government. I listened to Senator Hanson-Young and her remarks about Labor's approach, but, if we are concerned about the contents of the bills before us, the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017, and about the nature of the treaty that has been concluded, we need to be very clear who is responsible for this. It is the government of the day.

The Labor Party have been very clear over many years that we are deeply opposed to the investor-state dispute settlement process that, unfortunately, has become a feature of many of the treaties concluded by this government. I reiterate the observation that's been made in this chamber on many occasions by many different Labor senators: when John Howard was Prime Minister, Prime Minister Howard elected not to include such a mechanism in the treaty that he concluded with the United States. This man, whom conservatives point to always as the gold standard and the guiding light for their politics, concluded a treaty with the United States and sought to more closely link the economy of the United States with our own, but he didn't think that an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism was necessary.

We object to these mechanisms for a range of reasons, including the lack of transparency associated with the processes of dispute management, the role of arbitration and the conflicted nature of many of the arbitrators.

We also fundamentally object to the imposition of sovereignty. For people who may not be deeply familiar with this somewhat intricate aspect of international treaty making, what an investor-state dispute settlement process does is allocate decision-making powers in relation to national policy on economic questions to a third party—not a third party associated with us, not a third party under the control of the Australian government and not even a third party able to be influenced by the Australian government. The very great risk, when you do that, is that you lose control of the ability to make sensible decisions that are in the economic interests of Australia.

Once again, in the additional comments that we issued in this report that was presented by JSCOT, we said that we remained concerned that, in this instance, the ISDS provisions within this trade agreement leave Australia vulnerable to lengthy disputes with foreign-owned corporations. Our concern is that that situation could have a chilling effect on governments who seek to pursue legitimate public policy goals like our decision—our world-leading decision—to insist upon plain packaging for cigarettes, a decision that was challenged under a trade agreement. We remain concerned that the ability of investors, big businesses and multinational corporations to take their concerns out of the political domain in Australia and into a private, closed arbitration session presents very great risks to our national sovereignty.

This was perhaps the most significant concern expressed in the submissions received by the committee, and there's a very strong feeling out there in the community about it. The community doesn't accept that we ought to abrogate our responsibilities in relation to public policy and hand them off to private arbitrators. The community doesn't accept that at all. When we are in government, should we have the privilege of forming a government, we will not be signing treaties and coming to arrangements that include investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

The committee also expressed concerns—and Labor committee members in particular were concerned—about the lack of transparency and independent analysis of this treaty. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have confirmed that trade agreements are only modelled by the department if they're instructed to do so by the government of the day. Fair enough; that's their job—to serve the government of the day. But, in this treaty, like so many, they were not required to actually model the economic benefits of the treaty. The economic benefits of this agreement have not been assessed. There is no information available to us.

This isn't a new criticism. Like many of the things I've mentioned so far, this is something parliamentarians have been saying for some time. Many parliamentary inquiries have recommended that trade agreements require independent economic analysis. I'll take back you to JSCOT, back in November last year, when the full committee recommended:

… that the Australian Government consider implementing a process through which independent modelling and analysis of a proposed trade agreement is undertaken by the Productivity Commission, or equivalent organisation, and provided to the Committee alongside the National Interest Assessment (NIA) to improve assessment of the agreement.

It's a pretty sensible recommendation. We have a committee that's been established to examine trade agreements and treaties more generally. Shouldn't that parliamentary committee, which comprises members of the House of Representatives and senators, have some ability to examine the actual economic benefits of these agreements? I make this point: when we do get an analysis, very frequently the benefits that are claimed are minuscule, and they are benefits that are, arguably, lost in the noise of the general fluctuations in the Australian economy. When a result comes back that says we're going to give up a great deal and experience great disruption in the Australian economy for very small benefits overall, it's reasonable to ask questions. Have we got the best deal? Should we be locking ourselves into it? But we're not able to do that—not in any meaningful way—because, in this instance, like so many others, information about the economic impacts was not provided to the inquiry.

I also want to speak about the removal of labour market testing. People will recall that, when we considered the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Labor Party was attacked viciously by the government for our insistence that labour market testing be a continuing feature of the way we approach these agreements. In fact, our approach is broader than that: we generally don't believe that free trade agreements ought to encroach upon areas of immigration. Questions of immigration and questions of immigration for the purposes of bolstering our labour market aren't questions to be dealt with through trade agreements. Population policy is significantly broader than that. It impacts on Australia in a range of ways and it ought to be considered in a holistic way, not just traded off in a free trade process. In this specific example, we are deeply puzzled by the government's decision to proceed in this way, given its own acknowledgement that the 457 visa system needs reform. So this particular update, in fact, actively undermines Australia's migrant visa program by failing to apply labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. In practical terms, what that means is that jobs in Australia will be able to be filled by workers from Singapore without being offered to Australians first.

