The PRESIDENT (10:01): 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) (10:06): Right now we are witnessing the end of an era. The sun is setting on the coal empire and we are transitioning to a new future powered by renewable energy. It's an exciting future, but it's well past overdue.

The government has been doing everything it can to slow this country's transition to renewable energy, and Australians are bearing the brunt of their failure. In the last few days, we've seen bushfires savage Tathra, Bega and south-west Victoria. We've seen a cyclone hit Darwin. In Tathra, we heard this morning that 70 homes and other buildings have been destroyed. Four people were treated for smoke inhalation and one RFS volunteer was injured. By all accounts, we are very lucky that more people were not hurt.

In my home region of south-west Victoria, 18 homes have been destroyed around the towns of Terang, Garvoc, Camperdown and Gazette; 40,000 hectares have been burnt and farmers have lost their livestock. I know a bit about this part of the world because it's where I live. It's where my family lives and it's where my community is. In our everyday lives we are seeing climate change have an impact on the risk of bushfires to our communities, and we can't any longer be complacent about bushfires once the end of summer comes around. Right now we would normally be talking about the end of the bushfire season, and yet here we are with bushfires ravaging my home state and, indeed, my community.

In Western Australia they are now calling their autumn a 'second summer'. And on the other side of the country, in the Top End, Cyclone Marcus has rolled through Darwin and, according to forecasters, it was the strongest storm to hit Darwin in 30 years. The impact has closed schools, it's shut down the public service and cut off electricity to tens of thousands of people.

Of course, we know that it's not just Australia that is feeling the impact. To pick one of many disturbing recent events, the Arctic has just experienced an unprecedented heatwave, forcing scientists to reconsider even their most pessimistic forecasts of climate change. Temperatures in Siberia were as much as 35 degrees Celsius above historical averages. I'll say that again: 35 degrees above historical averages. Greenland experienced three times as many hours above freezing than usual. We are seeing extremes.

In spite of this overwhelming evidence of the impact of climate change, what we're seeing is a Turnbull government dangerously wedded to coal. It's pushing against the tide of clean energy and all the benefits that brings. As we transition to a renewable energy future, we'll no longer be contributing to dangerous global warming as we generate and use electricity. It is that simple. We can start making this transition now. The good news is it brings so many other benefits to our community. By moving away from coal and taking advantage of clean, green renewable energies, we won't be emitting toxic chemicals like mercury and sulphur dioxide anymore. These are the poisonous gases that our communities inhale when we mine and burn coal. We know that coal has serious health impacts. We know that it leads to respiratory disease, it leads to heart disease, it leads to the development of some cancers and it leads to low birth weight in babies. There are so many good reasons to move away from dirty, polluting coal to clean, renewable energy that are beyond the advantages we get when we move to cleaner sources of energy.

Of course, there is the question of reliability. We won't be relying on unreliable, old coal-fired power stations that don't do the job in extremes of hot weather. Let's look at the facts. We've heard a lot questions about South Australia, but let's look at the facts of what happened this summer. During heatwaves in New South Wales last year, Liddell Power Station was unable to perform because two of its generator units failed to switch on due to unforeseen boiler tube leaks. On New Year's Day, Millmerran Power Station in Queensland stalled. One of the coal-fired power stations there stalled, taking out 156 megawatts from the National Electricity Market. In January, one of the four units of Victoria's Loy Yang A Power Station broke down, taking out another 230 megawatts. We could go on and on, but suffice to say we know that coal-fired power stations can't be relied upon to deliver power in extremes of weather.

These are old stations, well past their use-by date, and we know that it is now cheaper to build a new solar farm or more wind turbines than it is to build a new coal-fired power station. For years we've heard from the Turnbull and Abbott governments about the dangers of so-called intermittent renewable energy. They deceitfully blamed power outages in South Australia on renewables after wild storms, when the real cause of the blackout was downed poles and wires. It was a problem with transmission, not generation. That's just one of the many examples of the Liberal and National parties' denialist anti-renewable energy ideology. It also saw them spend obscene amounts of taxpayer dollars on the National Wind Farm Commissioner, for example, to listen to a range of debunked claims about the medical impacts, amongst other things, of wind farms. Imagine if that money had been spent in more renewable energy generation.

Of course, disappointingly for the government and their cabal of deniers, we know that when coal-fired power stations fail, it's not other coal stations that come to the rescue; it is renewable energy that manages to bridge the gap. When Loy Yang shut down without warning on 14 December last year, taking out 560 megawatts and putting the whole electricity network in danger, it was South Australia's big new Tesla battery that sprang into action to help save the day. It is renewable energy that is meeting the shortfall that occurs when coal-fired power no longer operates.

We also know that the coal industry is in structural decline. No-one in the private sector is building new coal-fired power stations anymore. It does not stack up economically in this day and age. We know the environment arguments are clear, but so too are the economic arguments. No-one is interested in investing billions of dollars into a giant coal-fired power station that we won't want to switch on in a few years' time. No-one wants to do it. No-one is interested in sinking capital investment into an ageing technology when the cost of renewables is plummeting. Investing in coal is about as sensible as investing in dial-up internet: there is no argument for it and the technology has moved ahead of it. Yet we have this government desperately clinging to the past—to the electricity equivalent of fax machines and typewriters.

We've seen our Treasurer wave coal around in parliament in a desperate bid to try and make it more popular. We've seen the minister for trade and also the then minister for resources, Barnaby Joyce, spruik Adani's dirty, great big coalmine to Chinese financiers. Most recently, we saw the returned minister for resources, Senator Canavan, talking about how Australia's coal is more beautiful than Donald Trump's coal. What sort of competition is that? It's not one we want to be part of. It doesn't get more farcical than what we've seen played out on the floor of this parliament over recent years.

The cost of renewables is plummeting. That's a good news story and something we should be embracing. If the Turnbull government had any vision, it would be positioning Australia to take advantage of this energy revolution that is sweeping across the rest of the world. We have so many natural advantages here. We live in one of the sunniest, windiest places in the world. We have abundant space. We have the technological expertise. We could be leading the charge, but instead we are an international laggard dragging our heels behind so much of the developed world.

Last year I thought we'd hit rock bottom when we saw the Prime Minister pressuring a private company, AGL, into prolonging the life of that decrepit, old coal-clunker Liddell. Liddell is something that's more at home in 1960s Soviet Russia than it is in a modern 21st century economy. Liddell is falling apart. It's hanging together with spit and string. AGL knows that it's a dud investment. It doesn't want to throw good money after bad in keeping it open. The company itself has said that it would have to invest nearly a billion dollars to keep it open for an extra five years, which would push up the cost of its output to around $106 per megawatt hour. This is the market responding to a Prime Minister who wants us to turn the clock back.

AGL now has a plan to replace Liddell with 1.6 gigawatts of renewables, plus storage and a range of other technologies, yet the Turnbull government and its state cronies are talking about dipping into the public purse to help Liddell stay open for another few years. It should be illegal to use public money in this way. Taxpayer dollars—dollars that belong to everybody—should be spent on investing in the things that we know are the foundations of a decent society: public health care and hospitals; public education and schools; and science and research. It should be spent on doing something about the growing gap between the rich and poor—reducing inequality—and ensuring everybody gets access to a social safety net and a decent education. We should be spending our hard-earned dollars on securing a long-term energy future that's based in renewables. We should be investing in the public interest, not on a handout that will burn our planet and make climate change worse. That's why it should be illegal.

The Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2017 prohibits the Commonwealth from providing financial support to refurbish, or indeed to build, a coal-fired power station. It also prevents the Commonwealth from purchasing or assisting with the purchase or transfer of ownership of a coal-fired power station. The bill does make sure that the government can provide public money to transition affected workers into new industries and that it can use public money to manage the closure of a coal-fired power station. This is a transition that is happening and that will happen, despite this government trying to slow it down.

We have a choice. We can look after those workers in those industries and manage this transition in a way that ensures that their future is looked after as well, or we can leave them to the vagaries of the market, not manage the transition, and see workers left on the scrap heap. It is the Greens that want a just transition.

We know that no major financial institution wants to fund coal. Our experience with the Adani coalmine has made that abundantly clear. They simply can't find the finance.

The Turnbull government needs to listen to the science, listen to what the economics are telling us and listen to what the rest of the world is saying. Coal is obsolete; it has no long-term future, and we need to invest in those things that do.

Of course, we still don't know where the ALP sits on this issue. We certainly know where the Liberal and National parties do; we know that, for them, it's coal all the way. But we know that the Labor Party is also beholden to those vested interests in the fossil fuel industry—it takes major donations from the fossil fuel industry. We know that there's a revolving door between the parliament, for former members—Liberal, National and Labor—and their staffers, and big coal. That revolving door between parliament and the coal industry has never swung faster.

Well, we have a plan. We want Australia to run on 100 per cent renewable energy. We're proud of that fact. We have a plan to transition workers from coal communities into the jobs of the future. We want to ensure that people are looked after. We will re-regulate electricity prices to bring costs down and provide much-needed relief to Australian families.

I urge all members of this place—and, in particular, the ALP and the crossbench—to show some courage in supporting this bill. This is our opportunity to stake what it means to have a long-term future for future generations. This is our opportunity to say: 'The past is the past, and we understand what a 21st-century modern economy looks like. It's one that's powered by renewable energy. It's one that looks after people. It's one that ensures that, in any transition, no matter how difficult, those workers are looked after.' This is an opportunity for the Labor Party and the crossbench to take a stand against the dangerous Turnbull government's obsession with coal, and to ensure that we lay out a clear path for this nation.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (10:22): The Greens political party have been called many things, but, clearly, they are now a party in denial. If ever you'd wanted to know why the voters of Tasmania and South Australia and Batman have at last turned against the Greens, you've had a classic example now, with that speech of denial from the current Greens leader in the Senate. Fifteen years ago, when the Greens parties in Europe started to fail, I predicted then that the Greens political party in Australia would, not long after, follow suit. Following the result, even in Tasmania, can I say, and then even in South Australia, which used to be the Greens heartland at one stage, and now of course in Batman, the voters of Australia have eventually woken up to the hypocrisy and fraud of the Greens political party.

Let me start by asking Senator Di Natale, or any of the Greens speakers who might speak in this debate, this question I always ask and can never get an answer to from the Greens. According to the Greens, Australia's emissions of carbon are what's causing global climate change. I repeat that. This is the Greens' claim, and you've just heard Senator Di Natale say that: what Australia emits in carbon is why the world's climate is changing. It is an incontestable fact that Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. You can shut Australia down completely, stop our emissions totally, which in world figures is1.4 per cent, but what impact will that have on the changing climate of the world? Don't listen to my answer; listen to the answer of Australia's Chief Scientist who, when asked that question, said, 'virtually none.' Yet Senator Di Natale has spent 20 minutes trying to confuse the dwindling band of supporters of the Greens political party that somehow it's Australia's fault, and if we open up the Adani coalmine that is going to cause greater cyclones, huge floods and snow storms around the world. The Greens are completely hypocritical, and completely fraudulent, when it comes to this debate.

Even Senator Di Natale started off by saying the storm in Darwin is the biggest storm ever for the last 30 years, and that's the same with everything. The floods in Brisbane a few years ago were the biggest floods in Queensland since 1927. Cyclone Yasi was the biggest cyclone ever to hit Australia since 1918. These events have happened before, they will happen in the future, and nothing Senator Di Natale says will change that.

I ask Senator Di Natale to tell me how you and your Labor Party mates—well, you used to be mates—think by doing something in Australia we're going to stop world climate change? I'm fascinated to hear how, with 1.4 per cent of emissions, something we do in Australia is going to save the world. It is just nonsensical. It's a question I keep asking and no-one from the Greens political party has ever even attempted to answer the question on how Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon, can possibly have any effect on the changing climate. Sure, when the rest of the world—the other 98.5 per cent of emitters—reduce their carbon emissions, then Australia should do something as well. But until then why are we destroying Australian jobs—the jobs of Australian workers? I used to think the CFMEU and the Labor Party were interested in them, but they are clearly not anymore. They go for the Greens' ideology, and I hope after Batman the Labor Party will at last realise that the Greens' message is failing and failing rapidly.

Please can someone from the Greens political party or the Labor Party, who seem to subscribe to this foolish fantasy, tell me how Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, is affecting world climate change?

Senator Di Natale says renewables are the way to go. Certainly the government's position is that it is technology neutral for investment in the energy sector, and we've introduced legislation to remove the prohibition on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation from providing finance to carbon capture and storage projects.

I will point out to the Senate, and anyone who might be listening to this, that in all the world agreements on reduction in emissions Australia is one of the few countries in the world that has actually met all of its targets. It's done it mainly under Liberal governments by cleverly managing the economy, but not destroying jobs, and particularly not destroying the futures of other countries. Senator Di Natale rails in one breath against the Indian company Adani—there seems to be a bit of a racial tone to the accusations against Adani—and then in the next breath he will say how the Greens political party is always looking after those poor people around the world. Yet here is the chance for the poor people in India to get the electricity that Senator Di Natale has been using for the last 50 years —I might say it is coal-fired power electricity. Why do we deprive the poor people of India of that opportunity? And that's what the Adani project is all about.

We have unlimited reserves of high-quality, low-emission black coal in the Central Queensland area, where I come from, which is there to be exported to India, to establish new coal-fired power stations, to give the people of India the very limited luxury of electricity, which they don't have now. Senator Di Natale and the Greens would deny the Indian people this opportunity. The Indian people will get coal-fired power stations because they need it for their country to progress, but they'll get dirty coal from Indonesia and other places. They could get coal from Australia—a cleaner power, a cleaner coal—and that would bring jobs to Australians and help the Indian people. Yet, the Greens will never answer my question. I challenge anyone to come back to me in the hundreds of times I've asked this question in this chamber: how is it that Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the carbon emissions of the world, is going to affect climate change? I know I'm repeating myself, but I will keep saying this until the people of Australia—all of them—understand that it is not Australia's doing. Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent, and even the most revered scientist in the world—Australia's Chief Scientist—in Hansard in answer to my question: 'What impact would it have if we reduce Australia's emissions by 1.4 per cent?', answered: 'Virtually none.' This just shows the fraud and hypocrisy of the Greens political party and the voters of Australia are at last waking up.

Senator Di Natale talks about clean, green renewables. We all like that but, of course, when the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, how do we get power? The South Australian former government, the Labor government, had a great idea. They were going to turn on all these diesel fired generators, hundreds of diesel fired generators polluting the Australian atmosphere. It just shows the absolute hypocrisy and stupidity of the argument of the Greens political party and, I might say, their mates in the Labor Party on this. Sure, you have to have a mix, and under the Turnbull government we are getting that mix. We are encouraging renewables where they work and we are encouraging other forms of energy.

I know I'm old, but I remember the time when Australia's main competitive advantage in this world was that we had cheap power, because we are blessed with high-quality coal. It was that cheap power that in the fifties and sixties burst Australia to the head of the world economies. Now, unfortunately, because of the actions of the Labor Party, I have to say, more than the Greens political party, that is coming into difficulty. Senator Di Natale says Adani can't get money for their project. I don't know how he knows that—quite frankly, I don't either—but I suspect they do have the money. But why would you invest in any project in Australia? One government, the Liberal government in Canberra, and the Labor government in Queensland have said: 'Yes, this coal project in Central Queensland can go ahead, providing all these environmental conditions are met. it provides jobs for Indigenous people there. Yes, it can all go ahead.' So you invest your money and start the project on the basis of approvals given by the state Labor government and the federal Liberal government, and then Mr Shorten, to win votes in Batman, comes along and says, more or less: 'It doesn't matter what's happened in the past. If you invest your money, I'm going to introduce federal legislation to stop it.'

Why would you invest in a project when you have a government—an alternative government, I might say—saying to the world, 'It doesn't matter what the current governments, including the Labor one in Queensland, say; if I get into power I'm going to stop Adani, after they've invested all this money.' If you ever wanted a way of chasing investment in all of its forms away from Australia, you only have to look at Mr Shorten's stupidity in the recent Batman by-election. He was so keen to win that seat from the Greens that he just said anything that he thought might attract a few of the loony Greens voters over to his party, and he succeeded in that.

But in doing that, what's he done to the workers—the coal workers and the mining workers of Queensland, the state that I represent, the people up my way? The people of Townsville are looking to the Adani project, a project of billions and billions of dollars, to kickstart the economy of the Townsville region and the North and to provide literally thousands of jobs for CFMEU members—well, people who would be CFMEU members, although we know the statistics: the number of people joining unions these days has plummeted to nine per cent of the private workforce; only nine per cent join the unions. Why? Because the union they thought was looking after them—the construction, mining and forestry union—has sided with Labor and the Greens to deny them jobs in the mines, for no purpose. As I've demonstrated, it's not going to make one iota of difference to climate change. All it does is send Australia's jobs offshore and make our energy bill much higher than it should be.

