Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (12:01): In accordance with the order of the Senate of 14 February 2018, I rise to ask for an explanation from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion, regarding the failure to engage in detailed consultations with the states and territories on remote housing.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:02): I thank Senator Dodson for that question and for the opportunity to respond—as I have done in much detail, through the 52 documents we provided as part of this order for the production of documents. As the order demonstrated, I am clearly in negotiations with state and territory governments, and I refer you to the documents, particularly documents 1 to 6—reference to my letters to my state and territory counterparts. As this order for the production of documents shows, my officials have been in discussions with their state and territory counterparts since 2017, and that would be standard, for discussions to commence after the MYEFO, before a national partnership agreement expires. The order to produce documents also shows that I have written to the states and the Northern Territory government with an unequivocal commitment to future Commonwealth investment in remote housing.

But I asked the states and the Northern Territory to provide advice on any investment they have made in remote public housing, given public housing is a state and territory responsibility. I also asked for any future funding commitments states and territories are willing to make. I'm strongly of the view that state and territory governments should make a contribution and not treat the residents of remote communities differently from communities in any other part of their state or territory jurisdiction. Why should the residents of Bamaga, Palm Island, Mimili or Jigalong be treated any differently by their state governments? I welcome the response from the Northern Territory government in my negotiations and its commitment to $110 million a year, which I look forward to investing not only in partnership with the Northern Territory but in partnership with Aboriginal leadership and with Aboriginal control for the first time.

I'll obviously have to give some grace to the South Australian government, given it has been in caretaker mode through this process. But I have to say, Senator, I won't be as gracious with your counterparts in Western Australia and Queensland. To date, Queensland and Western Australia have not put a single dollar on the table when it comes to remote housing in either of those states. I will just repeat that: they haven't put a single dollar on the table when it comes to remote housing. So you should be asking Mick de Brenni and Peter Tinley, the housing ministers for Queensland and Western Australia, why no commitment has in fact been made. But I'm here and willing to stand up for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians living in remote Australia, despite your defence of Western Australia's and Queensland's lack of commitment in this important area.

Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (12:05): by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

I thank the minister for complying with the order to produce documents and also for providing me with advance copies of his ministerial letters on the issue. His cooperation with the Senate order is noted and appreciated. Nevertheless, the issue which gives rise to the order remains. As we've just heard, he's obviously got problems with my minister in Western Australia and the minister in Queensland.

The documents confirm the fact that this government has abruptly and unilaterally closed the door on a decade of commitment to remote housing, primarily for first nations families. Since 2008 the Commonwealth government has cooperated with state and territory governments to address the urgent needs that have been unmet of first nations communities in remote Australia. These governments—Labor, Liberal and Liberal National Party; all political persuasions—combined to work together for a decade to improve health and wellbeing outcomes in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities through better housing outcomes. The thinking behind this cooperative approach is clear, agreed and a strong consensus view.

In 2008 COAG agreed to the National Indigenous Reform Agreement, which sets out a joint commitment to the National Integrated Strategy for Closing the Gap in Indigenous Disadvantage. A key building block of that agreement was healthy housing:

A healthy home is a fundamental precondition of a healthy population. Important contributors to the current unsatisfactory living conditions include inadequate water and sewerage systems, waste collection, electricity and housing infrastructure (design, stock and maintenance). Children need to live in accommodation with adequate infrastructure conducive to good hygiene and study and free of overcrowding.

To support this building block, the strategy was agreed between the Commonwealth and all jurisdictions, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory. The main aim of the agreement was to decrease overcrowding and increase housing amenities. The Commonwealth committed $5.4 billion through the strategy from 2008 to 2018. The aims were to build and refurbish houses in remote Indigenous communities and, where appropriate, town camps, including delivery of housing related infrastructure; implement robust and standardised property and tenancy management of all remote Indigenous housing; and increase employment opportunities for local residents in remote Indigenous communities.

By 2018 the strategy will have delivered over 11,500 more-liveable homes in remote Australia—around 4,000 new homes and 7,500 refurbishments. It is estimated that over 2,000 jobs have been created, most of them in remote communities where a steady, secure job is as rare as a win in TattsLotto. This increase in supply is estimated to have led to a significant decrease in the proportion of overcrowded households in remote and very remote areas, falling from 52.1 per cent in 2008 to 41.3 per cent in 2014-15, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The government's own independent review panel projects that this will fall further to 37.4 per cent by 2018.

These are real achievements made by the program. Real jobs have been created, safety has improved and health preconditions have improved. If there were real leadership from the Commonwealth, this government would have built on these achievements and looked ahead to the maintenance of a joint effort. Getting in and keeping the work going: that's what we needed. The government's independent panel recommended that, after accounting for population growth, an additional 5,500 homes were required by 2028 to reduce the levels of overcrowding in remote areas to acceptable levels. It may well be beyond that figure, but that's the figure we were told. The remote panel recommended the key matters were: a recurring program must be funded to maintain existing houses, preserve functionality and increase the life of housing assets; investment for an additional 5,500 houses by 2028 is needed to continue the efforts on closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage; the cost of a remote Indigenous housing program should be equally shared—and I take the minister's point: it should be equally shared, not given up on because someone won't talk to you—between the Commonwealth and the other jurisdictions; and a regional governance structure should be established to facilitate better administration of the program.

It is clear that these are worthwhile recommendations that should be considered and carefully implemented. The documents produced by the minister—we have been pushing for them for some time, since last year—show that these recommendations have been followed through in part, but in a remarkably idiosyncratic way. Rather than considered negotiations, given the sensitivities and importance of this issue and its bipartisan basis, the minister has abruptly chosen this ill-conceived approach. Most of the documents provided—45 out of the 52—relate to correspondence between state and territory officials and Commonwealth officials from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Most of them relate to the organising of meetings with joint steering committees of officials between the Commonwealth and the states.

It is appreciated that, in supplying these documents, there needs to be some redactions to avoid providing information that may be commercial-in-confidence, or could damage Commonwealth-state relations and would infringe the privacy of individuals. We accept and understand that fact, but for the life of me I cannot understand which of these provisions is applied to annexure 19. The cover page is of an email indicating the content is a draft letter to the minister from the Norther Territory jurisdiction. Dated 5 December 2017, it's just highlighted with blanks. I'm not sure how to read this; I have no capacity to understand what it says. That's annexure 19. The attachments, some 22 pages, are completely redacted—black page after black page—except a few where the Northern Territory coat of arms is not redacted. That's the only reason I understood it.

I've looked closely at the correspondence between officials. It would seem to me that the release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in December 2017 was the catalyst for a range of meetings between officials. This was when the states and territories were informed, directly or indirectly, that the existing arrangements for remote housing were not likely to continue past June 2018. This was the first indication that a decade of Commonwealth-state cooperation was coming to an abrupt end. Most of the papers, however, go to wrapping up the reporting to the Commonwealth on expenditure of the current financial year. There is little in the way of any negotiations with the states on any ongoing contribution to a bilateral partnership to continue the work. This is where the correspondence between ministers is critical to an understanding of how this was playing out. There is no indication of that.

For my own state of Western Australia—and I'm glad the minister is meeting with my ministers this week, and I hope something more productive than this exchange takes place—the first letter on the issue was dated 11 December. In that letter he indicated that his department had commenced discussions with states about 'the future of remote Indigenous housing and how a new housing program might look'. It seems from the documents provided that such a meeting was not scheduled until 22 February, just last month, at the regular meetings of the joint steering committee.

Minister, it is evident that there were no formal intergovernment communications on the issues of intergovernmental agreements on the future of the program. It is evident that there was no high-level dialogue aimed at ensuring that the states and territories were willing to contribute in a bipartisan way to the future of the program. There was no sustained effort to redesign the program to meet the recommendations of the independent review and to build on the successes of the program.

Minister, it seems evident that you got rolled in the ERC, the Expenditure Review Committee, that the cabinet of this government decided to pull up the drawbridge on a decade of collaboration, and that there was no effort on the part of you as a minister, or your officials, to enter into serious, respectful and transparent negotiations on remote housing. You did not pick up the phone, it seems to me, to commence negotiations or invite the participation of the states and territories into an ongoing program. Instead, there have been a series of statements from the Prime Minister, Minister Wyatt and Minister Scullion.