Let's think about the context for that. We know that the official unemployment figures are running okay, but underemployment in Australia is at a record high. Underemployment means that there are many Australians who are working a little bit and don't count as unemployed in the labour market statistics, but they're not working enough. They want more hours, and almost certainly they'd like those hours to be more secure. There are plenty of Australians looking for more hours, but we are presented with a treaty that says that if you wish to bring in contractual service suppliers from Singapore then you don't need to undertake any assessment whatsoever of whether there are Australians who could undertake that work.

I completely recognise that foreign workers are vital to the success of our economy. We benefit a great deal, in many instances, from foreign workers who are able to migrate here, particularly permanently, to bolster the skills and the talents in our economy. Australia's migration program is, in fact, something we all ought to be enormously proud of. We're a proud multicultural society, and my objections in this regard ought not be mischaracterised. But we actually need to make sure that, if we are allowing migration specifically for the purposes of filling a gap in the labour market, we ought to be genuinely certain that that gap exists. It's not enough to simply assert that there's a gap in the labour market. There ought to be some independent assessment of whether or not there are Australians ready and waiting who could fill the vacancies. This agreement explicitly waives such an obligation. What's puzzling about that, as I alluded to earlier, is that the government has recently announced that they are actually going to require mandatory labour market testing for all applicants unless there is some international obligation. And what are we doing today? We're being asked to create a new international obligation which will prevent the application of mandatory labour market testing for contractual service workers from Singapore.

This undermines the effect of the government's policy change. They speak with a forked tongue. They say that they're concerned about it. They announce a policy change intending to address genuine concerns that Australians have about the way that the migration system is working, and yet today they present legislation to the house which asks us to accept the waiving of labour market testing in this instance. It all speaks to a lack of coherence from the government in how they are approaching migration and approaching the economy.

We know that the long-term future of Australia is dependent on having a labour force that is skilled and that is capable of participating in innovative reform of the economy to improve productivity and to allow us to return to levels of economic growth that Australians have come to expect. Migration is part of that story. And it's also true that there are plenty of occasions when we will need skilled migrants to fill very particular gaps in the labour market. But there seems to be no coherence in the way that the government approaches that particular problem, and it's not matched with any serious approach to improving skills and capability in the domestic market. We've seen attack after attack on training institutions and a complete failure to properly address the problems that emerged in the VET sector, and, unfortunately, what you get in the end is a kind of ad hoc set of responses, where we are simply bringing in short-term labour to fill gaps instead of having a serious structural response to the development of the labour market.

It has broader social implications as well. I think we ought to be very cautious about creating a society where we have one group of people who are permanent residents or citizens participating in the long-term project of building Australia and building the Australian economy and then a subset of workers who move in temporarily, are not afforded the rights or required to have the obligations of that first group and who exist effectively as second-class people within our labour market and within our society. And I really do ask how this has come about.

In part, I think it goes back to the conflicts that have been such a feature of the government over the last four years and that seem to be set to continue into its fifth year of office. We've had two treasurers, and I will say that this second Treasurer doesn't impress me a great deal. Mr Morrison, before he came into parliament, worked perhaps in the tourism and transport sector? Was that his background? But it never seems clear to me that Mr Morrison, who built his career through being an attack dog, a great retail politician, is really suited to the complex policy questions that are facing us now. We're undergoing arguably an unprecedented transformation of the Australian economy, and I think that it's a very great shame that we're presented time and time again with piecemeal responses to that transformation without any serious economic program that credibly addresses the challenges of the day. I'll leave my remarks there, but I thank the Senate for allowing me the opportunity to contribute.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (13:44): Let me begin by thanking senators, especially Senator McAllister, for that sterling work there while we worked out a few speed bumps. But I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate on the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017. I commend the bills to the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Sullivan ): The question is that the bills be now read a second time.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (13:52): by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (5) on sheet JC460 to the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (after line 6), after the definition of enterprise in subsection 153XD(1), insert:

Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System means the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System that is established by or under the Convention.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 7 to 9), omit the definition of Harmonized System in subsection 153XD(1), substitute:

Harmonized System means:

(a) the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System as in force immediately before 1 January 2017; or

(b) if the table in Annex 2 to the Agreement is amended or replaced to refer to Chapters, headings and subheadings of a later version of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System—the later version of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System.

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (lines 6 to 10), omit subsection 153XD(2).