The hypocrisy and lack of truth and rigor in the Greens' speech is demonstrated by Senator Di Natale's comment that 'No-one's building coal-fired power stations these days.' Well, sorry: in China there's about one new coal-fired power station built every week. And in India there are coal-fired power stations being built all the time. Even in Germany these days there is a new interest in coal-fired power stations. Why? Because with carbon capture and storage, with these new HELE plants, you can have the benefits of coal and affordable energy at the same time as grabbing particulates and other elements from coal that aren't as useful to the world as they should be. So, again, you've got to understand that the Greens are in denial. After the last awful couple of weeks that they've had, I can well understand that. But clearly the Australian voters have woken up to the hypocrisy, the stupidity and the outright lies of the Greens political party and have deserted the Greens in droves.

A lot of very positive action has been taken by the Turnbull government, and all credit to Mr Josh Frydenberg, the energy and environment minister, and Matt Canavan, the resources minister, led by our Prime Minister. We are taking a balanced and sensible look at Australia's energy needs. Under the Greens political party, now supported by the Australian Labor Party, power prices for ordinary Australians are skyrocketing through the roof. Yet we have this unlimited supply of high-quality coal in central Queensland, near where I live, which is readily available to give Australia that competitive advantage that it had in years gone by.

I know I'm being repetitive, but I want to again demonstrate this. I want to ask anybody from the Labor Party or the Greens political party to tell me how anything we do in Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, is going to affect the changing climate of the world, assuming, as I do, that carbon emissions do have some impact on climate change—although I acknowledge I'm not one who gets into this debate, because I am not a scientist and I don't understand it, but I do know that equally qualified scientists have very divergent views on this same subject. But even accepting that carbon emissions have an impact on climate change, I asked this question of the Greens political party. I must have a look in Hansard, because I think I've asked this same question 100 times and, would you believe, never once has there been an answer. You don't have to be terribly bright—and I'm not terribly bright—you just need to have a little bit of common sense: Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions and, according to the Chief Scientist, even if we stop that completely—that is, shut down every car, turn off every light and stop any use of Australia's principal source of energy, which is coal-fired power—it would have, to quote the Chief Scientist, 'virtually no' impact on the changing climate of the world.

Do I think that perhaps today, after the flogging the Greens have received in the ballot box in the last few weeks, I will get an answer to that question? I suspect not. The Greens will continue in denial of the facts, of the truth of these matters, of the absolute common sense. The Greens want to reduce Australia's emissions by 50 or 80 per cent—I don't know what it is—but even if you reduce it by 100 per cent not one iota of difference would it make to the changing climate of this world.

This bill, which seeks to prohibit forever investment in coal-fired power stations, is just another loony lefty creation of a party not only in great denial but in steep decline in voter support. I'm delighted to say that my fellow Australians have eventually woken up to the hypocrisy, the lack of truth, the outright lies of the Greens political party and I am sure that they, like a lot of their theories, will be confined to the dustbin of history, and the sooner that happens, the better for Australia.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (10:42): I feel as though I've heard this debate many times and I think we'll find some of the allegations and cross-allegations listed in Hansard over and over again over at least the last 10 years. Labor has long recognised that Australia needs to transition to clean forms of electricity generation. Our ministers in previous governments Greg Combet and Tony Burke, and now the shadow minister, Mr Mark Butler in the other place, have argued consistently that we do need to have a strong commitment to renewable energy. We have a strong set of policies, which are all on the record, which talk about why we need to have a commitment to achieve 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. That's consistent with the commitments and statements we made under the Paris accord. That is clear. We understand that we have to move energy production in this country. We need to work with community, with science, and with people in this place to ensure we don't have statements like we just heard, which completely debunk any kind of positive discussion or argument about how we can make this change.

We recognise the importance of ensuring this transition is a just one. We talk so much about the fact that we need to work with communities—particularly the communities that Senator Macdonald I think referred to in his contribution—that have been relying on the coal industry for over a century. You cannot make decisions about our community without engaging with them and ensuring that we have a just transition. We won't let coal power workers and communities be left behind, as we, a parliament, a government, actually tackle climate change. The inevitability of this transition is recognised. Finally, I think, we can say together that the inevitability of the transition is recognised by the energy industry and, as a result, the planned and managed phase-out of coal-fired power is something the industry accepts and includes in its forward plans. The head of the Australian Energy Council, Mr Matthew Warren, has previously said that new coal-fired power stations in Australia are 'uninvestable', a view held widely by companies and put about clearly in the finance sector. Put simply, the debate about what Australia's energy future looks like has really been won not in this place but in corporate boardrooms and communities across Australia.

Australia's energy future is one that is increasingly renewable, increasingly flexible, increasingly distributed and increasingly high tech. We are never going to go back to the old 20th century model of a central coal plant and passive customers; even if we try to put our climate change obligations to one side, which I believe I've heard debated in this place, we mustn't, we shouldn't and we won't. The fact is that renewable energy is the cheapest form of new electricity generation, and storage and energy management technologies are seeing advances and cost reductions that mean a reliable, affordable renewable energy system is well within Australia's grasp.

The current debate about energy policy isn't about a coal-fired future versus a renewables future. Though I believe that debate will continue to happen in this place, that is not the real debate. We must have a renewables future. The real debate is really about a well-managed transition versus a transition that is chaotic and costly, which is what the approach of the Turnbull government is delivering.

That does not mean that Labor are supporting the bill that's before this place this morning, the Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2017. We don't believe that it's a sensible bill. We don't believe that it actually engages in the debate we need to have. The debate we should be having in this place includes the questions: how can the transition to clean energy be best managed? What policy framework best delivers a clean energy future whilst safeguarding reliability and affordability—that is, not denying that affordability and reliability can occur but actually safeguarding reliability and affordability? What must governments, at every level, do to ensure coal power workers and their communities see and are part of a bright and prosperous future? How can we ensure that renters and those in community and social housing can access the benefits of solar and battery systems?

We must also talk, in this place and in our communities, about how we are going to be part of the ongoing international discussion that is clearly outlined in the sustainable development goals—the sustainable development goals that our nation, with many others, signed on to with great protestations of faith two years ago. At least four of these goals are a core part of this debate and what we should be talking about in this place. We have goal 7: affordable and clean energy. That's what this debate is about—affordability and clean energy. It's also about industry, innovation and infrastructure: working with the people who have the skills, the ability and the finance to make sure we have the infrastructure, the innovation and the science that will ensure we have the strong, clean renewable energy future we must have. We must also talk about sustainable cities and communities—that is, ensuring strong, secure and effective energy processes so that people are not struggling, on a daily basis, with energy costs. We also need to have responsible consumption and production. Nothing is more central to this debate than responsible consumption and production—again, understanding the importance and the essential nature of energy in our community.

Goal 13 is climate action. I do believe that any debate about whether there is a link between carbon emissions and climate action should be over, though every now and then you hear echoes in this place about whether it is still open for debate. We know that there are people in the parliament that will continue to deny, continue to say that there is no link. Even if they don't understand the science, they believe that even if Australia took action it wouldn't make any difference, so why should we do anything? We have very clearly the partnerships for the goals for it to actually come together. These things provide the framework about which we can put our debate, about which we can make our policies and how we can bring communities along with us, so it's not just Australia involved in this debate but that it's debated internationally.

I think there are things in the bill we've got before us that overstep the mark. In their enthusiasm, the people who drafted the bill have been caught up into debates that are not really clear. The bill is not carefully worded. Its full consequences can't be known. The bill states that the Commonwealth must not provide financial or other support in connection with the refurbishment of coal-fired power stations. What does that exactly mean? Does it include the processing of approvals and licences or other regulatory processes? Does it include public research funding through universities or the wonderful CSIRO into technologies that might be used in connection with a future coal-fired plant refurbishment to reduce carbon emissions? What about the carbon price?

Even though the Greens voted with the Abbott Liberal opposition against Labor's carbon pricing scheme in 2009, they claim that they do support a carbon price. You must know that a carbon price provides a financial incentive for the refurbishment of coal-fired power plants to lower their carbon emissions and carbon pollution. Would this bill that's saying that there shouldn't be any engagement in this way make a carbon price unlawful because it would provide other Commonwealth support for the refurbishment of coal-fired power plants? The bill says the Commonwealth must not assist the transfer of ownership of a coal-fired power station. How about the regulatory processes that may be triggered by a purely private transfer of ownership? Is this bill saying that the usual regulatory functions of government should not apply to coal-fired power stations, simply because of the emission intensity of coal power? In certain circumstances, that is exactly what this bill would seem to deliver. These questions need to be asked and they need to be answered. We can't just have a flat political statement that people don't like coal power stations. We need a legislative framework that will respond to the needs that we have. The wording and the drafting need to respond to the real questions.

We've heard much about where this debate should be, and we heard Senator Macdonald wax lyrical about the strong reactions of the government. A strong admiration and respect and love of coal, which led to people bringing lumps of coal into this place, seem to still be the dominant features of the Turnbull government's approach to renewables and coal. Labor fought in 2014 and 2015 to block the government's then attempts to get rid of the renewable energy targets, which are the key element of what we have in our current system about renewable energies and our process. We have put our policies into the public domain. People know there's a strong commitment from Labor to renewable energy but there is not the same trust, the same acceptance and the same knowledge that the government has that same commitment to an effective renewable energy future.

Recently, Senator Di Natale talked about the issues around the Liddell plant in his contribution to the debate in the Senate. Two large coal-fired power stations have closed, with the federal government refusing to help workers and the communities deal with the impacts. This refusal goes directly against the obligation of the governments to deliver a just transition under the Paris accords. This was the opportunity for governments across the world to sign up to the Paris accords for a future that would see a transition from a coal-determined process to one that looked openly at renewables. A part of that has got to be bringing the workers and the communities along with the decisions so that there is what we talk about very openly, a just transition.

We know that industries across this country have been crippled by policy uncertainty and that the government have been key to delivering this uncertainty. You just know that no matter how many statements are made by this government about their commitment to renewables, there is this ongoing push within the government from certain individuals, who are very open in their views, that this will not happen, that somehow we in Australia have this special form of coal that is clean and that our clean coal doesn't need to be considered as the coal industry. In fact, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, the government has made very clear that they believe clean coal should actually be considered as renewable energy.

Within this space, this means that industries—the very people on whom we rely to work towards effective scientific change and to bring innovative practices as per the Sustainable Development Goals about innovation and production and the very people upon whom we rely to develop our industries—are confused and, in fact, crippled by this uncertainty from government.

We know, and we've talked about it in this place before, the Finkel review. The government came to this place and suggested that they would have the Chief Scientist look at the whole issue of energy and our. The Finkel review, on which $1.7 million was spent, then came up with recommendations and, after six months of these considerations, the government rejected much of what Finkel said. We had statements in this place calling for communities, scientists and people in this place to work together, to have a common aim and a common acceptance into the future, and the government said no. Instead of taking up the recommendations put out by Finkel, which had come through after many months of consultation all across the country—at Senate estimates we found out how many organisations and how many people with whom Professor Finkel spoke—we had the review and the recommendations, and then the government decided to take another road to the future. This was, obviously, one that was looking to a new future and that was looking very carefully at where we were going, and now we're concentrating on the National Energy Guarantee.

Again, we've talked many times in this place about the National Energy Guarantee. It came out as a very, very small document; one that could be easily read because there wasn't much in it. Now, as time goes by, and after the last round of Senate estimates, a bit more detail is being built around the National Energy Guarantee. But we've been able to find out that the scheme has been estimated to cut utility-scale renewable energy investment by a massive 95 per cent compared to today's level. Today, a report has been released which says that the NEG will deliver no additional renewable energy investment at all. If that is the result and if that is the planned future by this government, how can we be confident that we will see any just transition—a just transition to renewable energy, a just transition for workers and a just transition to security in our country? It just doesn't add up.

Labor continues to be committed to finding a cross-party framework to support the badly-needed investment to transition our energy sector and to deliver reliable and affordable energy. But we can't sign a blank cheque and we won't support a policy that strangles rather than supports transition to clean energy.

When it comes to the government's NEG or, indeed, to today's Greens bill, the real devil is in the detail. Neither the government nor the Greens bill have given enough thought to this or enough detail for us to be certain that they have an effective future for our country in their sights. That's why Labor won't support this bill and why we can't commit to a barely-thought-out NEG. We are interested in serious answers to the country's serious problems, and we just can't rely on short media grabs that talk one way or the other about what the magic result is going to be.

In Bangkok, in February this year, there was an international meeting based on the Sustainable Development Goals, looking at goal No. 7, which is the one around affordable and clean energy. This was an attempt to put a benchmark on what is happening across the world now. People from all over the world, people from all levels of industry, people who really understood not only the way energy should operate but the impact of energy on communities, came together at this meeting in Bangkok. This was a prelude to a further meeting which is going to take place in New York later this year where we will look clearly at an understanding that energy is inextricably interlinked with the whole sustainable development goal agenda, which is focused on poverty eradication.

Sustainable development goal No. 7 was the first ever universal goal on energy. A high-level political forum on sustainable development later this year will be considering SDG7 along with a range of other goals that look at what is happening on energy in our community. That forum will be occurring in New York. I'm really hopeful that Australia will be present at that meeting with information about what we have achieved—not short answers but clearly thought-out policy about how our nation is going to be part of the international response around the need for clean, safe energy for everybody, not just in Australia but around the world. This conference will be important. When Australia does go to that particular conference, I am truly hoping that we will not be having confusion about what our progress will be and lingering doubts among people across this chamber about whether there will be a renewable energy future. I am hopeful that we will be part of a global response so that we will be able to have respectful debates in this place but bring our community along behind us so that a just transition to renewable energy will occur in this place and across the communities and we won't be leaving anyone behind.

Debate adjourned.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:02): I rise today to speak to the Fair Work Amendment (Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2015, which my colleague the former senator Larissa Waters introduced into this place. I thank Senator Waters for her contribution to progress towards equality, and I'm pleased to debate this bill here today. We've brought this debate on today to ensure that this place retains a focus on real, concrete actions to reduce the gender pay gap in Australia. As long as the gender pay gap persists in Australia, we are failing to achieve our best as a nation. We are missing out on the best of our talent and our potential by failing to properly provide for equal pay for equal work.

This bill will help to reduce the gender pay gap by banning gag clauses, which prevent workers in various sectors and industries from discussing their pay with their colleagues. This bill amends the Fair Work Act 2009 so that any contract of employment, enterprise agreement or award that prohibits workers from discussing their pay will have no effect. It would probably surprise a few people that many workers, especially those in the private sector who are receiving a salary, are not allowed to talk about their pay with their colleagues. Many employment contracts include a gag clause, which means that workers can be disciplined or even sacked for talking about their pay. Workers should have the option to voluntarily discuss their terms and conditions of employment with their colleagues. This bill seeks to enable that. It would not force anyone to discuss their pay, but it would make sure that employers could not pressure their employees to stay silent. This bill also prevents employers from taking action against employees for discussing their pay with their colleagues.

I'm not one who would usually spruik the banks, but there is an excellent bank advertisement that goes to the heart of the gender pay gap. You might have seen this ad. There are several children—siblings—who are asked to do chores. They do their chores and then the boys are paid more than the girls. All the children are shocked, none more so than the girls, and their reactions are not only heart warming but accurate. 'It should be flat-out illegal,' one of them says. I'm not joking. I'm not being unreasonable. If you do the same work, you should get paid the same money. I have no words. It's so wrong. How does the gender pay gap happen?

Let me share some stories with you. I've known so many friends and colleagues whose career pathways seem to have a default ending of lower pay than our male colleagues. I think of the women I went to school with and went to uni with, and the trajectory is very familiar. We finished our degrees and went into full-time work—bright, energetic, enthusiastic, the world being our oyster—in our early and mid-20s. But even then, immediately after graduation, our brash, confident male colleagues were more than likely to be offered and to be paid more than us, overselling their competencies as we were often more realistic about ours. My friend and former senator in this place Larissa Waters talked about her own experience of pay secrecy during her time working on these issues. She talked about her experience as a junior graduate lawyer, a couple of months into her exciting new role, and learning that the guy sitting next to her, also straight out of uni, was earning $5,000 more each year. They were doing exactly the same job, and were so early in their careers. That extra $5,000 was a hefty portion of her overall pay. The two had equal experience as junior lawyers and she'd even got better marks than him. He inadvertently let this pay discrepancy slip in a casual conversation, but otherwise it wouldn't have been transparent or known, because of the level of pay secrecy in that firm.