The Prime Minister responded to two questions without notice in the House on Thursday, 8 February, saying:

I just confirm that we are negotiating a new agreement for remote housing with the jurisdictions who remain part of the terminating program.

We can now ask if that statement was accurate at the time, given the correspondence shows that the ministers of South Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia were not signed until that day. On the same day, 8 February, Minister Wyatt told the House:

The negotiations that we will continue to have with state and territory governments on this are important …

Minister Wyatt had earlier said:

The funding has not been cut. It has not been reduced. Senator Scullion is in ongoing negotiations with the relevant ministers.

We now question whether Minister Wyatt's statement was correct. On 12 February, Minister Scullion told the Senate in answer to my question:

A national partnership involves every state and territory. It is self-evident that New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria are no longer in it. So now we're moving to a bipartisan approach. We've made the announcement with the Northern Territory and we're still in discussions with the other states and territories.

Minister, a couple of letters rushed out of your office to back up the statements in the House and a planned officials meeting in a couple of months time are not at all the grounding for solid bipartisan negotiations.

Regrettably, the order to produce documents demonstrates poor faith in negotiation matched by unimaginative leadership; a tendency to say that things are progressing when they have not commenced; and especially a lack of concern for first nations communities in the maintenance of the essential building block of safe, secure and heathy housing.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:19): I rise to take note of the response from Minister Scullion. As shadow minister for housing and homelessness I deal with community groups who are trying to deal with homelessness and housing issues around the country. Today at the Press Club there is an engagement between community housing groups and faith based organisations, which they're calling Everybody's Home. Everybody's Home is absolutely essential, because without housing, you can't educate or look after your kids, nor get a decent health outcome for your family. Housing is so important. Day after day I get reports and see the problems of the lack of engagement from this government on housing and homelessness. What you see in the general community is nothing compared to what you see in Indigenous communities: the lack of effective policy for decent housing and the increase in homelessness are absolutely terrible.

For Minister Scullion to stand up and blame the lack of progress on what he describes as a lack of graciousness from state ministers is another demonstration of the incapacity of this government to show any leadership on social issues in this country. One of the key areas where some leadership should be shown is Indigenous housing. This minister put together a review of Indigenous housing. Let's have a look at some of the recommendations of this minister's own review:

A recurrent program must be funded to maintain existing houses, preserve functionality and increase the life of housing assets.

Minister, that's what you should be doing. You should be in there talking and engaging with the states, but you don't feel it should be done because ministers are ungracious. You should be doing it for Indigenous communities in this country, because they need decent housing. They need to get rid of overcrowding and improve their health and education outcomes. As Minister for Indigenous Affairs you should be engaging with the states, showing some leadership and dealing with this issue. You even put your own report on the backburner and did nothing about it, because you deemed those ministers to be ungracious. It's not about whether or not you're gracious; it's about outcomes for Indigenous communities.

Your own report talks about an additional 5,500 houses needed by 2028 to continue efforts in closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. You don't do that by coming here and having a pot shot at state ministers; you fix that by sitting down with the states and providing a decent outcome. It's alright for the National Party, who don't give a hoot about Indigenous disadvantage or disadvantage in regional and rural areas.

Senator O'Sullivan: What nonsense!

Senator McGrath: You live in Sydney; you've never been to regional Australia.

Senator CAMERON: It's alright for you guys sitting there and going on at me when I'm raising a key issue. You're just not in the game on regional or Indigenous housing. You're absolutely hopeless, a government that has no idea about the key issues facing Australians—especially Indigenous Australians.

Senator McKenzie: Like mining jobs!

Senator CAMERON: Mining jobs? That's all these people can talk about. Indigenous people are dying in regional communities because of bad health, have no access to decent housing and are living in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions, and all this minister can do is to say, 'The states are ungracious, because they won't talk to me.' You need to show some leadership. Why the National Party have been given Indigenous housing beggars belief. The National Party, of all groups in this area, have no clue about what is required for housing. Another recommendation the review talks about is:

The costs of a remote Indigenous housing program should be shared 50:50 between the Commonwealth and the jurisdictions.

I'm sure the jurisdictions—the states—would be happy to talk to this minister about the key issues needed. Because by not getting an agreement in place, we've actually seen some good things happen over the years as a result of the Labor Party's initiatives in this area to deal with insecurity in housing, bad health outcomes and bad education outcomes in Indigenous communities.

What this minister should be doing is getting on the phone today, ringing the various states and getting them to a meeting to get an agreement in place. He shouldn't be hiding behind the secrecy that this government revels in. You're a do-nothing government. You don't answer any questions and you ignore the key issues for Australians and Indigenous communities. You should stop hiding behind bureaucracy, and you should stop hiding behind your incapacity. You should be getting some decent advice. Look at the recommendations that have been put in place and actually deal with the issue of looking after Indigenous communities.

The recommendation also said that there should be a regional governance structure to facilitate better administration of the program. What has the minister done about improving regional governance structures? Not much. There should be greater transparency. A regional governance and performance framework would be better than a collection to be made available to individuals and communities. Where is that up to, Minister? All you do is come here and make excuses. All you do is come here and hide behind the bureaucracy. You hide behind what someone else is not doing, instead of showing some leadership as a minister and dealing with one of the great social problems in this country.

The recommendations also said there should be a five-year rolling plan to fix the program. Where is the rolling program? What initiatives have you come up with? Absolutely nothing. You can't even communicate effectively between your ministry and the representative minister in the House of Representatives. We get different stories from each area. This is a minister who is just not up to the task. I've come to the conclusion this minister is not up to the task. The National Party can moan and wail all they like, but they are not up to the task either. When it comes to housing, when it comes to homelessness, when it comes to Indigenous housing, the National Party do not have a clue how to fix any of those issues. These are key issues. When we've got Indigenous families with intergenerational health issues, surely the National Party and this minister should be taking the issues seriously, not coming here and simply saying it's ungracious of the state governments. You need a bit of leadership and a bit of backbone to stand up against those in your own party—those in the National Party and those in the Liberal Party—who don't care about Indigenous housing or Indigenous social disadvantage. How about a bit of backbone, Minister? Stand up and do something to fix these terrible problems that Indigenous communities are facing.

Where is the comprehensive planning across governments? Where is the funding that you should be putting in place? You have failed to do it as a minister, and you have failed to deliver for Indigenous communities. The first thing you lot did was to cut half a billion dollars out of support for Indigenous communities around this country—that was your first act. The 2014-15 budget will never be forgotten in this country. That was when you stood back and allowed Indigenous funding to be cut across a range of portfolios. You should stand up, you should show some commitment, and you should get in there and argue in your cabinet to make sure that the Indigenous communities in this country are looked after.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Senator CAMERON: We've got Senator O'Sullivan bellowing away in the background continually. They're doormats for the Liberal Party until One Nation actually becomes the partner for the Liberal Party—they'll be pushed to the side by One Nation. You are too worried about your relationship with the government and your relationship with the Liberal Party.

Senator McGrath: They are the government.

Senator CAMERON: No, they're not the government; they're the doormats. We know fine and well what the National Party are: the absolute doormats, with no capacity to deliver on key policy issues.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): Senator Cameron, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie on a point of order.

Senator McKenzie: I know we've got Senator Cameron on his favourite topic, but his last three or four minutes of diatribe are not relevant to the matter before the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Senator Cameron.

Senator CAMERON: Thanks, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher. Again, they're trying to shut people down when the message doesn't suit them; that's their position: We know that the National Party are in absolute chaos. We know that the National Party are leaderless. We know that the new leader of the—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie on a point of order.

Senator McKenzie: I rise on a point of order, on relevance. Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Cameron's contributions since you made your earlier ruling on my point of order have been simply to continue to talk about the National Party and not actually talk about the motion before the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't believe there is a point of order, but I do encourage Senator Cameron to return to the topic before the Senate.

Senator CAMERON: Well, I'm happy to return to the incompetence of the National Party and the incompetence of the minister who is a member of the Liberal-National party and who is unable to deal with the issue of Indigenous housing, unable to deal with the issue of Indigenous health and unable to deal with the issue of Indigenous education. And when asked to show some leadership, failing to show any leadership is pretty typical of the National Party—pretty typical of the government from the Prime Minister down. They are not prepared to deal with the real issues affecting people in this country and are unable to make sure that there is employment in those areas.