(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (line 26) to page 12 (line 2), omit section 153XG, substitute:

153XG Goods produced in Singapore, or in Singapore and Australia, from non ‑originating materials

(1) Goods are Singaporean originating goods if:

(a) they are classified to a Chapter, heading or subheading of the Harmonized System that is specified in the first column of the table in Annex 2 to the Agreement; and

(b) they are produced entirely in the territory of Singapore, or entirely in the territory of Singapore and the territory of Australia, from non‑originating materials only or from non‑originating materials and originating materials; and

(c) either:

(i) each requirement that is specified in the third column of that table to apply in relation to the goods is satisfied; or

(ii) without limiting subparagraph (i), if the regulations specify one or more alternative requirements that apply in relation to the goods—those alternative requirements are satisfied; and

(d) either:

(i) the importer of the goods has, at the time the goods are imported, a certification of origin, or a copy of one, for the goods; or

(ii) Australia has waived the requirement for a certification of origin for the goods.

(2) Without limiting subparagraph (1) (c) (i), a requirement may be specified in the third column of the table in Annex 2 to the Agreement by using an abbreviation that is defined for the purposes of that column.

Change in tariff classification

(3) If a requirement that applies in relation to the goods is that all non‑originating materials used in the production of the goods must have undergone a particular change in tariff classification, the regulations may prescribe when a non‑originating material used in the production of the goods is taken to satisfy the change in tariff classification.

(4) If:

(a) a requirement that applies in relation to the goods is that all non‑originating materials used in the production of the goods must have undergone a particular change in tariff classification; and

(b) one or more of the non‑originating materials used in the production of the goods do not satisfy the change in tariff classification;

then the requirement is taken to be satisfied if the total value of the non‑originating materials covered by paragraph (b) does not exceed 10% of the customs value of the goods.

(5) If:

(a) a requirement that applies in relation to the goods is that all non‑originating materials used in the production of the goods must have undergone a particular change in tariff classification; and

(b) the goods are classified to any of Chapters 50 to 63 of the Harmonized System; and

(c) one or more of the non‑originating materials used in the production of the goods do not satisfy the change in tariff classification;

then the requirement is taken to be satisfied if the total weight of the non‑originating materials covered by paragraph (c) does not exceed 10% of the total weight of the goods.

Regional value content

(6) If a requirement that applies in relation to the goods is that the goods must have a regional value content of not less than a particular percentage worked out in a particular way:

(a) the regional value content of the goods is to be worked out in accordance with the Agreement; or

(b) if the regulations prescribe how to work out the regional value content of the goods—the regional value content of the goods is to be worked out in accordance with the regulations.

(7) If:

(a) a requirement that applies in relation to the goods is that the goods must have a regional value content of not less than a particular percentage worked out in a particular way; and

(b) the goods are imported into Australia with accessories, spare parts, tools or instructional or other information materials; and

(c) the accessories, spare parts, tools or instructional or other information materials are classified with, delivered with and not invoiced separately from the goods; and

(d) the types, quantities and value of the accessories, spare parts, tools or instructional or other information materials are customary for the goods;

then the regulations must require the value of the accessories, spare parts, tools or instructional or other information materials to be taken into account as originating materials or non‑originating materials, as the case may be, for the purposes of working out the regional value content of the goods.

Note: The value of the accessories, spare parts, tools or instructional or other information materials is to be worked out in accordance with the regulations: see subsection 153XD(3).

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), disregard section 153XI in working out whether the accessories, spare parts, tools or instructional or other information materials are originating materials or non‑originating materials.

(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 12 (lines 12 and 13), omit "the goods are required to have a regional value content of at least a particular percentage under a particular method", substitute "a requirement that applies in relation to the goods is that the goods must have a regional value content of not less than a particular percentage worked out in a particular way".

I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the amendments. These amendments insert a new definition of Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. Australia and Singapore are currently operating with different versions of the system—Australia on the 2017 version of the system and Singapore on the 2012 version. This new definition is required to expressly recognise the version of this system currently operating in Singapore. Without addressing this inconsistency, the amending agreement would not be able to enter into force. This new definition is drafted in a way that will allow for the update when Singapore moves to the 2017 version of the system, which will be sometime in 2018, and for any future versions that are adopted. That this inconsistency would prevent the amending agreement from entering into force was not apparent until work commenced on the required subordinate regulation. These government amendments, which allow for the recognition of the 2012 version of the system operating in Singapore, will allow the amending agreement to enter into force before the end of the year. The new definition of 'harmonised system' will be adopted across future frameworks implementing free trade agreements and in the Customs Act 1901 to ensure the systems setting out the tariff classification on which the agreements are negotiated are accurately reflected.

A further government amendment to allow for the incorporation of the product-specific rules by reference to the text of the amending agreement is also proposed. This will streamline the required subordinate regulation and also allow for future revisions of the product-specific rules to be included without amending the regulation. Without these government amendments, the amending agreement will not be able to enter into force by the end of the year. This would prevent Australian businesses from receiving the many benefits that flow from the amending agreement.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (13:54): The opposition will support these amendments on the basis of the assurance that the government has given us that these are not policy changes but administrative changes. These amendments were circulated on Tuesday in this chamber. The process of passing these would have been facilitated if there had been direct contact with the opposition, but that has now been rectified and we'll accordingly support the proposition.