There are many life circumstances that lead many women to end up with lower pay outcomes. For many of us, the time of our early careers coincides with relationships becoming serious, with moving in with our partner and with beginning a family, and our working lives then take a back seat to child rearing. Don't get me wrong. I loved having kids. But life at that time was a juggle of part-time work, paid child care, parents looking after the kids, school drop-offs and pick-ups, after-school care, feeling guilty about the kids going to after-school care too much and feeling guilty about before-school care and trying to avoid that as much as possible. I personally found three days a week to be the right balance between being there for my kids and contributing to paying the mortgage and keeping my professional life ticking over. But many other mothers I know chucked in their careers altogether, deciding to scrape by on significantly less household income in order to live a happier, less stressful family life.

I think of one friend, who trained as an immunologist. She was out of the paid workforce for almost 10 years, home with the kids until her youngest went to school, and then retrained as a secondary school science teacher. Many of these women have found it difficult getting back into their preferred careers, having to then compete against younger, more recently graduated folk. And the life skills that they have gained in bringing up kids—juggling, multitasking, being very flexible and problem solving—aren't recognised. The people who would recognise their skills generally aren't doing the recruiting. Going back to study and starting again is a common course of action, and with it come more years out of the paid workforce.

Another woman I know, who is now in her mid-40s, has a PhD in climate science. Her three kids are now aged 10, eight and five. She's back at work part-time at their primary school, working as a teacher's aide, which is really, really important work but a role that fits a pattern of being undertaken largely by women and consequently being undervalued and underpaid. She's fortunate, with her higher degree, that she's got other options, and she's now looking for work that is more relevant to her qualifications and that will be better remunerated. But she's struggling to find something more suitable, mainly because she is not wanting to work full-time just yet. If she can't find anything she'll stick to being a teacher's aide, regardless of how poorly paid it is. It's rewarding work, it's close to home and it fits in around the kids.

Other friends, even now that their kids are at high school, don't apply for promotions at work because of the expectations of lots of overtime, being inconsistent with a healthy work-life balance, and that's particularly so as our parents are ageing. Some of my contemporaries are now taking a month or more at a time of unpaid leave to help ageing parents move into retirement villages or nursing homes, and/or they're dropping back to four days a week so that they can be available to drive their parents off to doctors appointments and physio appointments, and it goes on and on.

This bill that we are discussing today won't solve these structural problems. We are going to have to keep working on these. But at least it would mean that, when women were getting back into the paid workforce after having kids, or dropping back to part-time work, they would more likely be able to negotiate and be paid what they were worth—at least on par with that brash young male graduate who fits, to a T, the stereotypical expectations of those doing the recruiting, or that senior partner who, yes, works long hours and is always available. But does he really deliver that much more? Does he deserve to be paid that much more?

According to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, the full-time gender pay gap in Australia is 15.3 per cent—15.3 per cent—and this has largely remained unchanged for 20 years. While the percentage is an important thing to note, it's crucial that we understand exactly what that means in tangible terms. The 15.3 per cent gender pay gap means that women working full time earn, per week, on average, $1,409, compared to $1,662.70 for men. That's $253.70 less. That's a difference of $13,192.40 less every year for the average female full-time worker; $131,924 over 10 years; and $527,696 over 40 years—over half a million dollars. These figures are staggering. And they are unacceptable. The private sector has a staggering 19.2 per cent gender pay gap, compared to 10.8 per cent in the public sector, and it is not unrelated that pay gap clauses largely don't exist in the public sector and are much, much more commonplace in the private sector.

This bill addresses just one factor that contributes to the gender pay gap, but it is an important one. In their submission to the inquiry into this bill, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency reminded us of some of the other significant factors: that particular industries have different methods of setting pay and that this affects the pay gap; that industries and sectors which generally have individual agreements between employer and employee, rather than awards or collective agreements, tend to have a worse gender pay gap; and that Australian employment remains gender-segregated in many respects, with women and men traditionally working in different industries and different jobs, and there aren't many industries in Australia where gender parity has been achieved in workplace make-up. Added to this is that our society and economy largely undervalue work in female-dominated industries and jobs, whether in child care or aged care or hairdressing, and that these jobs tend to attract lower wages than jobs in male-dominated industries, resulting in significant differences in pay between men and women. The pay gap between genders is also reinforced by differences in access to education between women and men. Another contributing factor is that there is a lack of women in senior positions across the board, but especially in certain industries such as financial and insurance services, where women are paid 26.1 per cent less than male colleagues.

There are correlations, as I've already talked about, between the lack of pay equality and women overwhelmingly performing more unpaid caring responsibilities, and ending up with reduced remuneration upon return to the workforce as they potentially manage caring alongside work, or they experience role re-definition and pay changes after taking time out. And of course there are the additional effects of taking leave to fulfil caring responsibilities, such as reduced earnings and reduced superannuation contributions. Women experiencing more direct and indirect discrimination in the workplace can also be a major contributing factor to lack of promotion to senior positions. That's what happens when we see the old boys' clubs prevailing in certain workplaces and industries, and it can mean that promotions and development opportunities are disproportionately allocated to men. These are interrelated work, family, social and cultural factors, and we must keep them in front of mind as we consider the gender pay gap and the ways we can keep driving that gap down.

The Greens had this bill drafted in order to take a step towards pay equality, while acknowledging these many other factors that influence inequality in the workplace and in pay scales. Getting rid of gag clauses will contribute to much greater pay transparency in workplaces and mean that employers will have to justify how they pay their workers, rather than allowing discrimination and unconscious bias to creep into their decision-making.

We know that when pay deals are not kept in the dark, and when workers know what their colleagues are earning, the gender pay gap is smaller, and this is demonstrated by the stark difference in the pay gap between the private and the public sectors. Shining the light on secret pay deals means that all workers, including women, are treated fairly and receive the same pay for the same job. When salaries are set through individual negotiations, and workers are prevented from discussing the outcome with each other, overall, women end up with less pay. While there's no evidence to suggest that women's abilities to negotiate are any different from men's, research shows that women's negotiations tend to be less successful than men's.

The Greens have been in this space, working to reduce the gender pay gap, for a long time. This bill was first tabled in 2015, and I would strongly urge all parties and Independents in this chamber to support this bill. As we flagged in our dissenting report on the inquiry held into this bill, we would consider amendments to improve this bill even further, based on evidence that we heard from the submissions to the inquiry. But the fact remains: women should be paid the same as men for the same job. Everyone should be paid the same for the same job. It's as simple as that. This isn't controversial. I doubt you'd find anybody in this place who would disagree that people, regardless of gender, are entitled to equal pay for equal work. This isn't women wanting special treatment. It isn't about women wanting more than men. It's simply about being paid the same as a man for the same job. At the heart of it, it's about fairness. This is what this bill seeks to achieve.

This bill isn't the only thing that we need to do to reduce the gender pay gap to zero. There are other factors at play and other structural issues that must be addressed. But what the Greens are putting forward today is one concrete step towards addressing the issues.

Reducing the gender pay gap is about fairness. Everyone should be paid the same for the same job, regardless of their gender. In the bank advertisement that I discussed earlier, one of the girls says to one of the boys, who has just been paid more than her, 'What we're trying to tell you is that it's not fair that boys get paid more than girls.' It's so simple that even children understand it. The question is: is it simple enough for this parliament to start taking some steps towards addressing the persistent gender pay gap in Australia?

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (11:18): I thank Senator Rice and the Greens for bringing to the floor of this chamber the debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2015. I was pleased to hear a lot of what Senator Rice said in her contribution there, acknowledging that I don't think there is anyone in this place that would believe trying to perpetuate the situation where we do have a gender pay gap is acceptable. Everyone wants to make sure that we have fairness in this sense. I think it is right that we acknowledge that that is the aim that everyone that comes to this debate would have. How we get there, Senator Rice, I suppose is probably going to be how we differ with regard to this.

It is an important issue, and it's been one that has been talked about extensively for some time now—a very, very long period of time. We talk about it more as a society that more openly embraces equality between the sexes, something that up until a few years ago I don't think we did properly, and I still think we have a long way to go in that space, but it is the catalyst for this debate. And the statistics we've seen, many of which Senator Rice referred to in her contribution, do bear out the problem that we face, as a Western society, with regard to trying to level the playing field when it comes to take-home pay of women and where that sits with regard to the take-home pay of men. No-one in this place could suggest that it is right to continue to perpetuate this problem that we see with regard to the take-home pay of women, as opposed to men. We all want to fix it. It's how we get there that we need to consider.

And so, in looking at the bill that former Senator Waters did prepare, we have to consider: is this the best way? And I do acknowledge, as Senator Rice pointed out on a couple of occasions, that this is but one element of how the Greens would see the parliament, and indeed the government, address this issue. But my question is: well, should we be doing these standalone things, ticking these items one by one off a list of things that need to be done to address a complex situation? Personally, having had a look at the work of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, I'm not sure that way—removing, as has been referred to by Senator Rice, the gag clauses as a standalone item—is the way to do it.

As Senator Rice said, the bill seeks to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 by removing restrictions on employees' rights to disclose the amount they earn or other information about their pay or earnings as well as prohibiting employers from taking adverse action against employees for disclosing this information. I haven't been able to go and research what action, if any, has been taken—I assume Senator Rice is aware of action that may have been taken in relation to employees who have breached these provisions of the Fair Work Act—but it is about what a change of this nature, what changing the Fair Work Act in accordance with these amendments, would actually do in practice to address this issue that needs changing. We are all in furious agreement that it needs changing, but how far would it take us to do that? What consequences would flow from this? What unforeseen consequences would flow from this? We need to consider all of those questions, which is the right thing for this chamber to do, as we do consider this legislation.

It's also important to consider the context here in Australia—I wouldn't quite call it historical, but I mean where things are at now and where they have been over the past few years with regard to the gender pay gap. Indeed, it is important to note, and Senator Rice did point this out, that the latest figure from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the gender pay gap highlights that it is at 15.3 per cent. Now that is still not good enough—no-one is saying it is—but it is down from a high of 18.5 per cent, which is where it was in November 2014. That's a drop of more than three per cent. We do need to acknowledge that, but, at the same time, we need to accept that this means there is a huge amount of work yet to be done. We've got another 15.3 per cent to work through in order to ensure that this issue has been dealt with. This statistic means that it's the lowest it's been for 12 years. It's also pleasing to see that women's employment in this country is at a record high of over 5.8 million. The women's workforce participation rate has risen since 2016. It reached 60.5 per cent as at December last year according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics' figures that they released in January this year. It does highlight that there are some efforts being made by government, by employee representative organisations and also, hopefully, the private sector, noting the difference in the statistics relating to the private and public sectors. So there is work happening, things are changing and things are improving, but we've got a long way to go. It is important, though, to acknowledge those things that have happened to date as a result of work that the government has been doing.

As Senator Rice points out, though, it is a complex issue and not one influenced by a single factor. There is no way the government could intervene in any meaningful way without causing all sorts of problems across the employment markets, because it is incredibly complex. The issue is related to the numbers of hours worked in certain professions. Full-time men work on average more hours per week, 42.1, than full-time women, 38.2. I think it goes to that point Senator Rice raised around the individual circumstances of the woman versus the man. Another factor is the greater unpaid caring responsibilities of women. These sorts of things flow into the capacity of an individual to work, and then onto the statistics we are seeing with regard to the gender pay gap—all things we need to deal with.

The industrial and occupational segregation has been talked about as well. Six in 10 Australians work in an industry dominated by one gender. An example is child care, where we have seen over many years a desire from those who work within that sector to achieve a better pay rate. My wife is involved in the childcare industry. The employees at that centre are all women. There was one male there for a short period of time. It highlights the issue of occupational and industrial segregation Senator Rice referred to, which also flows into this.

The differences in education, work experience and seniority and the differing levels of qualifications and expertise people bring may be dominated to a degree by gender. I've spoken previously about my mother and my grandmother, two women who, as a result of their life experiences, were impeded from climbing the ladder in their workforces. My mother, who didn't satisfactorily complete year 10, went off to be a checkout clerk in one of the local department stores, and effectively that was it for her education and employment for a very long period of time. Fast-forward 40 years, and she has now completed her PhD at the University of Tasmania, but she has often said to me that her lack of educational experience—where her brothers were given the opportunity to attain a university education, in addition to having completed years 11 and 12 at the local college in Tasmania at the time, but she was not—had an impact on how she lived her life. Thankfully we don't see much of those sorts of things anymore. Where they occur, we need to ensure they are stamped out and that opportunities are provided, particularly in regional communities.

I think it is worth talking about a number of the actions being taken by the government with regard to this issue. Despite the figures I cited earlier—that there are now over 5.8 million Australian women in employment, that the participation rate is the highest on record at 60.5 per cent, and that the pay gap has dropped to 15.3 per cent—there is still work to be done. It was pleasing to note that my colleague Senator Cash has released Towards 2025: an Australian government strategy to boost women's workforce participation, the document which guides the government's efforts in dealing with this issue, along with any of the other flow-on issues related to gender discrimination. Elements of the plan, which is to be rolled out over the next 10 years, include ensuring that there are flexible arrangements for affordable and accessible childcare, so that families can make a choice and we can overcome the somewhat natural barriers to women entering the workforce that have been described in the debate so far.

On improving workplace diversity and flexibility, we're seeing the government make a point about ensuring that flexible work is a normal part of the workplace for both men and women; supporting both men and women to innovate and to succeed with entrepreneurial efforts, and to thrive in whatever field they choose to go into; working to strengthen women's economic security to ensure that women are secure, independent and empowered through our society and through attaining work; and ensuring that there is a set of enhanced financial incentives to work. So it's clear that there are a number of measures in place.

This strategy, though, also identifies six groups of women who have specific needs and whose experiences need to be specifically catered for. Those groups include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, culturally and linguistically diverse women, mature-aged women, rural and regional women—one group I've already spoken about here—women with a disability, and, of course, young women. Sometimes people will fall into a number of those categories as well.

There are implementation plans being rolled out each year with regard to this strategy, to ensure that we are going to see the results needed to get things right with regard to issues like the gender pay gap. The 2017-18 implementation plan outlined a number of actions, including the expansion of ParentsNext to assist 68,000 parents with young children to plan and prepare for employment, at a value of $263 million; the implementation of the new Launch into Work program to assist jobseekers to become job ready; the promotion of the benefits of flexible work for small and medium businesses, which is another issue, because smaller enterprises which don't have the resources or the capacity to absorb the notion of a flexible workplace are something that the government does need to support, and it is pleasing to see the government do that; and a gender analysis of employment services to both improve current service delivery and inform employment services by 2020.

I would like to briefly talk on some of the measures that the Tasmanian government's been taking with regard to dealing with issues of gender discrimination. The most pleasing thing I've read for a little while is that in the Tasmanian parliament—the lower house, at least—a majority of members are women. Thirteen out of the 25—yes, it's a small parliament!—are women. It is the first time in Tasmania's history, I believe, that that has happened—and Senator McKim breathes a sigh of relief over there!—with regard to the outcome in Tasmania. That is a good thing, and I think it does show what that state is doing to try and address this issue.

The Hodgman Liberal government in Tasmania is committed to dealing with this issue. It does have its own five-year Tasmanian Women's Plan, which has been running since 2013 and concludes this year—and I'm sure there will be more to come on that front—and which has set out a framework for creating gender equality by reducing systemic barriers to women's participation and leadership opportunities. There are a great number of achievements in there as a result of the last four and a bit years of work—indeed, the previous government was as committed to dealing with this issue in Tasmania as the current one.

The statistics which do bear out that there are some great initiatives the government can employ include those from the Women on Boards strategy, which helps females in Tasmania secure positions on many of the government boards that exist relating to government business enterprises, state-owned companies and other committees within the structure of government. The overall percentage of female representation on these boards has increased from just over 30 per cent to just over 40 per cent as at October last year, which is a great sign that we are embracing the need for diversity and we are ensuring that it begins to exist in leadership roles and leadership entities in our state. As at 24 October 2017, 53 per cent of government business enterprises had board members that were women, and 44 per cent of the state-owned company board members were women. So we're well on the way there with one of them, and exceeding in another area. There are a number of boards that the government is responsible for—131 in total—and it is great to see most of those well on the way to ensuring that those targets are being reached.

Of the government's plan, it is nice to refer to the comments of Susan Fahey, the CEO of the Tasmanian Women's Legal Service, who said, 'This plan is a truly whole-of-government approach. It's a significant plan that shows the government can walk and chew gum, and it provides a solid foundation for significantly reducing family violence in our community.' That was in relation to the family violence component of the government's plans. Teeny Brumby, an alderman from Burnie City Council, gave feedback on the Australian Institute of Company Directors scholarships course funded by the Tasmanian government. In her comments, she said, 'This learning experience, as a woman in leadership in Tasmania, cannot be underestimated. It is absolutely brilliant to see our government investing in the future of female leaders in our state, and I cannot thank the AICD and the Tasmanian government enough for their generous support in this remarkable journey.'