Here we are with a national partnership that has created thousands of jobs for Indigenous people around this country. The housing program put in place by Labor created thousands of jobs. It created hundreds of businesses. It created hundreds of apprenticeships and brought some capacity for long-term, stable jobs relating to housing in Indigenous areas. And this minister has been incapable of understanding that it's not just about housing: it's about health; it's about education; it's about employment; and it's about getting an economy established in the Indigenous areas. This is a minister absolutely incapable of dealing with issues of importance in his own portfolio. He is an absolute failure in this area, an absolute failure. Just ask the National Party what a failure—a leaderless failure—we have as a member of this government.

We have huge issues for Indigenous groups around the country. Overcrowding has come down a bit, but not enough. Indigenous health is still a problem under this government. Indigenous education is still a problem. Indigenous people can't get decent health and can't get decent education unless they've got a home to go to, a home that is culturally appropriate for Indigenous groups. These are the issues that this minister should be dealing with. These are the issues that this minister seems to be incapable of dealing with. This minister allowed half a billion dollars to be cut out of Indigenous support in this country and said nothing about it; he was mute when it came to an attack on Indigenous communities around the country. That was how he started off his career as Minister for Indigenous Affairs—a failure to start with, a failure ongoing and a failure in the future.

That's why we need a change of government. We need a change of government federally so that we can look at exactly the issues that are needed for both Indigenous communities and communities around the country. We need to stop this ideological attack by the coalition against Indigenous people, against the trade union movement, against workers' penalty rates and against the rights of workers when they go on the job. This is an absolutely pathetic government that shows no leadership and has no capacity to understand how difficult it is for Indigenous communities around this country to make their way, with bad housing, poor health outcomes and poor education outcomes.

Minister, it costs money to fix these problems and you are incapable of getting a clear commitment or negotiating with the states to get an outcome on housing for Indigenous communities around this country. You should pick up the phone, you should talk to the various ministers across the country who have responsibility for this area, you should get a national agreement put in place, you should look at the recommendations that your own review recommended and you should start implementing them. We've got children dying in Indigenous communities because of overcrowding and unsanitary situations. You've been there now for years. You have failed to deal with some of the basic problems in Indigenous communities in this country. You are too busy carving each other up, too busy fighting with each other and too busy defending the absolutely indefensible as a government—a rabble of a government, a government with no capacity to lead, a government with no economic policies and no social policies. All you want to do is use fear and loathing as the basis of your policy proposals.

This is a government that is in absolute decline; a government in internal decline. And nothing epitomises the decline of this government more than their approach on Indigenous affairs. We've got the Closing the Gap approach, and this government, who were going to be the grown-ups—well, no-one can look at this government and use the word 'grown-up'—have failed to deal with the key issues that are important to all communities in this country, especially Indigenous communities. You can argue all you like about what you may have done and what you will do, but the reality is that you have failed miserably to deal with the issues of health, education and housing for Indigenous communities.

You must get a situation where we've got a minister that can actually focus on this. I don't think there is one politician on the Liberal-Nationals side, either in the lower house or in the Senate, who has the capacity to deal with these issues, because you are so obsessed with each other, so obsessed with having a go at each other and so obsessed with the rabble that you have become that you cannot concentrate on the key issues for Indigenous communities in this country. We need to improve the health of Indigenous communities. We need to improve education for Indigenous communities. We need to ensure that there is a business case to build these houses, and that's the job of this minister. This minister has been incapable of delivering on what is a fundamental right everywhere in the world, and that is to have a roof over your head. This minister is just incapable of doing that.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Senator CAMERON: And it doesn't matter how much Senator O'Sullivan rants away behind the minister, trying to defend the indefensible; it is just not going down with the community. The community know that you are a rabble. The community know that you are incompetent. The community know that you are weak from the Prime Minister down—a weak Prime Minister and weak ministers, incapable of dealing with education, incapable of dealing with health and incapable of dealing with the issues facing Indigenous communities. Maybe, Minister, your next contribution should just be to resign and make sure that we get somebody in that can actually look after the Indigenous community, because you patently cannot. (Time expired)

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:40): I rise to take part in this debate on the motion to take note of the minister's explanation. This is an extremely important issue that, it is very clear, needed very strong leadership from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has been investing in remote housing—in fact, in social housing—for a long time, but in particular in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander housing. This is an absolutely essential area where the Commonwealth should be providing leadership, and it was very clear, even before the review came out, that there was a need for ongoing Commonwealth involvement and, in fact, an agreement with the states and territories around this issue. That was confirmed, of course, through the review document, which clearly points out in its leading recommendations:

1. A recurrent program must be funded to maintain existing houses, preserve functionality and increase the life of housing assets.

2. Investment for an additional 5,500 houses by 2028 is needed to continue efforts on Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage.

It was very clear that there was need for further investment and that there is a need to continue to build houses.

But just as important was to send the signal very early that this was going to occur. We all know in this place—because I'm sure every single senator has had representations from constituents on these programs, whether it's the remote housing program, soil and land conservation programs or whatever programs you're talking about—that, as programs are coming to an end, there is a need to send a very clear signal as to whether they're going to continue, because things grind to a halt. You lose essential staff, contracts can't be made and they can't plan for the future.

What we see here are a lot of organisations and a lot of people that are employed, because part of this process is employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It's very clear that signals should have been sent much earlier than they were that this program was going to continue. There has been huge disquiet in the sector about knowing the future of this program. Yes, the program to date has been addressing issues of overcrowding, but, as the review pointed out, more houses are needed. You just have to go into communities to know that we still have an exceedingly high overcrowding problem.

On top of this, this has also manifested in concern in communities, because in my home state of Western Australia—and we heard Senator Dodson talking about our home state earlier—we have had to contend with the past government talking about closing remote communities. Then, when there's uncertainty over whether this housing funding is going to continue, that exacerbates concerns that still exist in communities about closure of those communities. Again, there is a need for some leadership to be clearly demonstrated by the Commonwealth.

I think that we could fund a number of years worth of election campaigns if I had a dollar for every time I heard the Commonwealth government blame the states and territories and the states and territories blame the Commonwealth. It happens in this place virtually every day, and that's exactly what we're seeing here: blame for the state and territories and failure to show leadership, despite the fact that it was very clear that further investment is needed and that the community expects the Commonwealth to be showing leadership on this issue and on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues in general.

On one hand, while we've got the government failing to take action here, we've got the Refresh program for Closing the Gap. We know that housing is absolutely fundamental to addressing issues of Closing the Gap. We need to be addressing issues around the social determinants of health, and we know that housing plays a critical role there. An issue we are yet to resolve is otitis media and the impact it has on Aboriginal children, and poor housing and overcrowding is a key component of that issue. We had a workshop in Perth the week before last, where we were talking about those essential social determinants of health to ensure that we can deal with this. Make no mistake, OM is at pandemic levels in this country. We have one of the highest rates of OM in the world, if not the highest. This is just one example of the issues that we are yet to resolve where housing plays an absolutely critical role. We have to reduce and get rid of overcrowding. We have to ensure that people can live in hygienic circumstances. As the review pointed out, we have to ensure that existing houses are maintained and we have preserve their functionality and increase the life of the housing assets. That is absolutely critical. But building more houses and addressing this issue in remote communities is absolutely essential. I have addressed OM in particular because it is an issue that I think is fundamental; it is a classic example of why we need to be addressing this issue.

I have had a lot of contact from constituents asking about this. People are asking a lot of questions. Why the focus first on NT? It has been commented that half of the housing problem is in the NT. Does that mean that half of the money is going to the NT? Why was the focus there first? I appreciate that there are some very important issues there. I have been in the communities a lot of times, so I understand the nature of those issues in the Northern Territory. But we also have those fundamental issues in Western Australia, as does Queensland. These are important issues that people want answers to. I put in a long list of questions at estimates, which I presume will go to the minister at some stage when the department has answered them. They are fundamentally important. Organisations also need to know whether this funding is going to continue. In terms of planning into the future, communities need to know. Employment programs will cease if there is not ongoing commitment to these programs in a timely manner.

As I said, we knew a long time ago that this investment was going to have to continue. Yet we are still playing the blame game. Yes, of course there has to be investment from the states and territories. But a much more conciliatory approach to negotiations, in a timely manner, should have occurred first instead of being reduced to this game of brinkmanship. From the outside, to a whole number of people, it looks like that is what is happening. Delays will cause very significant issues to building programs, to employment, to the outcomes that we are all looking for. So at the same time that we are talking about the Refresh program and updating Closing the Gap, we are back to basic principles of fighting over housing. That is essentially what we are talking about here. We are back to fighting over housing, and the delays that brings with it.