Question agreed to.

Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017, as amended, agreed to; Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 agreed to.

Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 reported with amendments; Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 reported without amendments; report adopted.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (13:56): I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (13:57): Well, once again, we see that this coalition government, this rabble of a government, is cuddling up to One Nation every day and pushing the National Party to the side. They are cuddling up to One Nation and attacking poor people in this country. That's all they do. They attack the trade union movement. They come in here with their lies and their nonsense every day. They are an absolute rabble of a government.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, order! Point of order, Senator Bernardi.

Senator Bernardi: I'm finding it very hard to concentrate on what Senator Cameron is saying, because of the noise around it and also the vitriolic intensity of what he's shouting across the chamber. I wonder whether you could ask Senator Cameron to resume a more moderate and sensible tone in the interests of upholding the dignity of the Senate, because—

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Bernardi. Senator Bernardi, you've made your point of order.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: On my left! On the point of order, Senator Cameron?

Senator CAMERON: No.

The PRESIDENT: In relation to the point of order, Senator Bernardi, it's incumbent upon all senators to exercise quietness and not to interject. I'm not going to start indicating to senators in what tone and manner they deliver their speeches, providing they don't breach the standing orders. Senator Cameron, you have a few seconds left. Continue.

Senator CAMERON: Yes—an absolute rabble of a government. They don't care about anything but the big end of town. They are shovelling $65 billion out to the big end of town and screwing ordinary working families in this country. You are an absolute disgrace. No wonder the public are abandoning you! No wonder, with that weak Prime Minister that you have, that absolute coward of a Prime Minister!

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cameron! Senator Bernardi, a point of order.

Senator Bernardi: I wonder whether the term 'screwing families' is parliamentary.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. It has not been regarded as unparliamentary. But, Senator Cameron, I would indicate that you need to be more respectful in relation to the Prime Minister in the language you use.

Debate interrupted.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:35): On behalf of the President, I present the annual report for 2016-17 of the Standing Committee on Appropriations, Staffing and Security.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:36): On behalf of the chairs of the respective committees, I present additional information received by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and related bills, and by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:36): I present the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Publications.

Ordered that the report be adopted.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:37): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the interim report of the Trade Subcommittee on its inquiry into Australia's trade and investment relationship with the United Kingdom. I seek leave to table the tabling statement.

Leave granted.

Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (15:37): I present the third interim report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator GALLACHER: I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise as Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee to speak on the third interim report for the committee's inquiry into the impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities. The committee has decided to table interim reports after regional hearings so that local communities do not have to wait until the final report from the committee for the issues in their areas to be highlighted. This report covers public hearings in Darwin and Katherine in the Northern Territory.

Defence makes a significant contribution to the Northern Territory economy, with expenditure comprising 7.3 per cent of the gross Territory product—in 2015-16, $1.67 billion. The 2016 Defence white paper outlines further significant expenditure in the Northern Territory over the next decade, upgrading Defence facilities. In addition, there is the contribution of the US presence in the Northern Territory, which adds to the spend in the Northern Territory economy and community, and our government ministers have emphasised that the new investment in Defence will create jobs across regions and bring benefits to local businesses and communities. These policies and statements from the government have generated expectations that the regions will be able to benefit directly and indirectly through the participation of local businesses, particularly small to medium enterprises, in building Defence capability.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (15:48): by leave—I know that the interim report, entitled Inquiry into Australia's trade and investment relationship with the United Kingdom: interim report, was tabled earlier. The committee welcomed this opportunity to examine Australia's relationship with a country that is an important trading partner but also an old friend. There was a high level of interest in this inquiry, which received 72 submissions from across Australia and from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australian businesses in France and Germany, and the academic community across the world. The committee also heard from 58 separate organisations and individuals during 13 public hearings, including diplomatic representatives from the United Kingdom and from British based witnesses appearing via videoconference.

The committee presents this interim report as a summary of its findings to date on the opportunities, barriers and challenges facing Australia's future trade and investment relationship with the United Kingdom. An obvious factor in this, which presents both opportunities and threats, will be Brexit, the UK's departure from the European Union, which will occur after a majority of British voters elected to do so in June last year. Consequently, the British government triggered article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in March, formally opening a two-year window for negotiating Britain's exit from the EU, which expires in March 2019, now less than 18 months away. Evidence to the inquiry suggests that the outcome of negotiations between Britain and the EU over Brexit will largely determine the future parameters of Australia's trade relationship with the UK. The committee will present its final report and recommendations closer to the conclusion of those negotiations.

It does appear that the appetite for broader and more comprehensive trade links between Australia and the United Kingdom is deeply felt on both sides. In his department's submission to the inquiry, the British Secretary of State for International Trade, the Rt Hon. Liam Fox, said the UK sought 'to be a champion of free trade' and to 'share Australia's commitment to global trade liberalisation' and 'the benefits of open markets', as part of building 'a truly global Britain' that is 'a great, global, trading nation, and one of the firmest advocates for free trade in the world'.