There are a lot of good things happening in Tasmania and across the country with regard to dealing with this issue, but, that said, there is more to be done. I go back to the question I asked at the very beginning of my contribution: what does this particular piece of legislation do to address the issue fundamentally? I note that in the United Kingdom the government has imposed a mandatory reporting regime with regard to gender pay matters. The implementation of that has been met with mixed reviews. I understand that private entities that employ over 250 people—of which there are 9,000 that are required to report—are supposed to lodge information about how much they pay the women and the men in their organisation so that we have transparency around it. The statistics in the UK show that gender pay remains an issue and that this standalone measure won't go to fix that.

Alarmingly, the response from the entities who have been required to provide this information suggests that the process is flawed. There are reports of at least 20 companies in the UK providing bunkum details to throw the system, so that no-one would find out what the true gender pay gap was within their organisation. There's clearly no mechanism to ensure that what they have provided is accurate, and so when 20 companies, some of them extremely large in the employment number they have, do this one has to question whether this system could actually generate any good outcomes. If we're reliant on the honour and goodwill of an entity participating in this process and on them providing accurate information, that leaves some significant holes. Indeed, research conducted on companies participating in this process indicated that they believe the system wouldn't work. Some openly admitted they would game the system, that they would provide information that wouldn't accurately reflect the nature of things within their organisation. That is concerning. It suggests that it will not go to solving the problem of the gender pay gap we have. When the system doesn't have the strength of enforcement around it, how do you ensure that that information is accurate? It really is about working across the issues—the complex issues, the range of issues; as the government is doing and other governments before it have, too—and trying to get to the root cause of all of these problems to ensure that we properly address them, that we look not just at one area and deal with that, which could yield unintended consequences, but at the whole gamut and make sure we do it comprehensively and properly.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:38): The gender pay gap is a multifaceted problem. It arises from a complex mix of cultural and economic factors, which range from gender segregation in the workplace through the availability of flexible working conditions to outright discrimination. Closing the gender pay gap will require a coordinated effort across our social, taxation and workplace relations policies. Eliminating it may take a generation.

Given this, it is entirely predictable that the Greens would draft a bill that contains only two substantive sections and gives us the grandiosely ambitious name Fair Work Amendment (Gender Pay Gap) Bill—the bill does not deserve this title. Labor is inclined to support it—we believe that pay secrecy is an obstacle to pay equity—but we have substantive concerns about the bill.

The bill only addresses one small aspect of the gender pay gap and its significant drafting flaws mean that it doesn't even address that aspect effectively. Labor has been considering this idea for some time and we believe a strengthened version, with the drafting problems removed, may have some merit as part of a suite of other measures. But this is the point: the Greens don't have a coherent, well-developed set of measures to properly address the gender pay gap, and yet that is what this bill purports to do. This bill is what happens when you draft policies on the basis of what they'll look like on a Facebook post rather than how they'll impact on the people who depend on you. We on the Labor side know that as a sole measure it simply does not go far enough in dealing with the disparities in wages between working men and working women in Australia today.

The bill has flaws which ought to have been addressed: there's been plenty of time, and the fact that they haven't been reveals the Greens' lack of real commitment to this issue. One wonders what they have been doing since the Senate committee reported. This bill has remained unchanged since it was first introduced in September 2015, during the 44th Parliament. Following its introduction in 2015 this bill was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which handed down its report in 2016, during the last parliament. The committee heard from a number of submitters—impressive evidence, actually—including many legal experts who identified obvious and also some unintentional flaws with the way the bill was drafted. The Labor senators' dissenting report pointed out that these concerns should be addressed. The Greens' report indicated that these concerns should be addressed but, disappointingly, they remain in the bill as we re-examine it today.

I say it's disappointing, but it is also predictable that the Greens have not addressed any of the concerns raised by submitters or by the opposition through amendments before asking the Senate to consider it once again. I acknowledge that Senator Rice said she was willing to consider amendments, but that is not good enough. Actual reform by a party that aspires to form government requires actually doing the work, not just relying on a more serious operation to deliver that for you.

I'll go through some of the problems. We note that the bill does not prevent pay secrecy practices; it merely prevents the operation of pay secrecy clauses in contracts or awards. Accordingly, it offers no protection for workers who are directed to keep their pay confidential by their employer or any workers whose company policies or procedures require them to keep their pay confidential. This means that should this legislation pass unamended, workers might end up incorrectly assuming they are free to disclose their pay without consequence when in fact they could face significant consequences for doing so. The Law Council, in its submission to the inquiry into the bill, also considered that the bill did not create a workplace right and that therefore it does not offer protection under the Fair Work Act 2009 if the employer were to take adverse action against an employee for revealing their pay. Again, as drafted, this bill won't fully protect workers who disclose their pay. Professor Andrew Stewart, a specialist lawyer in workplace relations and academic at the University of Adelaide, also observed a clear limitation of the bill in relation to coverage. He said:

… it seems to me that the bill has a number of potential flaws in some respects—seeking to go too far and in other respects not going far enough.

He went on to say that the flaws in the drafting of the bill meant:

It does not, as the explanatory memorandum claims, in my view, 'make sure that workers are allowed to tell their colleagues what they are paid if they wish to without fear of retaliation'.

In her submission to the committee, Professor Marian Baird, a gender employment relations specialist, and her colleague, Ms Alexandra Heron, suggested that the bill be amended to ban pay secrecy clauses to make the intention clear. Further, they recommended that the bill should be amended to ensure that the Fair Work Information Statement informs employees about pay transparency at the beginning of their engagement in a job. The ACTU also made this suggestion during their appearance before the committee, stressing the importance of making workers aware of their rights to disclose information about pay. Despite all this, the Greens have made no attempt to amend this bill as a result of the Senate inquiry which reported in November 2016, nor have they made any attempt to discuss this bill with the opposition to discuss how we might set about remedying these deficiencies. This is not how you behave if you are serious about addressing an issue, but the scope of the bill alone shows us that the Greens are more concerned about being seen to be acting than they are about actually making a difference. Addressing pay secrecy is important, but without any other policies it will barely make a dent in the pay gap. In this, as in so many other policy areas, the Greens have shown themselves to be disinterested in doing the detailed and unheralded work that accompanies all meaningful reform. It's not, of course, the only example, and it's not the only example as it relates to women.

I want to talk for a moment about the annual wage review that is currently being undertaken by the Fair Work Commission. For the second year in a row, the government's submission to the review has claimed that lifting the minimum wage would not have any impact on the gender pay gap, because they claim that most of the gender pay gap exists between high-income earners. This is wrong—this is not the advice provided by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency—and I want to talk through why it's wrong. The pay gap is not just about a man and a woman sitting side by side doing the same job for different pay, although that happens. Research shows that much of the pay gap actually arises from structural discrimination that operates across whole industries and occupations. That's more subtle than straight-out discrimination against individual women.

Australian workplaces are highly gender segregated. Men and women tend to be clustered in different jobs in different sectors. The problem is that the more women there are in a type of occupation or sector, the more likely it is that that sector is poorly paid when compared to male-dominated occupations or sectors. What it means in practice is that workers with very similar experience and workers with very similar levels of education are paid different amounts depending on whether they work in a male- or a female-dominated field. We're talking about a certificate III being worth more if you work as a mechanic than it is if you work in child care. We're talking about the maintenance department staff being paid more than the cafeteria staff.

Those on the other side would probably say that these different kinds of labour are just valued differently in the market. It might be that some colleagues on the crossbench and some colleagues in the Greens seats would say the same thing. They'd say that this is just a case of the market at work, but this is actually a case of the market not working. As a society, we have consistently undervalued women's work. Pay is particularly bad in roles that mirror the work that women have traditionally done at home, such as care work. We are pretty terrible at recognising the value of that work when it is done by family members. We have not been much better at recognising it when it's being done by female professionals. It's not an answer to just say, 'Oh well, men and women choose different career paths.' There's a complex set of factors that push both men and women into gender-typical careers. Individual choice is not a remedy to this, and many women have no choice. Some female-dominated fields are female dominant because they are the only place that offers truly flexible roles where women can combine their caring obligations with professional work.

In the long run it may not even matter what field women choose. Research shows that pay drops once women begin to take over a male-dominated field. A landmark US study examined over half a century of data, and they found that wages fell for everyone, from ticket sellers to designers, as their field became more feminised. If women changing careers isn't the answer, what is?

This is where the Fair Work Commission's annual wage review comes in. In Labor's submission to the 2018 Fair Work Commission annual wage review, we reinforced that a significant contributing factor to the size of the gender pay gap is the fact that women are more likely to be employed in low-paid industries and jobs and that they're more likely than their male counterparts to be reliant on award wages. We called on the commission to give weight to equal remuneration and closing the gender pay gap in the annual wage review. What did the Greens' submission say? Nothing. They didn't bother to make one. Now, I don't know whether that's because the Greens don't have the capacity for detailed, low-profile policy work or whether it is because they simply don't think it's important. But it is important. It's very important, and the commissioner's decision will make a difference to millions of Australian workers and many, many women. Policy change requires more than a self-congratulatory social media post.

In contrast, Labor is committed to a suite of reforms to address the gender pay gap, and we have a track record of making meaningful change from the government benches. Employers now measure and report their progress on gender equality over time under Labor's Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 and the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. We delivered national paid parental leave so that families don't have to make the difficult choice between time with a new baby and covering all the bills. Labor delivered affordable, flexible and high-quality child care so that working parents have a real choice and better care for their children. And we locked in more protection for women and men against discrimination and sexual harassment through amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act.

When we come back to government we'll return with a bold agenda. We know that we need a strong and comprehensive plan for gender equality to address the persistent and shameful gender pay gap in Australia today. On 7 March this year we launched a national strategy for gender equality and highlighted our commitment to make gender equality a central priority for a future Labor government. Only our comprehensive strategy, not a piecemeal strategy, will achieve gender equality in our workplaces. So far we have committed to tangible reforms and targets to achieve this in both the public and the private sector.

I'll take you through some of it. It's a very long list. We will take measurable action to close the gender pay gap and we will report annually to parliament on our progress. We will reduce the gap in women's workforce participation by 25 per cent by 2025. We will raise representation of women on government boards to 50 per cent within the first term of government. We will boost the representation of women in chair and deputy chair positions on government boards to 40 per cent by 2025. We will set a stretch target of 50 per cent representation of women in senior Public Service roles by 2025. To ensure that women's voices are heard by government, we will boost funding to the six national women's alliances, which represent over 180 women's organisations. They'll take the lead in bringing forward the views, voices and issues of Australian women, in particular women from marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We'll provide $15.2 million to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct the time use survey in 2020 and again in 2027. And then we'll have the evidence base to help us better understand how government policies impact women.

We will take action to protect university students from sexual harassment and sexual assault. We'll set up frameworks for gender-responsive policy and decision-making, including introducing gender impact statements on cabinet submissions and new policy proposals. We'll bring back the women's budget statement and we will convene a ministerial council of gender equality. We'll restore the penalty rates, cuts to which have disproportionately impacted women on low incomes. We will put 10 days of paid domestic violence leave into the National Employment Standards. We will make sure that procurement rules are implemented effectively to ensure that all companies that are awarded government contracts meet the Workplace Gender Equality Agency's requirements. We will work with the Australian Public Service Commission and the CPSU to promote more flexible working arrangements for both men and women in the Australian Public Service. And we are committed to an industrial relations system that can address the gendered undervaluation of work and to improve the wages of low-paid women. This is what a commitment to economic justice for women actually looks like.

The government have been asleep at the wheel on this issue. They have been hopeless. But we expect that from them. They have very little interest in gender equality. Take a look at the composition of the coalition party room. Take a look at the composition of the coalition front bench. This government cannot point to a single thing that they have done to improve pay for low-income women. They cannot point to a single thing they have done to reduce the gender pay gap or to make society more equal or more fair, because they do not believe in it. We expect this from a conservative government.

But it is disappointing that the Greens aren't prepared to do more either. It is not enough to be progressive on Twitter. You do not solve the gender pay gap by just putting the phrase in the title of the bill. Change takes commitment, and it takes hard, and often low-profile, work. And I would like to invite the Greens to join us in displaying either.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (11:55): I, too, rise to speak on the Greens' Fair Work Amendment (Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2015. I'll start off by saying that there is absolutely no doubt that entrenched gender pay gaps exists globally, and that includes right here in Australia. But, like all complex problems, we need to adopt a comprehensive and evidence based approach to resolve it, instead of letting what I'd call simplistic populism guide us here in this chamber..

The gender pay gap is something that I'm very passionate about, and I know it's a passion shared by many across all sides of this chamber. But it does require a comprehensive suite of long-term and genuine policy changes to really address it. This amendment, as proposed by the Greens, would enact changes that will not work. The amendment was not even recommended by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which tabled its report into this amendment in November 2016. The very reason the committee did not recommend this amendment is that there is simply no credible evidence that the mandatory removal of pay secrecy clauses will, by itself, reduce the gender pay gap. Instead, the committee itself recommended that government, employer and industry stakeholders and employee advocates collaborate to actively promote and implement best-practice strategies to tackle the gender pay gap in Australia's workplaces.

I know that the government does understand that the gender pay gap is a complex issue. It is influenced by a number of highly interrelated factors. There are many causes for the gender pay gap. So there can never, ever, be one effective solution—or a silver bullet, as those in the Greens purport there to be in this case. That's why this government has adopted a multifaceted approach to addressing equal pay. And I think it's starting to work. It's showing progress, because the gap is narrowing. Since 2014, the gender pay gap for average weekly earnings of full-time adult employees has reduced from 18.5 per cent to 15.3 per cent in November of last year. It fell one per cent in the last 12 months alone. That is still a sizeable gap, but progress nonetheless.

There would be no-one happier than me to see that gap narrow further, which is why I'm delighted that, on 6 July last year, the government released Towards 2025: an Australian government strategy to boost women's workforce participation. Unlike this amendment before the Senate today, that strategy acknowledges that the gender pay gap is about so much more than employees knowing each other's salaries.

The predominant issue is not about a man and a woman doing the same job and getting different pay. That does still exist, but I know there's been a lot of work done by the private sector, by companies, to look for the reasons for it and to close that gap. Also, the Fair Work Act in fact already includes equal remuneration provisions, which enable people to make an application to the Fair Work Commission for an order to ensure equal remuneration for work that is equal or at least comparable. And, as I said, there are many companies now, across many professions, who are actively seeking and taking measures to close this gap within their own firms.

I think this issue is more about women not being able to enter or re-enter the workforce at the same rate and at the same levels as men, often meaning that they have to take lower-paid jobs with less opportunity to access higher-salaried, full-time positions, they receive far fewer promotions than their male counterparts, and they also earn less of a bonus or a salary increase when they do move up the workplace ladder.

The gender pay gap is an issue that must be grounded in discussions about education and employment opportunities, adequate parental leave, affordable and easily accessible child care and far more flexible work arrangements not just for women but also for men. It's also about what subjects girls and women choose to study, what jobs they take and how they are treated in the workplace itself. But it's also about men's and women's domestic lives. Can women take time off to raise their families without jeopardising their careers? I do not see this as just a women's issue; it is equally a men's issue. Most children today have two working parents. But in most workplaces the burden still falls on women to take the majority of time off and also to take leave and oversee all child-rearing activities.

The reasons for that are quite complex, but I think it starts here in Australia, where we've been so incredibly successful in providing our young girls with equal opportunity in life. They have the same health outcomes as young boys and the same infant survival rates. We educate them well. We bring them up to be so full of confidence in themselves and their place in this world. In fact, we've done so well that girls mostly outperform boys in high school and also in university. In fact, more women graduate university than men. So our society has been incredibly successful in bridging that gap between young boys and young girls and young men and young women.

But that success seems to come to a screeching halt in many workplaces today. That is because we haven't made the changes. That is not only in terms of policy and regulation at the state and federal government level; it's also culturally and structurally within the organisations themselves. They haven't adapted fast enough to ensuring that both men and women, who both have children, have the same opportunities and the same responsibilities to look after their children. As I said, children mostly have two working parents. So it comes back to the point that this is not just a women's issue; it is equally a men's issue—or a two parents issue.

The government understands the complexities of this issue and takes them seriously. The strategy I outlined earlier details the measures we're taking—what is already working—and looks at additional measures that drive pay inequality. So what are some of the factors driving what the government is doing, and what more could we all do to address this issue? The first problem that we need to address is the fact that women are less likely than men to enter into, and progress in, higher paying careers and seniority. This is a problem that the government is very clearly tackling. A great example of the positive action the government is taking—and it is something I'm very passionate about—is women in STEM. And I would now like us to be to talking about 'STEAM', because enhancing the artistic, creative and innovative side of boys' and girls' characters and abilities is as important as STEM. But the fact is that women are less likely to enter high-paying careers—and many today have their foundations in STEM. In fact, 75 per cent of Australia's fastest growing careers and jobs today demand digital literacy and STEM subjects.