We know very well, as I said when I started, that urgent action is needed to address this issue. To those who have been working in this space—including the minister, who has been working in this space for a very long time, organisations that have been working in this area and communities that have been agitating to know what the future of this program will be—it's absolutely clear that it needs to continue.

Ever since I've been in this chamber, I think, we've been debating this issue. We've also been debating funding for this issue. Every time a funding program is about to run out, we are back to debating who pays, when they are going to sign up, how much it's going to be, and what the states and territories are going to kick in—all of those issues. You would have thought by now that we could have been addressing those issues in a timely manner. But, no, we're not. We're back to this issue yet again, with people waiting with bated breath to find out what funding will be available and what states are going to be putting in. As I said, it's fair enough that states are contributing as well. But it's all happening again at the very last minute. Again, how many times have we been in this place having these debates about programs? It comes down to the line when they are going to be funded, and this is yet another example.

It comes back to a lack of leadership in trying to get these issues resolved. The government are trying to withdraw the Commonwealth from these issues if they can possibly get away with it. It's time that this issue was resolved as a matter of urgency. That may mean getting the states together with the Territory to resolve this issue. It is absolutely critical that this issue be resolved, that there be certainty and that the recommendations be implemented, such as the additional investment with a recurrent program so that these sorts of debates don't have to be held every time a funding program is going to run out. We know, as was pointed out in the review, that 5,500 houses are needed by 2028. Let's get in place an ongoing recurrent program that deals with this issue so that we can accomplish the elimination of overcrowding, so that there is certainty for the program and so that there is certainty that we can have a Closing the Gap Refresh, knowing that a key component of that can be delivered. We are not going to close the gap if we don't address some of these fundamental social determinants, of which housing is a critical component. If we don't address that issue, we will fail to close the gap, and that has been pointed out by many people who have been contributing, particularly recently, on this extremely important area of investment, where the Commonwealth can show leadership and in fact must show leadership.

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (12:53): I rise to speak in response to the explanation on housing provided to the Senate by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. In his statement, he mentions that he waits for each territory and state jurisdiction to show the money. Well, in the Northern Territory, the Chief Minister, Michael Gunner, and the housing minister, Gerry McCarthy, have worked on their preparation in terms of what they will offer with housing across the Northern Territory, and they have put forward $1.1 billion over 10 years. I would like to let the Senate know that this was the first offer, I think—and correct me if I'm wrong—from a state or territory jurisdiction to the Commonwealth in terms of that full-time commitment.

The minister made a comment in relation to that in Gunbalanya in January, and that comment was to support the payments by the Territory, so naturally there was a great deal of positive confirmation coming from the federal government at that point. However, that has since been rescinded. It is not the $1.1 billion commitment in equal terms with the Northern Territory over 10 years, which is a great concern.

Reading through these documents that have been tabled by the minister, a number of things come up. One of them that comes up straightaway—and I think it's important for the Senate to be aware of some of the issues—is that here we have a jurisdiction that has shown the money, so to speak, and yet we do not have the political will within the Turnbull cabinet to support a jurisdiction that has already shown the money. We know, in the Northern Territory in particular, the desire to have improved and certainly increased housing for our remote communities.

Looking through the papers that the minister has tabled here in the Senate, there is an agenda item, from 'Capital works milestone'—it has been redacted, so I'm not sure who it has been prepared by—which focuses on this situation: 'As of 30 November 2017, a total of 117 new houses have been completed since July 2016, with 122 new houses underway.' The Commonwealth, then—and I understand this to be the COAG meeting—in November, was alerted to the fact that the NT government 'remains committed to deliver the target of 300 new houses under the national partnership on remote housing, as per schedule F of the agreement, but the achievement of that target by 30 June this year is at risk, due to factors that are outside the Northern Territory government's control. These include'—again, this is for the benefit of the Senate, to understand the intricacies that impact on the lives of first-nations peoples in this country. The first issue here is leasing. Delays in securing land tenure have delayed contracts being awarded, most notably in the communities of Yarralin, Pirlangimpi and Mutitjulu. There are seasonal impacts. The wet season in the Northern Territory has considerable impact on the ability to deliver capital works, and the 2017-18 wet season has commenced early in some parts of the Northern Territory, including at Amanbidji, a community programmed to receive six new replacement houses. The third area of concern, in terms of these risk factors, is transitional accommodation. Capital works cannot commence in a community until appropriate accommodation is provided for people who need to move from a dilapidated house or those needing a new house, so they can be accommodated somewhere in the interim. So works have to be aligned to ensure transitional housing is in place, to avoid delays.

The Northern Territory government requested then, in November, via ministerial correspondence, that the new house target of 300 be revised to an achievable 243 by 30 June 2018, with a commitment that the remaining new houses be contractually committed to this date and then rolled over beyond June 2018 into the financial year of 2018-19. The status of that request is still unclear. But, again, that was an important request by the Northern Territory government.

There are issues that are compounding here for residents in the Northern Territory. Again, these are questions for the minister and his department. There is the issue of rental payments as a key element of funding for repairs and maintenance. The current system of tenancy management is dependent on large rental contributions from tenants. So what is the impact of the record and disproportionate number of fines and suspensions of unemployment benefits and CDP payments to Aboriginal tenants? We've had debates in here about CDP payments and the concerns in relation to breaching and those participants on CDP who are breached. There is actual evidence within the housing department that shows there are concerns as to the rental payments because of reductions in people's CDP payments and welfare benefits.

The other question around housing for the Northern Territory is homelands and town camps. In 2012 the Labor government set aside $10 million from the ABA funds for homelands and outstation housing. In 2015 a full audit of homeland and outstation housing and infrastructure was conducted by the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs with the support of the Commonwealth and territory governments. The Commonwealth is now insisting that the land councils carry out a similar audit to determine the priority for infrastructure investment in the same homelands and outstations.

So what payments will be made for the land councils to be able to rescope infrastructure work on outstations? These are the conversations that need to be had well before June 2018. Hasn't the Commonwealth previously stated that it wants no further involvement with outstations since it paid out the Giles government? The Commonwealth created 600 to 700 outstations from the 1960s onwards, and has now walked away from any responsibility in that regard. In terms of town camps, the Commonwealth has offered nothing to address the substandard infrastructure that it created across the Territory.

We know that the minister is currently underway with the Closing the Gap Refresh. One of the areas that consistently comes up is the importance of housing. As we've heard previously from Senator Dodson and Senator Cameron, the importance of housing and homelessness links to the fact that we cannot close the gap in health, in education or in employment. I know that as part of the conversations that are now taking place around closing the gap, it is absolutely critical that this government looks at the importance of housing and the lack of it, and the impact that it's having on the very policy that it stands up to give a report on in the House in February every year on the life expectancy of first nations people. The government needs to connect it.

If there were the political will 10 years ago to have a 10-year agreement on an incredibly visionary housing program for our country and for our remote and regional areas, where is the political will today? It is completely absent, abrogating every kind of responsibility to find excuses and reasons why it is not this parliament's duty to the first nations people of this country to make sure that the government shows leadership in navigating a way through the absolutely complex and political process within the state and territory jurisdictions to have that vision again. Have that vision again! Have the backbone to have that vision again. Have the will to have that vision again. That's what is required for a 10-year vision on housing for our remote and rural regions in this country.

I'll give you another example. Only 18 months ago—in fact, the minister may remember this—we celebrated the handback to the community of Yarralin in the VRD region, west of Katherine. We celebrated the handback after 40 years where the people of Yarralin had been waiting and had their struggle for land. The story is that a group of Aboriginal workers walked off the job at a cattle station in the NT over 44 years ago to protest about a lack of pay and about mistreatment. Today, more than 50,000 hectares belong to them. Fifty thousand hectares of land were returned at that moment. I was there, the minister was there, the Northern Land Council was there and all the men, women and children of the VRD region were there. What was promised as part of that handback was at least 20 new houses and 17 upgrades. I have spoken with people from that region who are incredibly disappointed that not enough has been done in that space. And that's just one example of a number of communities that are waiting.