The British High Commissioner to Australia, Her Excellency Menna Rawlings, echoed Dr Fox's sentiments, noting that, despite the huge geographical distance, 'When we arrive in each other's countries, we feel as if we're at home.' I noted that there are more expatriate Britons living in Australia than in the other 27 EU nations combined. It is indeed a significant relationship for both the UK and Australia.

The inquiry uncovered a desire for closer trade links on the part of Australian businesses and the primary-producer sector, with witnesses from a broad range of industries—including beef and sheepmeat producers, dairy producers, the wine sector, rice growers and sugar farmers—all eager to build on their existing commercial relationships in the UK and to increase their export volumes, if the changes ushered in by Brexit give them the opportunity to do so.

The committee heard that many of these industries and producers lost a lot of access to the British markets in 1973 when Britain joined what was then the EEC. Imports to Britain were subject to strictly enforced European quotas and tariffs that remain in place today. As a National Party senator, I know there has been a lot of debate over a lot of decades about the European cap when it comes to trade in agricultural products. The committee heard that beef exports have declined from 149,000 tonnes in 1959 to just 7,699 tonnes last year, out of a total export quota to the EU of a little over 20,000 tonnes. Sheepmeat exports over the same period fell from 47,000 tonnes to 12,000 tonnes last year, out of a total EU quota of roughly 16½ thousand tonnes.

Whilst the UK remains Australia's largest agricultural export market within the EU, this has declined since the UK entered the EEC in 1973 to just under one-half a per cent of all agricultural exports in 2015-16, valued at $727 million. By contrast, total Australian food and agricultural exports to the continental EU in 2015 were $2.3 billion. Exports in Australian wine, sugar, rice and dairy are also severely curtailed by EU quotas and tariffs that give preference to European suppliers. Even so, the UK today remains Australia's fifth-largest individual trading partner—two way it was $29 billion in 2016. Our current trading relationship with the UK is robust, with other key Australian exports including precious metals, stones and jewellery, and pharmaceuticals.

In 2016, a third of all Australian wine exports were sold to the UK, making it our No. 1 export destination by volume, with 236 million litres of Australian wine exported, earning $355 million. I know that Eliza Brown from All Saints Estate, in the Rutherglen area, in my home state of Victoria, held a function for women in wine at the Australian High Commission just last month, celebrating and building on the fact that this is such a significant export opportunity for not just my home state but our entire nation.

The UK was Australia's second-largest two-way services partner in 2015, accounting for $12.3 billion, or 8.6 per cent, of total services trade. In 2016, services exports to the UK were valued at nearly $5 billion.

The UK's pending departure from the EU poses uncertainty in terms of Australia's trade relationship with Britain and where potential new opportunities that Brexit may create are concerned. Submissions and evidence to the committee also suggested that the UK's standing as a trading partner may be inflated on account of businesses using the UK as a gateway to access the larger continental EU market.

Negotiating Brexit also poses challenges for Australia's trade relationships with the EU, given Australia and the EU have commenced a process to explore the negotiation of an Australia-EU free trade agreement. I know the chair of the joint committee was in the EU recently and came back very energised and excited by the potential that an EU-Australia trade agreement and the commencement of those negotiations, beginning hopefully later on this year, will provide in terms of opportunities.

The May 2019 deadline for resolving Britain's exit from the EU, according to evidence heard by the committee, may be extended as negotiations between the parties continue and possibly more than once. Australia will not know the implications until the negotiation is finalised, and whether it will be a hard or a soft Brexit will have impact on whether the UK will retain access to the EU common market or customs union.

Under provisions of article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, the UK is prohibited from negotiating trade deals with third-party countries such as Australia until that Brexit takes effect. Agricultural issues, particularly concerning Ireland, the largest EU supplier of beef and dairy goods in the UK, will influence the complexion of any UK-EU settlement and later trade arrangements made by the UK with third-party countries.

The committee heard that any change in Ireland's trade relationship with a post-Brexit Britain could have knock-on effects that extend well beyond questions of trade arrangements—for example, the genuine goodwill underpinning the Irish peace process after decades of sectarian violence could be severely tested or damaged if Irish interests were seen to be harmed once Britain had left the EU. Today, 67 per cent of British beef imports originate in the Republic of Ireland, which is also Britain's largest supplier of dairy products. The example illustrates the difficulty Australia will face in getting a better deal for its beef and dairy producers, even after the EU tariff and quota regime no longer applies to the UK.