However, alarmingly, the number of girls studying STEM subjects is declining. Women are significantly underrepresented in fields like information technology and engineering—some of the highest paying jobs of the future. Today, less than 15 per cent of senior STEM research positions in universities are held by women, and women make up only about one-quarter of STEM workforces across all sectors. If we're truly going to bridge the gender pay gap once and for all, we have to redouble our efforts in getting women into STEM positions—or STEAM positions—across all sectors. The Greens proposal to allow workers to share information about what each other gets paid in these circumstances will do absolutely nothing to change the statistics. It won't ensure that more women study STEM and enter the high-paying jobs in this profession. It will not make a difference at all.

This government, unlike those in the Greens with this very simplistic, populist proposal, believes in a bottom-up approach led by the choices individuals make for themselves and their children in what they study, and by businesses taking more action to create change within their organisations for the better. This is why the government, through the National Innovation and Science Agenda, NISA, is supporting measures to encourage more women to embark on and remain in STEM related careers—importantly, including entrepreneurship. We're implementing strong measures to ensure women have the skills and support they need to work in growth industries, through the investment of $13 million over five years in jobs for these growth sectors.

The government is providing $2 million to set up the Male Champions of Change in STEM program. Male Champions of Change challenge men in leadership positions to step up beside women to drive cultural change on gender equality issues in major Australian organisations and industry sectors. While we've seen a great take-up of this program—particularly in larger private enterprise companies, who are making a real difference now in how they deal with both men and women and the opportunities for parental leave and for flexibility—which is incredibly encouraging, unfortunately we're not yet seeing much movement in a lot of the traditional STEM related industries and the IT sector. The adoption of the Male Champions of Change program is critically important in these sectors.

The government is also investing $8 million over four years towards projects that boost the participation of girls and women in STEM education careers, as I said, including as entrepreneurs. This first measure that I've gone through is all about long-term change to equality of opportunity, not the short-term populist fix proposed by those opposite. That's the first major barrier to the gender pay gap—engagement in the workforce and particularly in STEM—but the second issue that equally impacts upon the gender pay gap is a weak economy, which means fewer jobs. Demonstrably, in a weak economy women are disproportionately in lower paid jobs with less job security, superannuation and retirement certainty. To address this particular problem, the government is increasing women's access and readiness for employment not just in STEM but more broadly across all careers.

What does this mean for women? Our policies since coming to government have strengthened Australia's economy—so much so that nearly 970,000 Australian jobs have been created after four years. Nearly a million new jobs have been created, something those on the opposite benches rarely—in fact, never—give this government credit for. Let's have a look at those figures a bit further. Nearly 60 per cent of the new jobs created over the last four years have gone to women. Boosting women's workforce participation is an economic priority for this government. We have to create more new jobs in this economy, which we're doing, but we also have to make sure they're in industries and areas in which women can and will take up jobs. It's not just the right thing to do for our society; it's also the economically smart thing to do, because it has the potential to add over $25 billion to the Australian economy while at the same time strengthening women's economic security. That was the second issue and one of the barriers to closing the pay gap for women.

The third issue I raise in this chamber today is the fact that women are still predominantly the primary caregivers for their children, which impacts upon their careers, salaries, superannuation and retirement security. As I said, we have done a wonderful job raising our girls and our boys—smart, confident and highly educated—but we have not yet satisfactorily addressed the situation that many women find in the workplace today. We certainly haven't addressed the cultural barriers to men who have young children in the same way we have with their wives. We have to change the processes in companies, in organisations and in the public sector to make it equally acceptable, and in fact encouraged, that both a child's parents will equally take parental leave, and not just put the requirement on women, because we know—as it has been very well reported—of the impact that has on women and that it is a significant contributing factor to the gender pay gap.

To address this particular aspect, the government is addressing factors that take women out of work and keep them out longer than their male counterparts. This decreases their path to promotion and over the longer term it ultimately lowers their pay and superannuation contributions, which means that more women retire with less in their superannuation fund—on average, $100,000—and are much more likely to be subject to poverty in retirement.

The gender pay gap also often occurs because of a discrepancy, partially caused through this, in the promotion pipeline. If fewer women work in an industry, there will be fewer women to promote. But women are then caught in a double bind, because under many traditional promotion based systems in many organisations they are starting from behind if they have also taken time out of their careers to rear their children. Each absence from the workplace lowers their opportunity for promotion and therefore their ability to increase their salaries and their savings, particularly superannuation.

Much of this particular problem is an issue for organisations, public and private, to resolve in their own workplaces. It is an issue for leaders in companies to set the standards and to change policies and practices in their organisations. It is critically important, and I argue that it is great business sense, for a company to create a family-positive environment for both their men and their women so that both parents can take parental leave—that both parents feel it's okay if they need to take time off for sick children or for school holidays—and the assumption and the responsibility doesn't just default to the woman.

We also know that affordable and accessible child care is critical to supporting parents who are balancing work and family commitments. That's why we're making child care more affordable. This government has already made the most significant reforms to the system in over 40 years. The new childcare package is unashamedly targeted at supporting parents who access child care so that they can work more, or train, or study, or volunteer in their communities. These reforms in themselves are expected to encourage more than 230,000 families to increase their workforce participation, the majority being women. From July 2018, the government is removing the $7,600 annual rebate cap for families on incomes up to $185,000—that's 85 per cent of the families using child care. That is a good measure and it is something practical and tangible that can make a difference. Families earning more than $185,000 will benefit from an increased cap of $10,000.

The next barrier, the fourth barrier, that must be tackled is something I have already touched on. It is the unconscious bias that still exists in most organisations. Whether they be public organisations or private organisations, unconscious bias still exists and it contributes to gender pay gaps in those organisations. But it's great to see that the government is leading by example by implementing the Australian Public Service Gender Equality Strategy. This requires that every government agency set targets for gender equality in leadership positions and boost gender equality more broadly.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Senator REYNOLDS: Cheap shot! We're also setting a target for men and women to each hold 50 per cent of government board positions overall, and we are strengthening the BoardLinks program. But there's still much more to the gender pay gap than all of that, and so much more that we have to do together.

Not all of this change can be led and implemented solely by a single level of government. So much of what causes the gap is cultural and requires a cultural shift, and that's something that only people in individual organisations can do. Federal government can set the path, it can set the example, but it cannot change the culture within organisations, whether they be private or public, large or small. We can lead the way, but we cannot change it on our own. I believe we should close the gender pay gap—in fact, it is a moral imperative for us all—but we need to do things to tackle the four main problems, the four main barriers that I've discussed here today. Sadly, the proposal by the Greens will impact on none of those problems. We can work on it together, and we should work on it together to make more change.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (12:15): Labor agrees with what the Fair Work Amendment (Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2015 seeks to achieve. We agree that pay secrecy is an obstacle to pay equity, and that putting an end to gag clauses that prevent employees telling each other what they earn is a step in the right direction. The gender pay gap is worst where pay is kept secret. All too often women find out they're being paid less than their male colleagues after years of doing the same work as those colleagues. But we have some serious concerns about the drafting of this bill and whether or not this bill, as it stands, will actually lead to a reduction in the gender pay gap. We're inclined to support the bill, but these are flaws and holes that need to be addressed and acknowledged. These are flaws that the Greens have known about for a long time, but have failed to address. Frankly, the Greens don't have a genuine set of measures to address the gender pay gap.

While this bill may benefit a part of the female workforce, in itself it is only a very small measure. As a sole measure, it simply doesn't go far enough to systematically shave down the known disparities in wages between working men and working women currently occurring in Australia today. This bill will also do little to address the pay of women who are not on enterprise agreements. The gender pay gap is a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted strategies, not more grandstanding by the Greens.

This bill has flaws that should be addressed. The fact that these flaws haven't been fixed highlights the Greens' lack of real commitment to the issue. This bill has remained unchanged since it was first introduced in September 2015. It was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which handed down its report to the current parliament in 2016—two years ago, so there has been plenty of time, ample time, for the Greens to see the flaws in this bill and to address the deficiencies.

The committee heard from a number of submitters, including legal experts, who identified obvious and unintentional flaws with the way in which this bill was drafted. Professor Andrew Stewart, a specialist in law and workplace relations from the University of Adelaide, also observed a clear limitation of the bill in relation to coverage. He said:

… it seems to me that the bill has a number of potential flaws in some respects—seeking to go too far and in other respects not going far enough.

Labor's dissenting report pointed out these concerns. We sought to have them addressed. Disappointingly, the Greens didn't listen and these issues remain in the bill as it stands today. The Greens on their high horse, as they normally are, have neglected to take on board any of the concerns raised by submitters or Labor senators. They made no effort to fix their flawed bill or put forward amendments before asking the Senate to consider it here today.

There has also been no attempt to discuss the bill with us, the Labor opposition, in order to make improvements. This confirms yet again that the Greens really have no sincerity about this issue. This is just more point scoring and grandstanding on another issue, which we are all accustomed to from the Greens. If the Greens were very serious, if they were serious at all about closing this gap, they would have put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission's annual wage review. So they do the grandstanding to get the media, but all they're about is trying to score cheap political points without actually taking the issue to the conclusion that is needed—that is, by making a submission to Fair Work Australia.

Last year, on International Women's Day, the Prime Minister encouraged everyone to be bold for change. He said that gender equality is the responsibility of all Australians. The Prime Minister should be judged by his actions, or should I say his inactions.

Debate interrupted.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (12:20): The Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017 introduces the junior minerals exploration incentive, a slightly modified reincarnation of the three-year exploration development incentive that was introduced in 2014 and lapsed with the 2016-17 tax year. The junior minerals exploration incentive, as with the exploration development incentive, enables eligible companies to generate tax credits by giving up a portion of their tax losses from greenfield mineral exploration expenditure, which can then be distributed to shareholders. It's only available to junior exploration companies with no assessable income in a tax year, and it excludes companies that have commenced resources production and companies connected or affiliated with an entity that has commenced resources production. Entities must be disclosing entities under the Corporations Act. Treasury says there are approximately 700 small firms that are eligible.

The scheme, as indicated in the material provided by the government, is capped at $100 million over its four-year duration. The aims of the scheme are to encourage exploration of greenfield areas, a task usually undertaken by junior minerals exploration companies. The member for Blaxland, in his speech in the second reading debate, noted:

Over the five years to 2015-16, expenditure on greenfield exploration around Australia dropped by 70 per cent.

This trend is concerning to the Labor Party, because we know success in mining ventures creates jobs, and good jobs for Australians will always be a concern for the Labor Party. We understand that smaller companies are riskier—that's in part because of the delays from exploration to discovery—and they can find it difficult to attract capital to undertake greenfields mineral exploration.

Tax law allows immediate deduction of the full value of any depreciating asset, broadly an asset with a limited useful life, where it is first used for exploration or prospecting for minerals and also when the taxpayer carries on mining operations—or proposes to carry on such an operation—or incurs the expenditure in the course of the business of exploration or prospecting for minerals. However, smaller companies engaged solely in exploration for minerals may earn less assessable income in a given income year than they outlay on the exploration or prospecting. Such companies, therefore, will generally have a tax loss for that income year. This tax loss will not provide any benefit unless the company earns sufficient assessable income in a future income year against which the loss can be deducted.

Uptake of the previous exploration development incentive was less than the capital outflow. Industry argues that this was due to a complex modulation of claims, which is a way of sharing the credits fairly. The new scheme's first come, first served approach, with a five per cent maximum entitlement per entity, is designed to simplify the fair distribution of claims. Minerals exploration companies must apply to the Commissioner of Taxation and provide appropriate information to be eligible to issue the tax credits. The commissioner will determine whether the entity was a greenfields mineral explorer in that income year.

Labor has circulated an amendment to this bill. The amendment will require the minister to instigate an annual impact assessment of the measure with provision for public consultation, particularly including the industry. The amendment will also require the Commissioner of Taxation to make publicly available the ABN and name of an entity receiving credits and the amount of credits given. This amendment will enhance transparency and rigorous policy evaluation to ensure these initiatives work as intended. I will discuss Labor's proposed amendment in further detail during the committee stage.

I also take the opportunity to note that we will be supporting this bill. I want to add some final points, however, about this measure's relevance to Western Australia in a broader context.

The Prime Minister announced the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive in September last year whilst in Western Australia at the WA Liberal state conference. The timing is interesting. I note that the government continues to foster great uncertainty about the GST distributions for Australian states and territories. I also note that the government announced early in January that it would delay the Productivity Commission's final report on GST distribution. Such announcements are a reminder that it's only a Shorten Labor government that would actually have a plan to help fix Western Australia's unfair GST revenue share. As my colleague the shadow Treasurer said at the time:

Let's be clear, today's announcement by Scott Morrison of a delay in the final Productivity Commission report, snuck out during the holiday period, is designed to do one thing—to try and hoodwink the people of South Australia and Tasmania that there won't be cuts to the GST revenue that help fund their hospitals and schools.

The uncertainty that will result from this delay will jeopardise the funding of services across the country.

In October, Scott Morrison firmly embraced the Productivity Commission's draft recommendations which would see South Australia lose $256 million and Tasmania lose $77 million in funding.

In contrast, Labor has a very clear plan to give WA its fair share—without punishing the people of Tasmania and South Australia, who, in a remarkable coincidence, happen to have had elections before the new reporting date for the GST review.

In recent times, the share of the GST pool going to WA has collapsed—in fact, to historic lows—and it's clear that this is not sustainable, and certainly it is not fair. At a time when WA is struggling to regain economic momentum after the sharp fall of mining related activity, the Abbott-Turnbull government, after four years in office, has still refused to act. Western Australia is receiving an extremely low share of the GST relativities, with the current year, 2017-18, at 34c in the dollar, topped up in the budget to 37.6c. That's the lowest that any state has received since the GST was introduced. This means that Western Australia is receiving 60 per cent less than what was the previous lowest rate received by any other state: 86.5c in the dollar by Victoria in the period 2004-05.

Federal Labor will allocate $1.6 billion in Labor's first budget to establish the Fair Share for WA Fund, which would bring Western Australia up to the equivalent of 70c in the GST dollar from 1 July 2019, based on current relativities. This legislated fund would include a statutory obligation to invest all proceeds into Western Australian projects, helping to create jobs and boost economic activity for that state. All projects would be agreed upon between the federal and Western Australian governments. Federal Labor will also work closely with businesses, with unions and with community organisations in identifying projects that will boost the WA economy. This funding would be additional to current Commonwealth commitments to Western Australia, including the $2.3 billion package of projects announced in the 2017-18 budget and previous commitments such as NorthLink and the Mitchell Freeway extension.

This is the first time that a federal government or opposition has put forward a tangible policy response to resolve what has long been acknowledged: a problem with WA's share of the GST revenue. Federal Labor will also consider the final report of the Productivity Commission review of the GST distribution formula. But that's not an excuse for refusing to take action and provide funding certainty for WA now. Labor is able to make this investment as a result of policy announcements that make our tax system fairer and improve the budget position. These include reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, closing loopholes for multinationals, dividend imputation reform, and limiting tax minimisation through income splitting from discretionary trusts.

In conclusion, Labor will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill. We'll be moving amendments to enhance the transparency of the measure in this bill. And I'm sure that, in ways, it will be a very significant assistance to WA, while the government continues to twiddle its thumbs.

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (12:29): I rise to give the Greens' perspective on this piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017. I note the previous speaker's statement that Labor will be supporting the government on this legislation, so clearly it will pass. Nonetheless, I put on record the Greens' opposition to the legislation, partly because we believe that, as with the original mechanism that it's replacing, it won't operate particularly well, it's likely to be an inefficient use of public funds and it's not the best use of public funds given the investment that is needed in community infrastructure. It's estimated that this proposal will cost over $100 million over the forward estimates, and the Greens don't believe that it is a good, effective use of public funds. There were clearly many significant problems with the exploration development incentive, which this scheme basically replaces, and, whilst this bill may seek to reduce some of those problems, we believe that some of them still exist.

The Greens recognise and support the contribution that appropriate, sustainable mining makes. Indeed, as I hope all senators noticed, just in the last week or two the Greens announced a comprehensive policy, via my colleague Senator Rice, with regard to dramatically accelerating Australia's use of electric cars. Clearly, enabling that to be done—enabling the expansion of our electric car fleet in Australia—requires exploration and mining to provide the resources. Similarly, there are significant parts of the mining industry where there is the opportunity for employment, in our own country as well as elsewhere, and for revenue to be raised out of these public assets, because of the significant boom in, and therefore the demand for, renewable energy. The significant expansion of the renewable energy sector is something the Greens have played a key, practical role in through ensuring the provision of a legislative structure backed by appropriate amounts of public resourcing. In my own state of Queensland we've seen thousands of jobs created as a direct result of the Greens' efforts in this parliament in the renewable energy space. It is creating ongoing, long-term employment opportunities in regional Queensland as well as in many other parts of the country. Of course, renewable energy—whether it's solar panels or whether it's batteries—requires resources that are extracted through mining, so mining is a key part of bringing about the policies the Greens support. What we don't support is taxpayer money being provided, particularly in an inefficient way, to prop up exploration and to enable people basically to have a pay-back for their tax write-offs.