I say to the Prime Minister: if you want to close the gap, if you are sincere about wanting to close the gap, you have to be committed in every way—not cherry-picking when you want to dive in and dive out—and you've got to back it all the way. We know that housing is a critical aspect of improving the lives of everyone, and the ones who need it the most in this particular instance are the first nations people of our country. The cabinet needs to have the backbone and the vision, because it is within your power to make a real difference here. It is within your power to break the stalemate. It is within your power to rise above the politics of every situation here when you look at the figures of our families and our children on the ground, who desperately need this parliament to get it right. Thank you.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (13:06): I rise to take note of Minister Scullion's comments. What we now know is that, under the Turnbull government, housing in remote communities will continue to be overcrowded for years to come. The minister's comments were underwhelming. No-one could have confidence that the Turnbull government has a commitment to remote housing with what we're seeing in how this policy is playing out and what we've heard today. We know this is not just a housing crisis; it's a jobs crisis. While the current program is not perfect, it's not adequate to the degree that's needed, what it has done is provide not only some houses but also desperately needed jobs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. What we have here is both a housing crisis and a jobs crisis because of the appalling way the government is acting.

We know that the current program had reduced overcrowding by 46 per cent. There are few success stories when it comes to this federal government and housing. Again, this program is not perfect, but it's heading in the right direction. So here we had something in the housing area at a federal level that actually had something to show for what it set out to do. What I'm referring to there is that it was delivering new homes, refurbishing homes, providing maintenance for homes. That is significant for anybody, but when you live in overcrowded premises it's incredibly important.

I thank Senator Dodson for putting forward this motion so that we can have this debate and assist the remote communities—particularly in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory, as well as across the whole country—that are now in such an uncertain period. It really has put the spotlight on the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. I also congratulate my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert for her work in this area, which has been very extensive. She spelled it out very clearly, as have others, in her speech about how important housing is for those other essential rights, basic human rights, of education, of health.

All of these issues are connected, and when you have overcrowding you're going to run into so many other problems that are impacting on people's day-to-day lives and costing the government money. So much of what they're doing here is short-sighted. We know the remote housing program is not a huge amount of money, so what is going on here? This is a real reminder of how this really is a government of inequality. Previous federal governments committed $776 million to the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. It's been cut to $100 million. That extra $676 million that they think they're saving—I mean it's not a huge amount of money. It should have been improved, increased, not what we're seeing here today.

What we also know—and this comes from the latest census work of the Australian Bureau of Statistics—is the whole impact that overcrowding has on communities. It really is worthwhile reminding ourselves how serious this is. The ABS stated that the overall number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experiencing homelessness in 2016 was 23,437 and more than two in three were living in severely crowded dwellings. Those figures are shameful. We are a rich country and this should not be happening. The ABS stated that people living in severely crowded dwellings—which are defined as requiring four or more extra bedrooms to accommodate the people who usually live there—was the greatest contributor to the national increase in homelessness. It is disgraceful that this is where we are at in this country. These are recent figures; that is the latest census data.

Again, we should remind ourselves about the overall housing crisis caused by the shocking policies of the federal government—and I acknowledge that the work of many of our state governments in this area is also below par. The 2016 census data showed that the rate of homelessness in Australia over the last five years has gone up by 5.6 per cent. It is increasing, not decreasing; it is not even staying the same. At every turn, the way this federal government, under Prime Minister Turnbull, is handling housing is shameful. Again, that is why they are increasingly being called the government of inequality.

The National Partnership Agreement for Remote Indigenous Housing and the Remote Housing Strategy have been very significant. The remote housing review gives us some insight into how significant it has been. By this year, the strategy will have delivered 11,500 more livable homes in remote Australia. And I will repeat a comment I made earlier. When we are talking about the number of homes that are being delivered, there are new homes, there is refurbishment and there is maintenance. And what does that mean? It means hundreds and hundreds of jobs. And we cannot emphasise enough how important that is in remote Australia.

In regard to overcrowded dwellings for people in remote areas, the review found that this increase in supply is estimated to have led to a significant decrease in the proportion of overcrowded households in remote and very remote areas—falling from 52.1 per cent in 2008 to 41.3 per cent in 2014. The panel projects that this will fall further—to 37.4 per cent by 2018. That is really welcome; those figures are good; at least it is heading in the right direction. There could be a lot more improvement, but I would still say that it is welcome; there is much more to do, but it is welcome. It is welcome because we know we need to improve the strategy and continue to invest in remote housing. The remote housing review has recommended that an additional 5,500 houses be built.

Where does all that sit with where the government is at now? I have not read all the documents that the minister has put forward, but you would have thought he would put all the good news up top—and there wasn't good news there in terms of the uncertainty this whole sector is facing. The minister has been incredibly inadequate in terms of how he has handled the portfolio. The minister really has questions to answer here. Why has it taken so long? Why has it got to this point? What justifies leaving communities and housing providers in so much uncertainty? That is one of the very shocking things that is going on here—where it leaves these communities. We don't know why they are doing that, but we do know the impact it is having. Firstly, it is reckless and it is mean-spirited and it is bringing more hardship and uncertainty. When it comes to housing, people should be confident that they and their family and their loved ones—the people they are sharing their home with—can have a roof over their head and not have to be worried about it in a month's time or a year's time. That is a human right. People have a right to homes and to have secure housing. It is actually set out as a human right, but this government appears not to know that.

Again, let's emphasise that we're not talking about a lot of money here. It's been about $540 million per year so far. Compare that to the roughly $8 billion of public money we're expected to dish out, and we do dish out, that goes on the negative gearing and the capital gains tax discounts in one year alone. This why I say we're a rich country and we can afford it. We know where the money can come from: clean up negative gearing and clean up capital gains tax discounts. That's one way to reduce the inequality in this country and have money to fund these essential programs.

Essentially, what the Turnbull government should be doing here is to end the uncertainty. That's the first thing. They need to come out with a very clear position that the current system remains and that it's going to be improved on, and we're not all left wondering what happens when this 10-year agreement ends. The state and territory governments should not have to siphon off already constrained funds for these housing programs. You get the sense when you listen to the federal government that that's their idea with housing, 'Oh, well, it's basically a state issue and so we can just get away with pushing it onto state governments.'

As I've heard other speakers say, the Turnbull government needs to find some backbone on this. They need to find a commitment. Again, we hear all the fine statements about Aboriginal rights and Closing the Gap, but here is a case in point: this is where they can actually do the job, and, surely, that's what they should be doing. What we've heard today from the Liberals and Nationals is another reason why this government needs to be defeated. It's ruthless, it's shocking and this is clearly another example why this government should be voted out of office. Thank you.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:16): There have been a number of contributions and I thank everybody for them. I particularly acknowledge my senator colleague from Western Australia, Senator Dodson. I know you have an ongoing and genuine interest in this matter, and I thank you for your ongoing interest, mate.

I will try to deal with a number of the questions and assertions that've been put up, but let me, perhaps, get the dross out of the way first. Senator, your contribution certainly stood in stark contrast to the contribution from the shadow housing minister. I wasn't actually aware that Senator Cameron was the shadow housing minister. When he got to the four-minute mark he decided to blither on to personal insults and to say that the National Party doesn't care about Indigenous people. I guess we're used to it. There are some people in this place—there's certainly one—who everybody in Australia should factor in. He is so offensive in his nature that he should just be ignored. We do our best under a torrent of specific and personal offence given by this man. We don't forgive him. He's just what he is and we just ignore it. It was insightful that he ran out of steam after four minutes and went into the remainder with the of sort of rubbish he normally makes in a contribution.

But h should be held to account for a couple of things. He said that Indigenous homelessness has increased. He's the shadow minister, he should have a bit of a clue about that, wouldn't you reckon, Senator Dodson? He should have a clue about a fact that he's just put on the table. He said, 'Indigenous homelessness has increased.' Perhaps I can point him to a number of articles and statistics that he should inform himself of—after all, this is his shadow portfolio. The number of Indigenous people counted as homeless has fallen by 12.3 per cent in the five years leading up to 2016, and it goes on. I'm not suggesting in any circumstance that that is okay, but to say that it's gone up not down, I think, is something he won't ever be held to account for. Nobody takes him seriously, but I thought I would, again, just correct the record.