Evidence to the committee suggested the UK may simply revert to World Trade Organization rules rather than negotiate specific bilateral or multilateral trade deals, raising further uncertainty over the shape of Australia's future trade dealings with the UK, particularly in these contested markets. Given Australia's pursuit of free trade agreements with major trading partners over the past decades, including the USA, China, Japan and South Korea, the exploration of free trade agreements with both the EU and a post-Brexit UK offers a consistent approach to Australian trade policy, which seeks outcomes that are mutually beneficial to all stakeholders.

From the committee's perspective, the timing of the UK's departure from the EU is entirely coincidental with the scoping work and ongoing development toward a free trade agreement between Australia and the EU. Evidence to the inquiry suggests that our negotiations with the EU are gaining momentum, and we note the developments following the minister for agriculture's visit and the completion of a scoping study. The committee is of the view that the Australian government should continue its trade negotiations with the EU as a priority, and that, while it is encouraging that Britain is signalling its willingness to enter a new partnership, we will have to wait a period of time before it is able to commence those negotiations proper.

In conclusion, the committee has heard evidence regarding a diverse range of issues. Future reports by this inquiry will consider these in more detail, as complex issues concerning the UK's withdrawal from the EU are resolved and the situation for advancing Australian trade interests become clearer. I commend the report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (15:58): I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the National Energy Guarantee.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (15:59): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (16:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The bill provides a broad package of measures which strengthen the laws that safeguard children in Australia from sexual abuse.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 complements recently legislated measures that stop convicted child sex offenders from travelling overseas to commit criminal acts against children.

The bill addresses all aspects of child sex offending. It targets inadequacies in the criminal justice system that result in outcomes that do not sufficiently punish, deter and rehabilitate offenders. It also introduces new offences directed at the use of the internet for the sexual abuse of children.

Strengthening the criminal framework throughout the offence cycle

The Government is increasingly concerned about the manifestly inadequate sentences which do not sufficiently reflect the harm suffered by victims of child sex abuse or protect the community from the risk of future harm. Such sentences do not recognise that these crimes increase the demand for child abuse material.

Since 2012, less than two thirds of Commonwealth child sex offenders have received a term of imprisonment on conviction. This is a staggering 269 child sex offenders convicted of a Commonwealth crime released directly back into the community over the past five years. Of those who were imprisoned, the most common sentence length was 18 months and the most common non‑parole period was 6 months. That is clearly too short.

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

This bill introduces mandatory sentencing for specified offences to address the disparity between the seriousness of child sex offending and the lenient sentences handed down by the courts. Mandatory minimum sentences will apply to the child sex offences that attract the highest penalties and to re-offenders previously convicted of a separate child sex offences.

The introduction of mandatory sentencing complements a new presumption in favour of cumulative sentences for multiple child sex offences. This will ensure that the sentences imposed adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending.

Ensuring adequate sentencing

To strengthen the sentencing regime even further, the bill increases penalties for particular child sex offences:

1. introduces a presumption of actual imprisonment to reduce the imposition of wholly suspended sentences for child sex offenders

2. ensures that all sex offenders, upon release from custody, are adequately supervised and subject to appropriate rehabilitative conditions

3. overhauls the sentencing factors for all federal offenders

4. prevents courts from discounting sentences on the basis of good character, where this is used to facilitate the crime, and

5. emphasises the importance of access to rehabilitation and treatment when sentencing child sex offenders

Bail

The bill inserts a presumption against bail for offenders who commit serious child sex offences.

The presumption recognises that such offenders pose an unacceptable risk to the community and to their victims.

Post release options

This bill introduces a requirement for the courts to set treatment and supervision conditions for all child sex offenders upon sentencing to prevent such offenders from being released without supervision and appropriate treatment conditions.

This bill also introduces community safety as a primary consideration when deciding whether a federal offender's parole should be revoked, to ensure the protection of the community.

The bill will also ensure that once an offender's parole has been revoked they will serve a period of time in custody.

Criminalising emerging forms of child sexual abuse

The bill also introduces two new measures to target emerging forms of sexual offending.

The first measure criminalises the provision of services like websites that provide access to child abuse material online. These services facilitate and encourage offending by a large, sometimes global audience and promote the production of new child abuse material.

The second measure criminalises the transmission of communications to 'groom' any person, such as parents or carers, with the aim of procuring a child for sexual activity.

Protecting vulnerable persons

The Government remains committed to strengthening the protections afforded to child and other vulnerable witnesses giving evidence in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. This bill improves justice outcomes by limiting the re‑traumatisation of vulnerable witnesses by removing barriers to the admission of pre-recorded video evidence and ensuring that they are not subject to cross-examination at committal and other preliminary hearings, thus allowing them to put their best evidence forward at trial.

Aggravating factors for child sex offences

The Government is deeply disturbed by the emerging trend where offenders inflict severe violence on children alongside sexual abuse. To ensure that this conduct is appropriately punished, the bill will criminalise activities that aggravate particular types of sexual offending such as subjecting a child to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and causing the death of the child.