As I said at the start, this bill is going to pass—we recognise that. But one thing we do want to ensure is that this bill, when it does pass into law, doesn't make available any of these subsidies for exploration for thermal coal, and I'll be moving an amendment to that effect in the committee stage of the debate. This legislation already exempts the junior minerals exploration incentive from being made available for exploration for petroleum and shale, so the principle that a particular mineral or resource can be exempt from this new scheme is already there in the legislation. What the Greens will propose is simply that thermal coal also be exempt from this exploration incentive.

This is something, of course, that is the topic of hot political debate around the country, but particularly in my own state of Queensland, where there is continuing pressure and where, as we speak, the state Labor government is offering up another round of tenders for thermal coal exploration in Queensland. There is continuing pressure to open up new coal deposits in Queensland, even though that will actually detract from existing jobs in the coal industry in regional Queensland and in other parts of the country. Workers already employed in the coal industry are already suffering from exploitation by mining companies. Giant multinational corporations are using more and more exploitative employment techniques. They are forcing more and more people onto temporary jobs, using more and more contract labour and forcing down the conditions of workers in the coalmining industry in Queensland and elsewhere, and yet we have this continual push to open up more coal deposits. This is driven, of course, by the fact that the mining corporations are embedded deeply in our political establishment in this country.

So the last thing we should be doing is having a new exploration incentive scheme that provides subsidies for any form of thermal coal exploration. This is a simple amendment that I'll speak to in a bit more detail when we get to the committee stage of the debate, but it's a simple way of sending a clear signal that the time for subsidising coal exploration and coalmining is over. That is close to an economic reality already; the last thing we should be doing is sending any signals that our structures and our mining incentives are still going to be made available for the fossil fuel industry. The legislation already exempts petroleum; it should exempt thermal coal as well.

Can I emphasise again that there is a significant role for the mining and resources industry? I say that as the Greens spokesperson for mining and resources, as well as for the environment. There is a significant problem with the inability—or the unwillingness, as well as the inability—of many mining companies to properly rehabilitate their mines after they've either used up the resource or just gone bust and left it there to fall to bits and to continue, in some cases, to poison the local environment and the local water table. There's a Senate inquiry into that at the moment, which I'm looking forward to seeing the final report on soon. But, clearly, there is a significant problem in adequately rehabilitating existing mine projects and ensuring that there is proper protection when mining does occur, both to ensure that there isn't unnecessary or unanticipated environmental damage and to ensure that there is proper rehabilitation, as should be required at any time a mining project operates. That is beyond the scope of this legislation. I accept that, so I won't go further on that at the moment, but that is a continuing problem and we shouldn't simply be looking to further expand exploration and development of the mining sector without ensuring that the existing problems, which have been well identified for decades now, are properly addressed.

Let me say this again: job opportunities in regional areas are another area where there is significant opportunity in properly rehabilitating existing mines and abandoned mines. There are significant employment opportunities there if mining corporations simply did the thing they were supposed to do, and which they are often legally obligated to do but they nonetheless walk away from. Where they have simply disappeared into the dust, as some of them do, governments could pick up the slack, ensure that in the interests of those communities there is not ongoing poisoning of the local environment, and provide employment opportunities for people in those regional areas.

The Greens do recognise the importance of ensuring that there are viable community-building, sustainable employment opportunities in regional areas. That's why we reject the unviable boom-bust approach that's happened through the thermal coal industry in Queensland and elsewhere; that's why we reject further subsidising of that industry; and that's why, amongst other reasons, we don't support this legislation.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (12:39): I also rise this afternoon to speak on this very important piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017. It's important because it's of a particular policy significance to my home state of Western Australia. It's hard to overstate the significance of the mining industry's contribution to the Australian economy. The Australian minerals industry's contribution to local communities, regions and the nation is substantial, wide-ranging and enduring. This contribution flows from exploration and development right through to production and ultimately mine closure. It's an industry that contributes at least 10 per cent of the GDP in Australia; provides more than 200,000 highly paid, highly skilled jobs, mainly in regional and remote Australia, and many hundreds of thousands more in supply and service industries across our economy; has also developed productive and rewarding relationships within Indigenous communities across Australia; and is committed to leading practice in innovation, safety performance and environmental management.

However, although Australia has the world's largest reserves of lead, nickel, uranium and zinc, KPMG says:

The mining industry remains heavily dependent upon past discoveries.

This is particularly so in the mine development for new tech metals such as lithium, which is used in smartphones, laptops, digital computers and cameras. Also from the KPMG report, University of Western Australia researchers:

… estimated that within 7 to 18 years, if there are no new discoveries or extensions, about half of Australia's current non-bulk commodities mines will be exhausted.

The UWA paper, called Where are Australia's mines of tomorrow?, says:

Although world mineral exploration expenditure for non-ferrous commodities has been recovering strongly from its low in 2009 and is back on the rising trend which commenced in 2002, Australia has continued to lose ground relative to other global and competitive exploration destinations. Australia's share of global exploration for non-bulk commodities has virtually halved from its peak of 21% in 2002 and it now stands at a mere 12% of the total, while that of Canada, for instance, has increased from 14% to 18% over the same period.

And the KPMG report continues:

The ongoing sustainment of the mining sector's performance will be reliant on sufficient greenfields mineral exploration to enable the development of the "mines of tomorrow".

In addition to this alarming statistic, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has said mineral exploration expenditure was $1.6 billion in 2016-17, up from $1.4 billion in 2015-16. My home state of Western Australia contributed over a billion dollars of this spend, with the gold and iron ore sectors attracting the largest share. Gold exploration expenditure in Western Australia increased significantly from $385.9 million in 2015-16 to $509.5 million in 2016-17. Iron ore exploration also increased, but only marginally at $281.6 million.

However, KPMG also said:

The state of greenfields mineral exploration activity in Australia is not as healthy as the headline figures might suggest. While there has been growth in expenditure, the level of drilling activity in this sector has remained flat over the last decade.

According to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics last week, total metres drilled in the search for new deposits fell by nine per cent from 841,600 in the September quarter to just 766,100 in the three months to the end of December. Total metres drilled in brownfields also fell by 2.9 per cent from 1.45 to 1.1 million. The falls in drilling come despite a 4.4 per cent rise in exploration expenditure to almost $500 million. As AMEC's chief executive, Warren Pearce, was quoted in The West Australian:

… the fall in greenfields exploration as particularly worrying given it was the area from which big new discoveries would emerge.

The fall in metres drilled was also concerning given big new discoveries were more likely to be found at depth, with most shallow deposits already in production or mined out.

Mr Pearce said while the overall picture was positive and he expected the figures to improve this quarter, the pipeline of new projects coming online in the next few years was not strong.

He noted a continuing bias towards exploration around existing deposits, with 67 per cent of drilling happening in already-explored brownfields locations.

"This imbalance must be addressed if Australia is to find the mines of the future," he said.

The KPMG report also said:

A lack of growth in Australian greenfields mineral exploration and deteriorating world market share, both signal an emerging threat to the long-term growth of the Australian mining industry … without some sort of catalyst for greenfields mineral exploration, the level of future mining activity in Australia may—

continue to—

be constrained.

Exploration for minerals involves significant expenditure and risks. While larger established mining companies are generally in a position to fund such activities from their own profits, smaller companies focused solely on exploration are dependent on attracting investment to fund their activities. Such smaller companies are also more likely to engage in more speculative mineral exploration in greenfield areas, rather than focusing on the development of their existing resources.

Part of the problem is that the banking sector has all but disappeared from the junior exploration market, due largely, still, to the fallout from the European debt crisis, forcing many junior miners to seek financing from larger miners or from outside investors. David Harquail, chair of the World Gold Council and chief executive of international mining investment company Franco-Nevada, said:

Since the global financial crisis, the number of project lenders in the mining industry dropped to where you can count them on your fingers. What’s happening now is all the European banks now have just dropped off …

He also said:

Just as big pharmaceutical companies rely on small biotechs to discover new drug candidates, big mining companies need junior explorers to find new deposits.

But just as investors have gone cold on pharmaceutical companies that invest in early-stage drug discovery, so too have they abandoned junior exploration.

So says David Harquail, a clear expert when it comes to the funding and financing of resource exploration.

Arguably, the tax arrangements have not encouraged investment in Australian greenfield mineral exploration projects to date. This junior mineral exploration tax credit arrangement is an incentive for shareholders investing in greenfield exploration companies who undertake new capital raisings. The key benefit of this initiative will be for the ability of certain companies to undertake greenfield exploration, to renounce their losses and, instead, pass future tax deductions to Australian resident investors. Alternatively, companies can choose to retain their tax losses for utilisation when they make profits from a successful mine. The junior minerals exploration tax credit will be capped at $100 million and will be available on a first in, first served basis. Companies undertaking greenfield exploration can elect to give up a portion of their tax losses relating to eligible exploration expenditure in an income year and pass on tax credits to their Australian resident investors. Tax credits capable of being passed to investors are expected to be the lesser of the explorer's tax loss or the greenfield exploration expenditure for the previous income year, multiplied by the corporate tax rate for that year. Similar to the franking system, the credit will flow through to investors and be available for the income year following the one in which the eligible expenditure is incurred by the company. Access to tax credits will not hinge on the investor having taxable income in the relevant year, as excess tax credits are expected to be refundable to certain Australian resident investors.

Unlike the previous Exploration Development Incentive scheme, eligibility for the junior minerals exploration tax credit is limited to investors that purchase newly issued shares and is allocated between eligible exploration companies on a first come, first served basis, subject of course to necessary integrity requirements. The previous EDI was typically applied to all shareholders, which diluted the benefit of the scheme. I think that was widely recognised as a significant flaw in the success of the original model.

Given exploration companies have a choice to use the junior minerals exploration tax credit at the time of capital raisings, it's suspected that companies will be required to make a declaration to the market of the company's intention to retain exploration related losses or to use the JMETC. If successful, the incentive should attract much-needed capital investment to junior explorers undertaking greenfield exploration and, importantly, open up the potential for new discoveries by encouraging explorers to venture into areas they otherwise may not have considered.

As a senator for Western Australia, I support the bill, which will go a long way to securing continued investment in greenfield mineral exploration. I look forward to playing my part in working with colleagues to ensure the Australian mining industry remains a strong and significant contributor to our national economic prosperity and to resource based states like my home state of Western Australia for many decades to come.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (12:49): I thank Senator Dean Smith, who is from that other great mining state of Western Australia, for explaining the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017 in some detail. Also, I thank Senator Smith for the statistics that he was able to give to the chamber indicating the need for some encouragement to explore for minerals in our great country. I don't want to take a great deal of the Senate's time. I simply want to thank the government and congratulate the minister for introducing this new incentive.

Mining means so much to Australia, particularly Queensland and Western Australia. My state of Queensland, like Western Australia, has been developed on the back of our mining industries. Our mining industries have created huge employment opportunities for Queenslanders, for Western Australians and, indeed, for all Australians. But, over the years, there has been a slowdown in the exploration that's needed to find the mineral resources before we can actually start mining them and creating the jobs. I think it's almost 20 years since there's been a world-class mineral discovery in our country. I remember well the days of 'the Poseidon adventure', as I call it. That was the name of a movie, but the real Poseidon adventure was the discovery of nickel deposits in Western Australia which sparked a share boom and attracted a lot of mum and dad investors into putting money into minerals exploration. But there hasn't been a lot of exploration in recent years; the amount of exploration in our country has suffered substantially. Consequently, when we don't find the resources we can't develop them and create jobs.

Some time ago the coalition government did introduce a scheme to allow the flow-through of losses to shareholder investors in minerals exploration companies. It was a good idea at the time, but it hasn't really worked. Hence we have this new arrangement which I am hopeful will encourage Australians to invest their money in risk investments but with the hope of obtaining big rewards on the discovery of a mineral resource and its subsequent development.

The banks in Australia these days are very shy of any sort of support for mining companies and mining exploration. Because of that, we have to encourage the mum and dad investors and the superannuation funds to invest their equity in junior mining companies that can go out and survey the length and breadth of our vast country to try and find the sort of bonanza—the El Dorado, the Poseidon—that has made Australia great in the past. As a country, we have enormous mineral resources. We are of that age as a geographic entity that there are a lot of minerals somewhere beneath the ground. But what we've got to do is find them and then develop them. Unless we have people who are prepared to invest in that, it's going to be difficult.

This bill is simply about encouraging investors to invest in these junior exploration companies. That gives them the ability to wander throughout Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory looking for these minerals. We hope that some of that exploration will come to fruition and we will be able to establish new mining industries and, therefore, new jobs for Australians. To do that we have to encourage that investment. And by giving tax breaks to the mum-and-dad investors, and even the superannuation fund investors, who are prepared to take these risk investments, that may lead to a worthwhile result in the future.

I'm pleased to be able to support this bill. As a Queenslander, as someone from north Queensland who spends a lot of time out in the mining areas of the north and west of our state, I'm delighted that the government has heeded the call, many calls over a long period of time, for some assistance to encourage more investment in these junior explorers. I congratulate the minister and the government as a whole. I look forward to this particular bill playing a real part in finding and developing new discoveries of minerals in our country.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (12:55): I'd like to thank those senators who have contributed to this important debate. This bill provides a tax incentive for small minerals exploration companies to encourage investment and risk-taking, which are needed to help underpin the future strength of our resources sector and the Australian economy.

Australian resident investors in small minerals exploration companies will receive a refundable tax offset where the exploration company chooses to give up a portion of their losses relating to their greenfields minerals expenditure in an income year. To encourage investment, only newly issued shares relating to capital raising for investment in new greenfields exploration activity will be eligible for these credits. Credits of up to $100 million over four years will be made available on a first-in, first-served basis. This improves on the previous program assisting junior explorers, creating a more stable platform for investor confidence to help these explorers raise the capital they need to get on with the job of finding tomorrow's mines.

As part of the incentive, amendments to the excess exploration credit tax aim to deter an exploration company from distributing more exploration credits than they are entitled to. The government will move amendments to the bill to clarify the operation of the scheme. These amendments adjust the period for junior explorers to apply for an allocation, exploration of credits, in the first year of the incentive. The amendments also clarify when a junior explorer has an unused allocation of credits. The government will agree to amendments moved by the Labor Party to provide extra certainty that the incentive operates as intended in encouraging greenfields minerals exploration. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (12:57): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Sterle ) (12:58): We will move to schedule 1, items 2 and 66.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (12:58): I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (lines 13 to 23), omit section 418‑82, substitute:

418 ‑82 When does an entity have an unused allocation of exploration credits from an income year

(1) An entity has an unused allocation of exploration credits from an income year if each of the following:

(a) the entity's *exploration credits allocation for the income year;

(b) the total credits issue for investment in the entity for the income year;

exceeds the total amount of all *exploration credits created by the entity for the income year.

Parliamentary Counsel

Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests

Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:

Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation

53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

Amendment 1

Division 418 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (the ITAA 97) provides a refundable tax offset under section 67-23 of the ITAA 97 to taxpayers who invest in a minerals explorer, by allowing the minerals explorer to issue those investors with exploration credits.

The Bill extends the refundable tax offset for a further 4 years. Under the Bill, the minerals explorer may apply for an exploration credits allocation for a particular year and cannot issue more credits than allocated. The minerals explorer also cannot issue more exploration credits for an income year than would relate to investment in the minerals explorer during that year. However, if allocation is not used up in one year, investors in that year are given priority in the following year, up to the limit of the unused allocation of exploration credits. Because the allocation of exploration credits for the first year may exceed the amount of exploration credits that would relate to investment in that year, investors in the second year may miss out on exploration credits that could never have been issued to first year investors anyway.

Amendment 1 addresses this problem by redefining the unused allocation of exploration credits. Under the amendment, exploration credits are not "wasted" and are instead available to investors in the second year. As a result, the amount of exploration credits that may result in a refundable tax offset is greater under the amendment than it would be under the Bill (and, given that the Bill extends the offset over 4 more years, under the Act).

The refundable tax offset could entitle a taxpayer to a refund under Division 3A of Part IIB of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. This would increase the amount of expenditure out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 16 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. It is for this reason that the amendment is covered by section 53.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

This amendment will allow the unused allocation of exploration credits for an income year to be available to investors in the subsequent year, thereby increasing the amount of exploration credits available as a refundable tax offset.

The statement of reasons for moving the amendment as a request advises that it will increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 16 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments that would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation. If that is the effect of the amendment, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that it be moved as a request.