There were a couple of other issues. Senator Dodson, you brought up document 19, and I agree, to have an entire document that is redacted you'd think was a bit awkward, but I have it on good advice that this is the process. This process of redaction is by agreement. I will tell you, through the redactions, it was actually a draft letter from your colleague in the Northern Territory government. It was a confidential draft working document that belonged to Gerry McCarthy, the housing minister in the Northern Territory.

Throughout this debate, there may well have been positions put that have not been clearly understood. So let me be absolutely crystal clear: the Commonwealth remains committed to remote housing. But, as for the increase, we want the states and territories to take their place. We want them to take responsibility for their housing. It is entirely their responsibility, and I believe that they have abdicated that responsibility over the entire time of this agreement. I believe that if they are held to account in the way they can be we can get the same outcome that the leadership of the Northern Territory and the federal government have provided for.

What I'm saying about the Northern Territory outcome is that twice as much money will now be invested, twice as much as ever before. That's not a bad bloody outcome. And we have Indigenous people who are standing right there, making sure the administration and all of the other processes in place are actually observed in a transparent way. We have ownership by Aboriginal people and the land council. It is significant reform not only in the amount of money that goes in but in how it is provided. On all of those predictions, we can reach them in half the time if we can build twice as many houses, so this is an outcome that is achievable.

There's been a general theme of: 'I'm very nervous; it's all at the last minute.' But the fact of the matter is that in the Northern Territory, Queensland, Western Australia—the builds that are going on at the moment—the notion that everyone will finish on the 30 June 2018 is a complete nonsense. I'm very much aware of the program. And in Queensland assertions were made that everyone has to finish on the 30 June 2018 by no less than the Queensland local government authority, mostly from North Queensland. I had quite a large contingent come and see me to say they were concerned. I said, 'That's an odd concern to have. I'm not like that. Why would we do that?' They said, 'It was put to us by Minister De Brenni directly that I had written a letter to him saying that everyone has to put pens down on 30 June 2018.' I said, 'There's no such letter, I said no such thing.'

It's pretty disingenuous for people to suggest this program is suddenly ending. There's a large taper. In Queensland it will go on for a long time, 12 months or so in addition to the remaining period of time. And so I am absolutely confident that we'll come to a settlement on where we go in Queensland, Western Australia and in South Australia. The Northern Territory has already got a clear direction where we're going to go, so there's not going to be a hiatus of activity in this particular area.

People have been talking about leadership, particularly about me, and asking why don't I show some leadership? As I have just indicated, you could not ask for a better outcome. I went to the Northern Territory government. They run their budget on an annual basis, unlike the Commonwealth—we run our budget over three-year forward estimates. That is entirely a matter for them. It is just a different way in terms of scale. I am not criticising them for that. They've indicated they're going to put $110 million in a fund, not in their own budget, and I've said that we'll match whatever you put in that fund. They indicated there's one year's funding in the fund and they are going to get back to me about the second year, and I hope to have it on the second year. We'll be matching the funding they put in there. As I have indicated, you can't ask for much more than doubling the investment in some of the most needy parts of Australia. That opportunity is, in fact, available to Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia. As I indicated earlier, I can give some grace to the South Australian government, because they've just been in caretaker mode and they're unable to negotiate through letters—that's just a fact—but it is very important that we continue to make a joint effort.

What I want out of the state and territory governments and what I've asked them to provide—as you'd see by your letter, Senator Dodson—is effectively three things. I think people need to know how many dollars they have provided from their own budgets over the last decade. The Commonwealth are clear: we've invested $5.4 billion. That's been our investment in NPARIH. We've also made some investment through special purpose payments, national partnerships and Commonwealth rent assistance. Commonwealth rent assistance puts it up to about $49 billion or $50 billion in the last decade. Commonwealth rent assistance will take that apart. Whilst it's a huge number, I think we need to set that aside and just look at those funds that were available for investment by the states and territories that were funds given to them. I know that, because we have records of the funds that have been provided to the Queensland government, to the Western Australian government, to the South Australian government and to the Northern Territory government over that period of time.

I want to know how much of their own funds they've provided from their own budgets. I'm talking about 'in remote areas', and that's actually defined. I've asked them if they would provide the number of houses that have been built by them in those areas. I've also asked them: 'How many dollars are from the Commonwealth funds that we provided you for public housing for your most needy?' Between the special purpose payments and the national partnerships on homelessness, over the last decade there's been about $5.5 billion in those specific areas. That's an investment that could've been made to the most needy in those jurisdictions. The most needy live in those remote areas. That $5.5 billion is almost the same as the Commonwealth amount, isn't it, Senator Dodson? Imagine what you could do with that. I've asked them: 'How did you go with that, and how much have you invested?' Western Australia had $1.5 billion of discretionary funds that they could have invested over the last decade, Queensland had $2.6 billion, South Australia had a tad over $1 billion and the Northern Territory had $300,000. That's the discretionary funding that has been allocated over the last decade for investment in public housing. I wanted to know that. I think it's very important we all know that.

It's very important, as we go into the future, that people talk to me. Senator Dodson, you said, 'We need to be serious. We need to be respectful. This needs to be a joint effort. This needs to be a collaboration. This needs to be equally shared.' I agree entirely, which is why we're taking this approach. We've asked them that. I have to say, Queensland has written me back a highly political letter. You would have seen that. It doesn't tell me anything, and it certainly doesn't answer those questions. The most fundamental question, of course, is: how much are you going to put on the table in the future, given what you've just done? I haven't got an answer from Western Australia, but I'm really looking forward to meeting with their minister later this week.

The answers to those are the sorts of questions I think you should be putting to your Minister for Housing in Western Australia. We've had New South Wales take on its own responsibilities. That's it; they're out—they're taking on their own responsibilities. The funds that they get they're now allocating to the most in need, and their remote areas they're going to be able to service. Victoria have taken the same approach. They're going to be servicing those people most in need. Tasmania has said, 'I'm going to take over my responsibilities as a state, and a fundamental responsibility is the provision of public housing.' Yes, the Commonwealth help out in certain ways. We now need the same approach.

I know what the states have been provided. I want to know how much has come out of that. I want the answer to the question, but sadly—through you, Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, to Senator Dodson—it appears, certainly in Queensland, and I'm looking closely at Western Australia, they haven't provided the answer to the question of how much of that discretionary $2.6 billion did they actually invest? I suspect the answer is zero. It is just depressing to think about why that would be the case. Perhaps because of the colour of someone's skin you would decide that these discretionary funds are not available to an entire demographic because they happen to live in remote areas. I'm not sure of the answers to those questions, Senator Dodson, but I am, as you are, looking forward to them. As I've indicated, I will share the answers in the letters from the jurisdictions with you and other interested parties.

I hope I have dealt with most of the issues that were brought up. People have indicated there is some concern. There were some discussions about outstations and the $40 million, of course, that is going through the ABA, Senator McCarthy. I have been in discussions with all four land councils, as you'd be aware, and we want to ensure that that is rolled out using Indigenous labour and procurement.

I thank everybody for participating in this important debate. It is so important, as Senator Dodson indicates, that this should be a shared responsibility. I think the rolled-gold example is the example of the Northern Territory government. The Northern Territory government have stepped up to the plate. They have been fair dinkum. Yes, they can only do it year by year, but they've indicated that about $110 million a year will be forthcoming. We've indicated that we'll meet that. We've also indicated that it will be separate from the Northern Territory government's budget and that it will be overseen by including the land councils in that. That's a significant move forward. I would encourage the other states to genuinely and openly embrace this opportunity to be part of a future in which your First Australians in your jurisdictions are an absolutely central part of that.

In conclusion, I thank the Senate for the debate, and I look forward to further negotiations with the state and territory jurisdictions.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Sullivan ) (13:32): The committee is considering the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and the amendments moved by Senator Siewert on sheet 8288. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8288 be agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:32): When the adjournment was proposed last night, we were just in the middle of a question and answer process, and I had at that stage said this was my last question, but unfortunately the adjournment was proposed before it could be answered, and I was a bit premature, because depending on the answer I actually may wish to ask another question specifically on that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Sullivan ): Not having been in the chair, I wasn't aware of that, Senator Siewert.

Senator SIEWERT: No, of course.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: So debate can continue.