This bill also introduces new aggravating factors that a court must take into account when sentencing an offender for a relevant offence. These would apply if the victim was under the age of 10 at the time of the offending and if multiple people were involved in the offending.

These measures send a clear message – this Government will not tolerate such appalling acts committed against children.

Conclusion

This bill contains the most comprehensive and significant Commonwealth Child Sex Offender reforms since the introduction of the Criminal Code in 1995.

The bill is consistent with a number of recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in its recently released Criminal Justice report.

This bill signifies this Government's commitment to addressing child sex offences that occur both domestically and overseas and ensuring that the Australian community is protected from heinous crimes.

These new measures send a strong message to child sex offenders that such abhorrent crimes will not be tolerated.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:00): I rise to speak in support of the disallowance motion before us. The motion will disallow a regulation that a very petty government has put forward in order to bully local governments out of making their own democratic choices as to when they want to celebrate their citizenship ceremonies. Local councils to take great pride in these ceremonies. As a senator for South Australia, I have attended many of them, including in my local council area in the city of Mitcham. It's one of the most delightful things that we get to do as senators. You talk to and listen to the stories of people who have actively chosen to make Australia their home. I must say that, when I'm there and in that moment, hearing their stories and hearing the passion from individuals about why they have taken up citizenship in Australia, it makes me feel a little bit sad that I didn't ever get the opportunity to choose to become an Australian; I just am. As many of us are, I was lucky enough to be born in this country and, as a result, am an Australian citizen, but sometimes I think how nice it would be to have actively chosen to become part of this great nation and part of the Australian community.

When you hear the stories of why people have chosen to become Australian citizens and the passion with which they speak about their decision—they often come to join family or bring their family with them—it's often one of the best reminders of what makes our country great. I love Australia. I think it is the best country in the world, and I love hearing why people from other corners of the globe love this country too. One of the reasons why Australia is such a great nation is that we have a proud history of welcoming others, of helping each other out, of looking after each other and of making sure that, when somebody is a little bit full of themselves, we remind them that we're all equal. We have so many great Australianisms that make us a unique, vibrant and safe place.

I have been reflecting on why the government has decided to try and bully these local councils out of their decision not to hold citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day. It is because, in reflecting on what makes Australia a great country and as a community and a group of citizens on why we all love dearly to be Australian, these councils have bravely taken the opportunity to say that every person in Australia deserves to be able to celebrate being a member of the Australian community together on the same day. We know that 26 January is not a day that can be celebrated by everyone and never will be a day that can be celebrated by everybody. That is because it is a day that is very, very reminiscent and symbolic of the day that the British invaded this country. And it marked the beginning of the slaughter and the genocide of First Australians. We've been debating the issue of changing the date of Australia Day in this country ever since 26 January was chosen to be our national day. Back in 1938, in the first year that Australia Day was marked as a national day of celebration, there was a very live debate about whether this day was the most appropriate. Indigenous communities and leaders of First Australian communities stood up in 1938 and said, 'This is not a day that we can feel part of, that we can celebrate and that enables us to be included in the progress of our nation.' They begged the rest of the community leaders to choose a different day—one that was more unifying.

Decades and decades on, we are still having this debate. Some people say we shouldn't worry about this, that Indigenous Australians should just get over it. Some of the most offensive comments of racism and dismissal of generations of being disenfranchised, of genocide, have been simply used as an excuse not to have this debate in this place or even in the public eye. This year, when local councils decided that they would choose a different day to celebrate Australia Day, a different day to celebrate being part of the wonderful Australian community, it caused a massive political stoush. And the ideological warriors from the right-wing corners of the politics in this place raised their ugly head, and we saw some of the most offensive comments about how Aboriginal and Indigenous and First Australians should simply get over the history, suck it up, and we can all move on and pretend that Australia Day being celebrated on 26 January is okay. Well, it's absolutely not.

We heard from Senator Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation—that people were being too precious and that of course we should be celebrating Australia Day on 26 January because it was the day of Federation. Wrong! It is not the day of Federation, Senator Hanson. In fact, the day of Federation would be a great day for us to celebrate as our national day of unity. The day of Federation—for those of you playing at home—is 1 January.

I think we're mature enough as a nation to be able to have this discussion. I think we should be embracing this debate. But the tactics from the government of bullying two local councils out of making their own choice about holding citizenship ceremonies on a day other than 26 January just shows how afraid of this debate the government is. Why on earth is the federal government getting involved in trying to dictate whether local councils can hold citizenship ceremonies and the days on which they are held? Haven't they got better things to do with their time than bullying small, local councils out of choosing what days they hold events?

Obviously not, but that is because this is more of an ideological and cultural war. This government is so obsessed with dividing groups in the community.