Senator SESELJA: I move amendment (2) on sheet GU143:

(2) The amount of the unused allocation of exploration credits from the income year is the lesser of:

(a) the amount by which the amount mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) exceeds the total amount of all *exploration credits created by the entity for the income year; and

(b) the amount by which the amount mentioned in paragraph (1) (b) exceeds the total amount of all *exploration credits created by the entity for the income year.

(3) If neither the amount mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) nor (1) (b) exceeds the total amount of all *exploration credits created by the entity for the income year, there is no unused allocation of exploration credits from the income year, and the amount of any unused allocation of exploration credits from the income year is nil.

(4) In this section:

total credits issue for investment in the entity (the minerals explorer) for an income year means the total of all *exploration credits that may be issued by the minerals explorer to all other entities in relation to *exploration investment made by those other entities in the minerals explorer in the income year if section 418‑120 is complied with.

(2) Schedule 1, item 66, page 31 (lines 16 to 20), omit subitem (1), substitute:

(1) Despite subsection 418‑100(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, as inserted by item 2 of this Schedule, an application to the Commissioner for a determination allocating exploration credits to an entity for the 2017‑18 income year must be made during the period of one month starting on the later of:

(a) the eleventh business day after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent; and

(b) the day on which this item commences.

These two technical amendments are proposed to clarify the operation of the new scheme. The amendments adjust the application period for the 2017-18 income year. The bill previously provided that junior explorers could apply to the ATO from 1 February 2018 for an allocation of credits. It is necessary to adjust the application period as this time frame has passed. The new application period will begin on 11th business day after this bill receives royal assent, or the day of the commencement of the amendments if this is later. Applications will be open for a month. Under the JMEI, the Commissioner of Taxation allocates credits between junior explorers on a first come, first served basis until the annual exploration cap for an income year is reached. The amendments clarify the definition of 'unused allocation of exploration credits' to ensure the scheme operates as intended. Where an explorer raises less capital than expended, they will not be prevented from issuing credits to investors in the following year, to the extent of the shortfall. For example, where an explorer receives an allocation of credits to raise $1 million of capital but is only able to raise $600,000 of capital, only those credits that relate to the $600,000 can be issued to investors. Those credits need to be issued to first-year investors before credits can be issued to investors in subsequent years.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:00): Labor will support these government amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill. The first amendment will be to the 2017-18 credit year, as indicated by the minister, reflecting the date on which the bill passes the parliament. The start date of the scheme is linked to royal assent, and that is appropriate and Labor will support it. The other amendment, we understand, is to clarify the use and availability of credits by junior explorers, according to the intent of the bill. Therefore, Labor will also support that amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Ketter ): The question is that the request for amendment (1) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that amendment (2) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (13:01): I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8384, as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 3), after "*petroleum", insert ", thermal coal".

It is a very simple amendment, on which I elaborated to some extent in my second reading contribution, so I won't go over all of that again. As the bill currently stands—and as we all know this bill will become law fairly soon, as it is going to pass—it exempts the incentive from being made available to exploration or prospecting for petroleum or oil shale. All this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that thermal coal is also exempt from being eligible for this exploration incentive.

The time for coal in Australia is over, and we need to be recognising that. We need to be recognising that we do not need to be putting any more public resources into continuing to explore for new thermal coal deposits. We need to be transitioning away from coal. We need to be ensuring that all of our communities that in the past have had some economic benefit from these industries are able to transition effectively, that the workers are able to transition effectively and the communities are able to be provided with other economic opportunities, many of which are already there and many of which need support and investment to develop more effectively and more sustainably. There is a lot of debate of course in my own state of Queensland—an argument regarding the future of the thermal coal industry. The Greens' position on that is unequivocally clear, and we think it's about time the parliament's position on that was made unequivocally clear.

There are alternative economic futures for regional communities. They are ones that are better both in terms of employment opportunities and in terms of more solid and stable communities. So much of the profit from coal in the past has gone to overseas corporations, many of which have managed to avoid tax. The harm done by the boom-bust component of the last mining boom to communities in regional Queensland is quite significant. I know my Greens colleagues could talk about other states as well. But it caused quite significant social and community damage.

We've got $100 million-plus available here. That money could be invested far more effectively in economic opportunities that are far more stable and suited for communities. It also should not be being spent in any way to encourage further exploration of thermal coal. We should not be opening up existing coal deposits that have already been identified. We still do not have a clear position from the Queensland government about whether they do or do not support the Adani coalmine. We do not have a clear position from the Queensland government on whether they do or do not support opening up the whole new massive coal deposits in the Galilee Basin. As I said in my second reading contribution, any further expansion of that will predominantly have a harmful effect on existing coal jobs. We need to be supporting people who are in existing employment and providing assistance for a smooth transition for those workers, many of whom are already being inappropriately exploited by overseas mining corporations, due in part to the inadequacies under our existing so-called Fair Work Act and the inadequacies of our existing industrial relations laws. The last thing we should be doing is providing more taxpayer money to subsidise exploration to identify more thermal coal deposits. That's why the Greens are moving this amendment. It's a pretty straightforward one and I certainly would encourage other parties to support it.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:06): For clarification, Senator Bartlett: you read some numbers that I don't know actually align with what had been circulated. You are moving the amendment on sheet 8384, aren't you?

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (13:06): Yes.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:06): Thank you. Labor will not be supporting the Greens amendment. We heard some extraordinary words from Senator Bartlett here this morning. The reality is that over the five years to 2015-16 expenditure on greenfield exploration around Australia dropped by 70 per cent. That's just a fact. It's a reality that the Greens seem to be completely unaware of. We heard the member stand up and say that they support mining and exploration, but they don't. And clearly they have decided on a strategy here today that for media simplicity they're going to oppose this legislation. We heard Senator Bartlett say that $100 million is not a good investment, despite the reality of that maximum decline in exploration—70 per cent—in the last five years, up to 2015-16. We need to be doing something for people in the regions who actually require sound investment in exploration. If the Greens want to be taken seriously and to genuinely participate in the debate around mining, they need to engage with stakeholders, and we know that hasn't been the case.

Labor is the party that, I'm very proud to say, has been very much involved in facilitating a timely review of this scheme. Our amendments, which I'll move shortly, will seek to do that careful review of the investment in exploration into the future. We actually believe in and support evidence based policymaking. We understand that the mining sector is broad, that it employs a lot of Australians in regional parts of the country. Labor takes the mining sector seriously, Labor takes jobs seriously and Labor takes regional Australia seriously. The Greens need to engage much more seriously with the opportunity to grow jobs in a sustainable way throughout the regions of Australia, and this piece of legislation seeks to do that in an evidence based and careful way.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:08): The government doesn't support the amendment proposed by the Greens, which would exclude exploration or prospecting for thermal coal, typically used for power generation, from the junior minerals exploration incentive. In line with the exploration development incentive, the JMEI is designed to encourage greenfields exploration for minerals, excluding petroleum and oil shale. Much of Australia's petroleum and oil exploration occurs offshore. However, this incentive is focused on encouraging exploration onshore. The government does not support unnecessarily narrowing the JMEI based on anti-coal rhetoric. Narrowing the scheme would deny junior explorers the ability to convert a tax loss from exploration or prospecting for thermal coal into a tax benefit that can be distributed to new investors. This would detract from the scheme's objective, which is to contribute to a better investment climate in the sector and an improved likelihood of mineral discovery for the benefit of the Australian economy and the benefit of jobs in the Australian economy. We therefore oppose the amendment.

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (13:10): I want to briefly respond to the comments that have been made. It's disappointing but not surprising that the government doesn't support this; it's simply disappointing that Labor is not supporting this. Senator O'Neill's comment did not go to the heart of the amendment, which is a simple one; it went to the broader nature of the legislation. They were valid comments to make, but not with regard to this amendment. This amendment is simple: it seeks to ensure that taxpayer money is not made available to subsidise exploration for thermal coal. That's all it will do.

Senator O'Neill talked about people being taken seriously. This is a simple matter about whether Labor want to be taken seriously on their commitment to move away from fossil fuels. As the minister himself just outlined, this exploration incentive regime does not apply to petroleum or oil shale at the moment. The Greens simply want to make sure it does not apply also to exploration for thermal coal. It's a very simple amendment. If you support ensuring that we do not further expand subsidising exploration for thermal coal, you'll vote yes to this amendment. If you support more subsidies being made available to explore for thermal coal, you'll vote no. It's very disappointing that Labor appears to be going to vote no.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:11): I just want to record that we are absolutely confident that this scheme will operate appropriately in facilitating greenfield exploration for discoveries of the future, and we are confident that companies will explore for minerals that global markets demand.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Ketter ): Order! The question is that Australian Greens' amendment (1) on sheet 8384 be agreed to.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:18): by leave—I move the opposition's amendments standing in the name of Senator Cameron on sheet 8370:

(1) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 20 (after line 19), at the end of the Part, add:

6A At the end of Division 418

Add:

Subdivision 418 ‑G—Other matters

Table of sections

418‑190 Annual impact assessments of this Division

418 ‑190 Annual impact assessments of this Division

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each income year referred to in subsection (2), the Minister must cause to be conducted an impact assessment of the operation of this Division during that income year. The objective of the impact assessment should be to measure the additional *exploration or prospecting attributable to the Division.

(2) The income years are as follows:

(a) the 2017‑2018 income year;

(b) the 2018‑2019 income year;

(c) the 2019‑2020 income year;

(d) the 2020‑2021 income year.

(3) Each impact assessment must make provision for public consultation, including consultation with the industry.

(4) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of each impact assessment. The report must include any information made publicly available by the Commissioner under section 3F of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to *exploration credits allocated for the income year.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of a report of an impact assessment to be published on the Australian Taxation Office website as soon as practicable after the completion of the preparation of the report.

[impact assessment]

(2) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 10), after item 26, insert:

26A At the end of Part IA

Add:

3F Reporting of information about junior minerals exploration incentive offset

(1) This section applies if the Commissioner makes a determination under section 418-101 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 allocating exploration credits to an entity for an income year.

(2) The Commissioner must, as soon as practicable after making the determination, make publicly available:

(a) the ABN and name of the entity; and

(b) the amount of the entity's exploration credits allocation for the income year.

(3) An expression used in this section that is also used in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 has the same meaning as in that Act.

The explanatory memorandum for this piece of legislation notes that it's the government's intention that the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science will review the operation of the junior minerals exploration incentive scheme by 30 June 2020 to assess both its uptake and its efficacy in attracting investment. The explanatory memorandum for the bill that introduced the previous incarnation of the program stated:

The Department of Industry will monitor greenfields exploration and the scheme throughout its operation, with a review of the scheme in 2016 …

…   …   …

Key performance indicators for the scheme, against which the review will be conducted, will be finalised by the end of 2014. Subject to the outcome of the review, the programme may be extended for a further period.

According to the new explanatory memorandum, in early 2017 participants in the Exploration Development Incentive and other stakeholders were formally requested to provide feedback on the performance of the exploration development incentive, and this informed the basis for consultation on improving the scheme. The explanatory memorandum states that the government engaged with industry bodies, shareholder representatives, departments and state governments. Although feedback was incorporated into the new scheme, the materials are not public and the explanatory memorandum does not give any detail of impact or uplift of exploration.

Labor supported the passage of the exploration development incentive legislation, and I note for the record that we're supportive of this bill. Consistent with Labor's approach to evidence based policy, Labor is moving these amendments in the Senate today to require the minister to instigate an annual impact assessment of the measure, with provision for public consultation, particularly including industry. The amendments will also require the Commissioner of Taxation to make publicly available the ABN and name of an entity receiving credits and the amount of credits given. This is important. It will enable the sector to see more clearly and in a more timely way exactly what's going on. Labor believes in transparency and rigorous policy evaluation to ensure that initiatives work as intended, and the amendments proposed by Labor today will achieve that end.

I also want to note that the government has indicated that they will support the amendments. I and the shadow Assistant Treasurer wish to thank the government for their good-faith discussions around these amendments. Labor's amendments will give extra certainty to all stakeholders, including industry and taxpayers, that the measures operate as intended. Rigorous policy evaluation helps to guide targeted initiatives in future and ensures the best bang for the taxpayer buck on investment and jobs. I commend the amendments to the committee.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:22): Just for the record, the government will be supporting these amendments.

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (13:22): Whilst the Greens still oppose the legislation, we support these amendments. They are improving it a bit.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended agreed to, subject to a request.

Bill reported with amendments and a request; report adopted.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:23): I move that this bill now be read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:24): 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 SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:25): I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 3) 2017-18

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

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017 ‑2018; and

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017 ‑2018.

These Bills underpin the Government's expenditure decisions.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017 ‑2018 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $1.4 billion.

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

First, this Bill would provide the Department of Home Affairs with approximately $576 million, including for further support for regional processing arrangements and additional support for processing increasing numbers of visa applications.

Second, the Department of Education and Training would receive approximately $95 million. This includes just over $69 million for enhancing the current National Computational Infrastructure supercomputer at the Australian National University to bring it to current world-class standards.

Third, the Attorney-General's Department would receive approximately $70 million. This includes approximately $38 million in 2017-18 for the Royal Commission into misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services industry.

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

I commend this Bill.

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2017-18

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017 ‑2018, along with Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2017‑2018, which was introduced earlier, are the Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills for this financial year.

This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $133 million.

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

First, this Bill would provide the Department of Education and Training with just over $27 million. This includes approximately $24 million for payments to the States and Territories to implement national reforms in the non-government school sector and to help schools facing funding reductions transition to the new schools funding arrangements. This forms part of the additional funding for the Quality Schools reform package.

Second, the Department of Human Services would receive just under $16 million in 2017-18 including capital funding of around $11 million to implement three projects being brought forward to Tranche Two of the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation program. This program will progressively replace Centrelink's ageing technology platform.

Third, the Office of National Assessments would receive approximately $12 million in capital funding as part of the establishment of the Office of National Intelligence.

This Bill also proposes the repeal of 15 old annual Appropriation Acts from 2012-13 and 2013‑14. This is simply a house-keeping measure, as the appropriations in these Acts either have been exhausted or are no longer required.

Schedule 3 of the Bill provides a list of the annual Appropriation Acts proposed for repeal.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimate Statements tabled in the Parliament.

I commend this Bill.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:26): I rise to speak on these two bills, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018, before us in the Senate today, which are required to ensure the ordinary functioning of government continues for the remainder of the 2017-18 financial year and facilitate a number of 2017-18 MYEFO measures. The package of bills appropriate about $1.5 billion from consolidated revenue in addition to the appropriation acts passed in June 2017. These amounts are already incorporated into the budget bottom line as presented in the 2017-18 MYEFO—I can see Senator Leyonhjelm laughing already. I wonder how he pronounces it. I'm sure we'll find out next.

Of course, we won't stand in the way of supply. These bills also go to the government's broader management of the nation's finances. We remind those opposite of what the Prime Minister has said on debt in the past. When he was Leader of the Opposition in 2009 he described $200 billion in debt as 'frightening' and promised the Liberals wouldn't 'run willy-nilly into debt'. He described $300 billion in projected gross debt as 'gigantic' and an 'almost inconceivable level of debt' and tried to scaremonger about the debt level with his runner analogy: 'There should be no lead weights put in his pockets or heavy backpacks put on his back.' Yet that is what the government is delivering to us with these higher and higher levels of debt. Surprisingly, the Prime Minister hasn't been as colourful about his own record on debt. On the Turnbull government's watch, gross debt has crashed through half a trillion for the first time in the country's history.

Senator Ketter: Shame!

Senator FARRELL: Yes, it is a shame, Acting Whip. Gross debt is currently above $518 billion with no signs of slowing down, and doesn't peak in the government's own budget papers. Net debt has doubled under this government and will hit record highs for the next three years. That is not to mention that the deficit for this year is $23.6 billion, eight times higher than the $2.8 billion the Liberals first predicted in their 2014 horror budget. I know you are interested in that, Madam Acting Deputy President, so I'll repeat those figures. The deficit for this year is eight times higher than the Liberals had predicted in their first horror budget of 2014.

I note that the Prime Minister is more reluctant to speak about debt and deficit blowouts on his watch than he was back in 2009. But his Assistant Treasurer, the member for Deakin, was happy to help out, saying it was 'a truckload of debt, an absolutely extraordinary amount of debt'—I don't think the opposition could have said it better! But what is more extraordinary is how quickly the coalition have racked up this truckload of debt. The coalition, under Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott, have racked up debt much faster than during the Rudd-Gillard years. Gross debt has increased by $39 million a day quicker. Net debt has increased by $21 million a day quicker. And the government can't blame this on the global economy as global conditions are the best we've seen in a decade. The International Monetary Fund's most recent World Economic Outlook Update—this is for January 2018—says:

Global economic activity continues to firm up. Global output is estimated to have grown by 3.7 percent in 2017, which is 0.1 percentage point faster than projected in the fall and ½ percentage point higher than in 2016.