Senator SIEWERT: I was asking about the appeals process for the one-week penalty, the two-week penalty and the four-week penalty. You will recall that we had had significant discussion around when people could appeal, and I was asking what happens with those penalties in terms of income support.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (13:33): Thank you, Senator Siewert, for restating the question. Under the new compliance framework, while jobseekers are able to appeal any financial penalty, they will not receive payment pending the outcome of the appeal or payment pending review. However, jobseekers will be paid back pay if their appeal is successful. Under the current compliance framework, in practice, payment pending review is only available for eight-week serious failure penalties and unemployment non-payment periods, which will no longer exist under the new framework. Payment pending review is currently not available for the majority of penalty types.

Before a jobseeker faces any financial penalty under the new framework, they will have missed a minimum of five requirements in six months without reasonable excuse, or will have refused work and therefore be demonstrably capable of obtaining work. The jobseeker's capabilities will also generally have been assessed twice, by both their provider and Human Services, before any penalties are applied. These arrangements are intended to ensure that only those jobseekers who are fully capable of meeting their requirements, but deliberately choose not to, will lose payment. The intention is to provide such jobseekers with a strong incentive to change their behaviour or find work. Allowing payment pending review for such jobseekers would significantly undermine this incentive effect.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:35): The issue here, as I articulated yesterday, is that we still may have vulnerable jobseekers who get to this point if they haven't disclosed. In effect, what we've got is people being able to access the first appeals process, the departmental appeals process and then the AAT. For a start, we know the AAT takes quite a long period of time—certainly more than the four weeks. Well, it's seven weeks, but the maximum one-time suspension is four weeks, and it certainly takes longer than that.

I've got a couple of questions. What is the time it takes for the departmental review? Following that, if somebody has appealed and they do their four weeks—say it's the four-week one—what happens if they're still under appeal? Do they still go back? If they are still appealing—say it's an AAT or departmental one, but it's more likely AAT because they take longer—do they go back to the start of the process? What happens if they are still under appeal? Is that clear? So they've appealed and they've actually done their four weeks off income support—you've just said they would not be receiving income support. Do they then go back to the start, as everybody else does? What happens there?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (13:37): Senator Siewert, I'm advised they go back to where they were in the intensive compliance phase.

I've also managed to get you some additional information in terms of another question you were asking about last night, which was around what happens if a jobseeker is already in the penalty phase and they develop issues affecting their capacity to comply, or they reveal previously undisclosed issues. If a jobseeker had no issues when they underwent their compliance assessment, but their circumstances change while they're in the penalty phase, they will remain in the penalty phase but will have their requirements adjusted, if necessary, to ensure that they can meet them. They do not return to the demerits phase because they were capable of meeting the requirements when they incurred their demerits and underwent their capability assessment. However, if the jobseeker does fail to meet a requirement, Centrelink will not apply a penalty if the jobseeker's barriers provide a reasonable excuse for failure. Also, providers would continue to monitor jobseeker requirements and take personal circumstances into account following any further noncompliance. If a jobseeker reveals a previously undisclosed barrier whilst in the penalty phase, and it results in the retrospective application of an activity test exemption, any demerit incurred within the exemption period will be removed and they will return to the demerits phase. I hope that gives you a little bit more in terms of what we were discussing last night.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:39): How long does it take for the departmental appeal process if they're in the penalty phase or in the suspension phase?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (13:40): Given that there are a number of amendments, can I take that one on notice and provide you with information when we return after question time? I assume we will be coming back after question time.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:40): Sorry, I realise I asked that question last night. I think I should rephrase it to say 'the last group of questions', because the minister's answers have led to other queries. Can we just go back to the point that you made when I was asking what happens when someone has appealed? You said that if they've done their compliance of four weeks, their suspension for four weeks, they go back to the intensive phase, not to the—

Senator Cash: Correct, they go back to—

Senator SIEWERT: Their slate isn't wiped?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (13:41): Yes. I will reconfirm: they go back to the beginning of the intensive phase, yes. Not the jobactive provider side, the intensive phase.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:41): I may have misunderstood an answer that you gave last night. So anybody who finishes that goes back to that intensive phase?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (13:41): Two circumstances: yes, in relation to the question you have just asked; however, what we were also talking about last night was if you then have a three-month period in which there is no noncompliance then you reset; you start again.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:41): Will that process also apply to somebody who has appealed? For an AAT process, that's actually going to be a long time frame. That's not having a go at the AAT; I know they have a heavy case load.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (13:42): That is correct.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:42): So where it's subsequently found that their appeal, for example, is successful, then basically what will happen is that they will get back pay?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (13:42): That is correct.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:42): I want to ask questions in relation to schedule 17, with respect to information management. We've expressed our strong opposition to this schedule. We've expressed our concern that the schedule limits the privilege against self-incrimination, which we see as a basic and substantive common law right. We're concerned that your changes to this schedule provide—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Sullivan ): Senator, I'm loath to interrupt you, but is your contribution here relevant to this particular amendment?

Senator PRATT: No, but we have varied around each particular set of amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We should deal with each amendment. Have we completed the debate in relation to it?

Senator PRATT: Yes, I would be happy to vote on that now.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8288, moved by Senator Siewert, be agreed to.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:51): I want to ask some questions with respect to information management, schedule 17. We've very firmly put our opposition to this schedule. As we understand it, it seeks that the secretary of the department will be able to get from a person information that can be used as evidence to investigate and prosecute that person for criminal offences. We're concerned that it limits the privilege against self-incrimination, which, in our view, is a basic common law right.

You're putting forward to this place a schedule that means that a person subject to the coercive information-gathering power will not have the right to refuse to provide information or documents on the basis that it may be incriminating or will expose a person to a penalty. What you're doing, as we understand it, is to effectively allow the department to circumvent the need to obtain admissible material by search warrants pursuant to section 3E of the Crimes Act 1914. We're extremely concerned that, in practice, this means that a person can be asked to provide information to prove that they've not complied with their obligations as a welfare recipient, and any information provided can be used as evidence against them. You have to ask yourself where the onus of proof is here. I've certainly seen, in relation to robo-debt, a considerable reversal of that onus within DHS. I'm very concerned that the information can also be used as evidence that a person has not fully complied with the requirements to give information or documents, or has provided false or misleading information or has engaged in forgery.

Importantly, the Social Security Rights Network, whose advice I very much respect, has expressed their significant concerns about this schedule. They're very concerned that it limits the privilege against self-incrimination and can be used to gather information from welfare recipients that can be used against them in criminal proceedings. Minister, does the government believe that this schedule limits the privilege against self-incrimination, which is a basic and substantive common law right?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (13:54): In relation to the measure itself, what the measure actually does is streamline the process of referrals for welfare fraud prosecution by allowing information or documents obtained in the course of an administrative action by the Department of Human Services to be used in subsequent investigation and criminal prosecution.

You raised a number of issues in the statements that you just made. In relation to the amendments and their impact on the debtor's right to silence, I can advise that this amendment does not change any rights to silence, as the common law right to silence has been retained, other than in proceedings for the provision of false information. Third parties do not currently have a right to silence.

In relation to your questions around self-incrimination, the proposed changes retain the common law right to silence, preventing the use of information or documents against the person providing them. That is retained in the bill. Again, the exception to this is in relation to proceedings for the provision of false information. Therefore, the only way that the information provided by a person could be used against them is if that information were false. If the person provides correct information, it logically flows that that information would not be able to be used against them. This is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, which deals with the privilege against self-incrimination. The guide states that the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply where it is alleged that a person has given false or misleading information.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:56): Thank you. I want to ask now whether this schedule means that information can be gathered from welfare recipients that can be used against them in criminal proceedings?

Senator CASH: I'll just take you through how the bill actually deals with self-incrimination. For example, a new section 197A will be inserted into the Social Security (Administration) Act to clarify the effect of the privilege against self-incrimination on a person's obligation to respond to a statutory demand. Subsection 197A(1) provides that a person is not excused from giving information or producing a document or record that may incriminate them or expose them to a penalty. In short, that person cannot refuse to provide the information or document on the grounds that it may incriminate them. Well-established law dictates that a person cannot be compelled to convict themselves from their own words, and subsection 197A(2) section applies to this principle. Section 197A(2) provides for what is called use or derivative use immunity for an individual providing information or documents in response to a statutory demand to produce. The subsection sets out that any information given or any document or record produced by an individual may not be admitted in evidence against the individual in criminal proceedings, with only limited exceptions.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:58): What are those exceptions?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (13:58): The rationale for abrogating the privilege against self-incrimination is that the information requested is often essential to maintain the integrity of the social security system—for example, through fraud prevention and detection—and is rarely, if ever, used against the person providing it. Generally, only information that is relevant to another person's social security payment under the social security law is sought from persons. For example, information may be sought from an employer about cash-in-hand income received by a social security recipient or from a financial institution about a social security recipient's financial assets, incomes and outgoings. Section 197A(2) ensures that only limited criminal consequences flow from the person's inability to refuse to provide information. The use and derivative use immunity in subsection 197A(2) is subject to certain exceptions. Essentially information or documents given by an individual are admissible in criminal proceedings against that individual that relate to the falsity of the information.