When I think about Australia Day, I think about celebrating as a nation the various, diverse and rich tapestries of our different communities and the success of Australia being a multicultural nation. I think about that picture of the two young girls from Melbourne who proudly wore their headscarves with their Australian flags in their hands. I think about Australia's soldiers, returned from places like Afghanistan and Iraq, who have harrowing stories to tell but amazing stories of mateship and community, of young men and women who have been told that they can't talk about the horrors that they saw when they were there and that those young men and women have a right to feel part of this community as well. I think about the young Indigenous kids in my home state of South Australia who every year make an effort to feel part of and included in the Australian community. But that Australia Day is not the Australia Day we've currently got. We can't do that on 26 January when we know that Indigenous Australians, our first people, can't and won't be able to celebrate and feel included on a day that symbolises murder, slaughter, genocide and generations of discrimination and racism.

What I hate seeing is the pseudonationalists who drape themselves in the Australian flag, wear the flag as balaclavas and run around pretending as though they represent our great nation. If you want to talk about what is offensive when it comes to Australia Day, it's a bunch of drunk blokes running around wearing Australian flags as balaclavas, espousing racism and bigotry. That doesn't make us proud to be Australian. It doesn't make me proud to celebrate Australia Day when I see behaviour like that. I don't think it would make any of us proud.

But, of course, what we have here from the government is that they don't want to participate in this debate. They want to bully local governments and stir the ideological pot. They don't want to take on racism and bigotry. They want to shut down the democratic rights of local councils to make their own decisions. It's just pathetic.

If we're worried about people understanding, recognising and celebrating Australian history, how about we start with educating people in the Senate like Senator Hanson, the leader of One Nation, who thinks that Australia Day is the day of Federation. Well, it's not. Senator Hanson has just walked into the chamber, so I've decided to remind her that—through you, Acting Deputy President Williams—Federation is 1 January, not 26 January.

This is an important national conversation that we should be having about changing the date of Australia Day. It's a debate that started in 1938. It hasn't gone away and it won't go away. The date of Australia Day will change. It will change. It's not a matter of what or if; it's simply a matter of when.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (16:15): I rise to speak on this disallowance motion. It's a disallowance motion because the motion to try to overturn the legitimate democratic decision of the cities of Yarra and Darebin to hold citizenship ceremonies on the days that they want to hold citizenship ceremonies—the attempt by government to do that—is complete overreach by the federal government. It is an insult to local government, it is vindictive and it is bullying. It's basically our government saying: 'We don't like what you, the cities of Darebin and Yarra, are doing here. We are going to do what's in our power to try to turn that around.' Well, the government should not have the right to do that, and if this disallowance motion is successful today, this Senate will be saying, 'They don't have the right to do that.'

Local government is a tier of government in its own right, and it has the power to hold citizenship ceremonies. The power to hold citizenship ceremonies is vested in local governments. This attempt to overrule that is basically saying, 'You local governments, you'll just do as you are told,' and that is not right. I speak as someone who spent six years in local government. I was a councillor and then I was Mayor of the City of Maribyrnong. It's incredibly important to people who are involved in local government to be recognised as a tier of government and to have the same rights as state and federal governments.

Our colleagues in the cities of Yarra and Darebin have made a decision after talking with their local communities. As to whether to celebrate citizenship ceremonies and whether to celebrate 26 January as Australia Day is a conversation that this country needs to have. Certainly, within their local government areas, they know that this is something that their communities are on side with. And it's important to note that it's not just the cities of Yarra and Darebin. The regulation that we are moving to disallow today explicitly specifies just Yarra and Darebin. It is vindictiveness and really going in for the kill of those two. It specifies that the mayor can't hold citizenship ceremonies, that the deputy mayor can't, that the general manager can't and that the CEO can't.

But it's not just Yarra and Darebin that we're talking about here. I know from my conversations and from talking to people right across Victoria—in fact, right across the country—but particularly within the councils across metropolitan Melbourne, that this is a very live debate. It's a very live debate across Australia—in fact, so much so that this isn't something that has just sprung out of the councils of Yarra and Darebin, in my patch. It's something that is bubbling up all over the country, because it's about the issue of respecting Indigenous Australians. It's about saying that we're celebrating our national day on a day which, for them, is Invasion Day, a day of mourning and a day of marking the huge change and the huge disruption to their way of life and their wellbeing. That is the conversation that's being had and that needs to be had.

In fact, so much is this conversation being held around the country that, at the Australian Local Government Association conference on 20 June this year, the Australian Local Government Association, the ALGA, moved a motion to encourage Australian councils to consider the efforts they could make to lobby the federal government to change the date of Australia Day. That was the ALGA. It represents local governments all across the country. That was the ALGA, which is represented on the Council of Australian Governments. That is the significance of this movement to have this conversation about changing the date of Australia Day. That's how much importance, how much significance, it has in our community today.