Yet the government is still racking up debt quicker, in good economic conditions, than occurred under Labor, when we had the global financial crisis to contend with.

The state of the budget under the Liberals comes down to one key point: the Liberals are obsessed with pandering to the top end of town. This attitude hurts the budget, hurts the economy and comes at the expense of people who work and struggle to make ends meet. The latest Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook is a perfect example of the Liberals' elitist and out-of-touch approach, with higher taxes for workers, lower taxes for multinationals and millionaires, and record and growing debt. Whenever the Liberals do attempt fiscal repair, it is always at the expense of vulnerable people. They are ripping away funding and support for students and universities. There is a $34 billion hike on the seven million low- and middle-income earners in Australia. They want to ditch the energy supplement, which would leave pensioners up to $366 a year worse off, and increase the pension age to 70, which will mean Australia will have an older pension age than the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. It will also mean that 375,000 Australians will have to wait longer to access a pension in the first four years alone.

But for the clearest example of the Liberals pandering to the top end of town we need look no further than the $65 billion tax cut for big multinationals and the big banks. This is a $65 billion ram raid on the budget. It is $65 billion taken out of funding for education, health and the pockets of middle Australia—and $10 billion of that is going to the big banks. The economics of this don't stack up. Treasury modelling shows a one per cent boost to GDP in 20 years time—an average of 0.05 per cent a year. A report by the Australia Institute highlighted the lack of evidence between the tax cut and increased jobs or growth. The Grattan Institute has warned that national income would be reduced for years and that, by committing to the handout before fixing the budget, the government risks reducing future living standards. To quote that think tank:

An unfunded company tax cut would add to already-large budget deficits … any cut to the company tax rate should only be implemented as part of a wider tax (and spending) reform package that does not increase budget deficits.

The tax cut is a kick in the face for people struggling to make ends meet. Ordinary Australians don't want to see the biggest companies get tax concessions they don't need at the expense of their own living standards. Polling from The Australia Institute also shows that the majority of people—that is, 58 per cent—don't support the $65 billion big business tax cut. And, more significantly, I guess, a recent Guardian Essential poll showed that 42 per cent versus 30 per cent rejected the claim that a corporate tax cut would lead to higher wages. It also showed that more people—38 per cent to 32 per cent—thought that cutting the company tax rate would simply deliver more profits to the business bottom line, rather than attract investment and create more jobs and higher wages.

The coalition's pandering to the top end of town is not just exclusive to the big business tax giveaway, it applies to other areas as well. The government has given tax cuts to those who need them the least: a $16,400 tax cut to millionaires. It's also not willing to reform other areas, like trusts, negative gearing, capital gains tax and superannuation, that advantage the top end of town.

For example, under the Liberals, more than half of the superannuation concessions go to the top 20 per cent of income earners. Peter Martin from Fairfax summarised it well recently, when he said in an article:

The biggest superannuation and capital gains tax concessions are directed towards the highest earners, something we wouldn't tolerate if they were delivered as cheques, paid into accounts.

This government's elitist and out-of-touch approach is as concerning for the economy as it is for the budget. As I said, the global economy is going strong, and our domestic headline rate would suggest that things are good here too. The national accounts show that Australia's GDP growth for the year to the December quarter was 2.4 per cent. However, the headline figure doesn't give a sense of how we're slipping in a global context. Australia has gone from leader to laggard.

Our response to the global financial crisis meant that we overperformed in what was an horrific global context, and we were only one of two advanced economies to do so. Between 2008 and 2010, Australia had the fourth-highest GDP growth among all OECD countries, with the US, the UK, Japan, and Germany all contracting over that period of time. The latest comparative data shows that Australia has now slumped to 20th among the OECD, behind likes of Mexico, Estonia, Finland and Latvia. I can see that you are shocked, there, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, and I am too! I'll repeat those countries: we've now slumped to 20th among the OECD, behind likes of Mexico, Estonia, Finland and Latvia.

The headline figure also masks some enduring, and indeed concerning, underlying trends in our economy which are disproportionately hurting some more than others. A lot of people feel, with some justification, that the rules of the economy are written to benefit others at their expense. That makes sense when you consider that inequality is at a 75-year high and that the gender pay gap is widening, with a recent World Economic Forum report ranking Australia 42 out of 144 countries, falling from 12th position a decade earlier.

This economic disconnect is most prevalent in the world of work and wages. The link between hard work and reward has been severed. Wages grew by two per cent, consistently hovering around record lows. The unemployment rate is at 5.5 per cent, a level comparable to the peak of the global financial crisis. With near-record underemployment, Australians want more work, but they cannot get it. On top of these economic pressures, the Liberals are worsening the situation by supporting penalty rate cuts. These cuts hurt our lowest-paid workers—with some 700,000 impacted—with workers losing up to $77 a week, and have a disproportionate effect on female workers.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia's chief economist, Michael Blythe, wrote about the wages recession in his economic issues note. He spoke about the weakness in wages growth as a significant economic risk, with impacts on households and businesses. Mr Blythe notes that weakness in household incomes remains a major threat to consumer activities.

The Liberals are simply pandering to the top end of town, and it's best displayed with their $65 billion big business tax cuts. This policy sharpens the difference between the Labor Party on this side and those opposite. We know you can't grow the economy by favouring the top end of town at the expense of middle Australia. This is a government that thinks big multinational corporations pay too much tax, seven million working Australians pay too little tax and people get paid too much to work on weekends. These are all absurd propositions, and they are the reasons why ordinary Australians reject the Turnbull government's trickle-down economic agenda.

We in the Labor Party know that growth has to be inclusive. If you're serious about growing the economy, you have to invest in people and their productivity, you have to make sure people are rewarded for effort and you have to ensure that people have money to spend in the economy and can provide for their families. That attitude to growth also underpins our fiscal approach: we believe in budget repair, but it has to be fair. Unlike those opposite, we don't ask the most vulnerable to carry the can when it comes to getting the budget back to balance. That's why we've announced a raft of responsible savings that significantly improve the budget over the medium term. No opposition in recent memory has been as committed to leading the policy agenda as the Labor Party. Our determination to repair the budget in a fair way is the driving force behind that.

Labor has already committed to changes in taxations of trusts; reforms to negative gearing and capital gains; reforms to dividend imputation; changes to superannuation concessions for the top end; crackdowns on multinational tax avoidance; and other measures, including a cap on deductions for managing tax affairs. All up, we have put forward tens of billions of dollars in fair budget repair measures that don't ask the most vulnerable in our community to carry the can through higher taxes or stripping away funding they rely on.

We are pleased that our determined approach to setting the policy agenda, particularly when it comes to the economy and fiscal repair, hasn't gone unnoticed. To again quote Peter Martin from an article late last year:

… this time next year we will be faced with a choice between a government that makes things up as it goes along and a government in waiting that knows what it wants to do.

Laura Tingle, soon to be 7.30's new political correspondent, wrote last year in an article titled 'A useless bunch of indulgent politicians who deserve to be turfed':

… Labor frontbenchers have been going back and having a think about what it is they and their party should actually be trying to achieve in government: what values they are trying to promote.

In conclusion, we support these bills and won't stand in the way of supply.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (13:45): This is a budget bill, and if I could I would block the budget. I know the opposition won't be joining me, given what happened to Gough Whitlam in 1975 and having just heard Senator Farrell say as much. But this budget should be blocked. It gives rise to high tax, deficit and debt, and it's causing great damage to our country. If the budget were blocked, the government would be forced to go back to the drawing board to prepare a budget with reduced government spending. While this occurred, government spending would be interrupted. This would cause short-term pain. But the benefit from a new budget with reduced government spending would be significant and enduring.

As this budget will pass, despite my opposition, I also propose an amendment. In presenting these two budget bills before the Senate today, the government is violating the Constitution and usurping the rights of the Senate. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills alerted the Senate to this in its second digest of 2018. In this digest the committee noted that the government's policy to spend $7 million on the Menzies Institute and Library is a new policy announced in December's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook—and Senator Farrell's not here, so I don't have to pronounce that more appropriately than he did! The committee noted that as it is a new policy the Senate should be able to amend the appropriation for this policy. The constitutional bar on the Senate amending appropriation applies only to appropriations for ongoing policy. Yet the committee noted that the government has decided not to insert the appropriation for this new policy into Appropriation Bill (No. 4), which contains other appropriations for new policy. Instead, the government has inserted the appropriation for this new policy into Appropriation Bill (No. 3), which contains appropriations for ongoing policy. Section 54 of the Constitution makes it clear that bills containing appropriations for ongoing policy should contain only such appropriations. Only then are such bills immune from amendment by the Senate.

My second reading amendment, which I now move, simply points this out:

Leave out all words after "That", substitute:

"(1) The Senate notes that, contrary to section 54 of the Constitution, the bill includes funds which are not "ordinary annual services" as they relate to new policies not previously authorised by legislation, including $7 million for the Menzies Institute and Library.

(2) The Senate reaffirms its constitutional right to amend proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for expenditure on all matters not involving the ordinary annual services of the government.

(3) The bill be withdrawn and redrafted to comply with the constitutional requirement that proposed laws which appropriate revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriations."

The amendment that I will move in committee simply removes the appropriation for the Menzies Institute and Library from Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and inserts it into Appropriation Bill (No. 4). If you believe the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which is chaired by Labor Senator Polley, co-chaired by Nationals Senator Williams and includes members such as the Greens' Senator Rice, then you must consider the spending on the Menzies Institute and Library to be a new policy. If you believe that the Constitution should be upheld, then you must support removing the appropriation for this new policy from the No. 3 bill, which contains appropriations for ongoing policy. It should instead be placed in the No. 4 bill, which does not contain appropriations for ongoing policy.

When my amendment is debated in committee, I would appreciate contributions from Senators Polley, Williams and Rice, given their membership of the committee that has raised this serious issue. I commend my second reading amendment to the Senate.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (13:49): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-18 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-18. These two bills provide appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the annual services of the government for the remainder of 2017-18 and facilitate implementation of a number of 2017-18 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, or MYEFO, measures. The government is seeking to appropriate a total of around $1.5 billion for the remainder of the 2017-18 financial year. These amounts have already been incorporated into the budget bottom line as presented in the 2017-18 MYEFO.

While the Labor Party will be supporting these bills, the debate today gives us an opportunity to highlight the flaws in the 2017-18 budget and the misplaced priorities of this chaotic Turnbull government. Let's be clear at the outset: it's big multinational businesses and millionaires who get all the goodies from the Turnbull government, not the low- to middle-income Australians who could do with some additional support. The recent MYEFO confirms that, instead of making the right decision to rein in generous tax breaks for the top end of town, Mr Turnbull, Mr Morrison and Senator Cormann are once again asking those who can least afford it to carry the can for the government's budget failures. The government prefer to rip away funding and support for students and universities in an attempt to fix their budget mess rather than ditch their tax breaks for the top end of town. They are effectively delivering their $65 billion handout to multinationals and the banks by increasing the tax burden on low- and middle-income earners. Not only is Mr Turnbull's budget elitist and out of touch; it doesn't make any fiscal or economic sense either. The government's budget delivers tax handouts for multinationals and millionaires while hurting Australian families. The mid-year budget update is, at its core, a triple whammy of higher taxes for workers, lower taxes for the top end of town, and record and growing debt. It also shows that Liberals still want to ditch the energy supplement for pensioners and increase the pension age to 70.

The Liberal government, like all Liberal governments, continue to perpetuate the myth that they're better economic managers than Labor, but they have overseen an exponential increase in Australia's levels of debt and deficit. This year's deficit has blown out by a factor of eight times. In the 2014-15 budget, the 2017-18 deficit was projected to be $2.8 billion; however, the deficit is now $23.6 billion in the 2017-18 MYEFO. Net debt has also more than doubled since the Liberals took office. Net debt was $175 billion in September 2013 and had risen to $353 billion in January 2018. Net debt is also expected to reach new highs over each of the next three years. Gross debt has also spiked under this government. It's now more than half a trillion dollars. It has never been higher and is growing, with no peak in sight. While those opposite inherited gross debt of $280 billion, it has blown out to $518 billion as at 9 March 2018. Gross debt is currently estimated to reach $684 billion in 2027-28. Both gross debt and net debt are also growing faster under the Liberals than under Labor—and this coming from a government who in opposition told Australians that they were facing a 'budget crisis' and a 'debt and deficit disaster'.

These figures absolutely rubbish any argument that those on the government team are better economic managers. Rather than fixing Australia's debt, the Liberal-National government's policies are making it worse. As at 9 March 2018, gross debt was growing at $1.2 billion a month quicker, and net debt $575 million a month quicker, than when Labor was in power. This is despite the positive global conditions the government is currently working within, after Labor saved the country from the global financial crisis. The government has tried to talk up some modest and expected minor improvements in the budget, but the substantial uptick in global economic conditions in recent times means they should have expected nothing less.

The fact remains that the headline numbers in this year's MYEFO are nothing to be proud of. International comparisons show other countries are capitalising on improving global conditions better than we are. According to the latest OECD data, Australia ranks 20th in terms of GDP growth among member states, behind the likes of Mexico, Estonia, Finland and Latvia. I say we can and we must do better. As a comparison, understand that in the two years to 2010, during the peak of the global financial crisis, we were ranked fourth highest in the OECD with GDP growth of 4.6 per cent over that period. At the same time the economies of similar countries like the US, the UK, Japan and Germany were contracting. Given this current underperformance, it does makes sense why the Liberals chose to release the update just before Christmas, when Australians were more focused on their festive season than they were on the nation's finances. Sadly, our nation's economy is underperforming in the best global conditions in a decade, when it wasn't long ago that we were overperforming in a very difficult global context.

At the same time, some of the underlying data gives us cause for concern, particularly in how it reflects the economic reality for large swathes of the community. Wages have stagnated under this government, yet there are greater and greater tax cuts to multinationals and to millionaires. This government shouldn't be cutting company tax for those huge companies; it should be making them pay their fair share in the first place. Australia's philosophy of the 'fair go' that guarantees fair wages for a fair day's work has been severed. The fact is that, over the past year, company profits have grown by 20 per cent but wages have grown by just two per cent. Isn't the rising tide meant to lift all boats equally? According to the flawed trickle-down theory of economics that those opposite subscribe to, that's how it's meant to be.

The latest national accounts show that in just the last two years the wages share of income has fallen 1.5 percentage points while the profits share has grown 2.3 percentage points over the same period. We want strong profits and we want sustainable wages growth as well. On top of that, more precarious and insecure work and very high underemployment, which has almost 1.1 million Australians not getting enough hours of work, are making life harder for many people on modest incomes.

The effects of all this are really obvious. Household consumption grew just 0.1 per cent in the September quarter—the worst quarterly result since the global financial crisis. The RBA points specifically to the decline in the growth of discretionary spending, on things such as eating out and recreation, as an indication of increased pressure on household finances. On top of that, the household-debt-to-income ratio is the highest it's ever been, and the household savings ratio is around the worst it's been for about a decade. All of this tells us that people don't have money to spend in the shops or to save for bigger purchases and are bogged down by debt—all of which has repercussions for businesses and the wider economy.

It's very clear that this government doesn't want to do anything to make the tax system fairer. It doesn't want to reform trusts or stop wealthy property investors from using tax concessions they don't need to lock first home buyers out of the housing market. All the while, the nation's debt keeps growing and growing. In fact, it's not well known or understood that debt is actually growing faster now under Mr Turnbull in favourable global economic conditions than it did under the former Labor government, which had the global financial crisis to deal with.

In contrast, Labor has announced responsible savings that significantly improve the budget over the medium term, including ensuring multinationals pay their fair share and reforms to negative gearing, capital gains tax and trusts. Labor has found tens of billions of dollars in fair budget repair measures that don't ask the most vulnerable in our community to do the heavy lifting.

Labor's recently announced reforms on dividend imputation credits will also redirect an unsustainable tax refund, for people who pay no tax, into more productive areas. Dividend imputation is a proud Labor achievement. Paul Keating, as Treasurer, re-engineered capital formation in Australia by eliminating double taxation on company profits. Imputation is, and will continue to be, a vital part of our financial infrastructure. But John Howard and Peter Costello decided—

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Bilyk. The time for the debate has expired. You'll be in continuation.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:51): I, and also on behalf of Senator O'Neill, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 October 2018:

The accessibility and quality of mental health services in rural and remote Australia, with specific reference to:

(a) the nature and underlying causes of rural and remote Australians accessing mental health services at a much lower rate;

(b) the higher rate of suicide in rural and remote Australia;

(c) the nature of the mental health workforce;

(d) the challenges of delivering mental health services in the regions;

(e) attitudes towards mental health services;

(f) opportunities that technology presents for improved service delivery; and

(g) any other related matters.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:51): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government notes the ongoing workloads of committees and committee secretariats and related concerns about additional references.

Question agreed to.