Progress reported.

The PRESIDENT: It being 2 pm, we move to questions without notice.

The PRESIDENT (15:37): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (15:45): I, and also on behalf of senators Pratt, Hanson and Hinch, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

   (i) the failure of the Government to adequately fund the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia,

   (ii) that the Government's neglect of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia means that families facing the most serious family law issues can wait up to three years before a final trial,

   (iii) that the continued failure by the Government to adequately resource the family law system has served to create a snowballing effect, the social and economic cost of which will continue to be felt by the community for years to come,

   (iv) that the Government has failed to consult with the courts and the legal profession to formulate a clear plan for the future,

   (v) that, in March 2014, a report by KPMG, commissioned by the Attorney-General's Department, into the funding of federal courts was presented to the Government but has still not been released,

   (vi) that the KPMG report, obtained by The Australian in 2014, warned of significant cuts to service and staffing levels potentially leading to increased delays in litigation, the closure of smaller registries and cutbacks to services in regional Australia,

   (vii) that the warnings in the KPMG report appear to have gone unheeded by the Government,

   (viii) that, in 2014-15, as part of the response to the KPMG report, the Attorney-General's Department undertook additional work with Ernst & Young to develop costings scenarios involving federal courts, and

   (ix) that KPMG's comprehensive report confirming the financial crisis facing federal courts and proposing a range of possible solutions, along with the Ernst & Young costings in response to the KPMG report, should be released prior to the Senate voting on the Family Law Amendment (Parenting Management Hearings) Bill 2017; and

(b) orders that there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Attorney­-General, by 9am on 22 March 2018:

   (i) the KPMG report into the funding of federal courts, and

   (ii) the Ernst & Young costings in response to the KPMG report.

Notice of motion altered on 19 March 2018 pursuant to standing order 77.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:45): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government is absolutely committed to ensuring the Federal Courts operate as efficiently as possible and facilitate greater access to justice for Australian families. Thanks to steps taken by this government in the 2015-16 and 2017-18 budgets, the courts have a clear path to financial sustainability. Measures include: a $22.5 million funding injection; $13 million efficiency dividend relief; streamlining courts administration, with all savings reinvested in the courts; $10.7 million for additional family consultants; $12.7 million to establish parent management hearings; and $40 million to transform and digitise court processes. Each of these measures will enhance the courts' capacity to provide services, particularly in family law.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 733 be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (15:52): I advise senators there are likely to be a couple or more divisions. I will only be ringing the bells for one minute. We will move to motion No. 737 standing in the name of Senator Macdonald.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (17:12): Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on the examination of annual reports tabled by 31 October 2017.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (17:12): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present three reports of the committee as listed at item 15 on today's Order of Business and move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

Two of the reports presented today cover the committee's statutory reviews of four key pieces of counterterrorism legislation. The first report I presented relates to the declared-area provisions of the Criminal Code, which were first enacted by the foreign fighters bill in November 2014. The provisions make it an offence for a person to enter or remain in certain areas in foreign countries that have been declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and where a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in hostilities. Two areas have been declared under the laws to date: the al-Raqqa province in Syria, for which a declaration was revoked in November, and the Mosul district in Iraq, which has been recently renewed. The committee concluded that the provisions remain necessary at this time and has recommended that they be continued for a further period of three years with an additional committee review prior to the new sunset date. The committee has also recommended amendments to the laws to clarify the existing exception relating to humanitarian aid; to increase transparency in relation to the range of non-legislative factors that are considered by the minister in determining which areas are to be declared; to provide the minister with an ability to revoke a declaration at any time; to take into account advice from security agencies; and to empower the committee to review and report back to the parliament on a declaration at its discretion at any time.

Turning now to the second report, Review of police stop, search and seizure powers, the control order regime and the preventative detention order regime, the committee has similarly concluded that each power remains necessary and has recommended their continuation for a further three years, again with an additional committee review prior to the new sunset date. In relation to the stop, search and seizure powers available to police under the Crimes Act, the committee has recommended increased reporting requirements and an ongoing oversight role for the committee. In relation to the control order regime, the committee has recommended amendments to provide greater clarity in relation to confirmation proceedings, to enable interim control orders to be amended on application, and to provide for extended supervision orders to be issued as an alternative to continuing detention orders.

The committee has also recommended that the government extend to seven days the minimum time period between an interim and a confirmation hearing for a control order, subject to legal advice regarding any constitutional concerns arising from this extension. Finally, in relation to the preventative detention order regime, the committee has recommended that the Australian Federal Police be required to notify the committee as soon as practicable after an order is made, and to brief the committee if requested.

For each of its reviews, the committee was greatly assisted by the work of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Dr James Renwick SC, who produced his own reports on each of the laws in time to be taken into account by the committee. The committee has supported the INSLM's recommendations in a number of instances. The committee thanks the INSLM and all of the other participants in the review for their contributions.

Turning to the committee's third report, the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is one component in the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio that commenced on 20 December 2017. The bill as currently before parliament will amend four existing acts to deal with several specific matters that could not be dealt with administratively. These acts are the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 and, finally, the Intelligence Services Act 2001.

The amendments proposed in the bill are intended to give effect to the allocation of ministerial powers, including a heightened and strengthened role for the Attorney-General, as announced by the Prime Minister in July 2017. The committee has concluded that the bill be passed, subject to implementation of the committee's recommendations that the bill be amended so that only the Prime Minister has the power to direct the Inspector-General to undertake an inquiry under section 9 of the IGIS Act and that references in the INSLM Act and the IGIS Act to 'the minister' be replaced with 'Attorney-General' to more clearly reflect the government's intent. Finally, the committee recommended that amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to facilitate the Attorney-General's ongoing role be introduced to the parliament prior to the conclusion of debate on this bill.

In conclusion, I note that the committee is currently undertaking a further inquiry into proposed government amendments to this bill. I commend the reports to the Senate.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:17): I wish to briefly make some remarks about this same report. I thank Senator Bushby for his reflection of the committee's views in that report, and I don't intend to reprosecute the case that he has made for some of those amendments and changes.

I do wish to briefly highlight the significance of the sunset provisions, as recommended in relation to the two bills that deal expressly with powers to address terrorism. The threat of terrorism to Australian citizens remains, which is most serious, and it's appropriate that we have continuing laws that allow us to address this. However, when these laws were enacted, they were done so on the understanding that it was an extraordinary level of risk and that extraordinary measures ought to be put in place. It was acknowledged that they do in fact burden some of the ordinary protections that would ordinarily be in place in our criminal law, and to that end sunset provisions were included so that these bills would be under constant review. In making these recommendations, the committee has recommended that a sunset provision remain in place. This will allow the PJCIS to reconsider the need for this legislation, and whether it remains in an appropriate form within a specified period of time. These are important qualifications in relation to these laws, which are acknowledged to be extraordinary and exist only because of the seriousness of the threat that we are currently facing. Thank you.

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (17:19): I would note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is one of those that does not have a crossbench member on it, which, as I said many years ago about some of its predecessors, is always a shame but, nonetheless, that's the way it is. I would like some time to study these reports and I would like to have them remain on the Notice Paper, so I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:20): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 470, Defence Sustainment Expenditure, as well as the executive minutes and responses on various reports.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator SMITH: I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

In 2015 when reviewing the Defence major projects report, the JCPAA noted the size of sustainment expenditure at $5 billion per annum, and recommended that following the implementation of the Department of Defence's First principles review, that the department improve how it reports on sustainment.

In November 2016, the JCPAA readopted a lapsed inquiry into Defence sustainment expenditure, and on 21 June 2017 resolved to also inquire into Auditor-General's Report No. 2 (2017-18) Defence's management of materiel sustainment.

The sustainment budget is expected to grow year on year across the forward estimates, to over $11 billion in 2020-21. The percentage of sustainment budget to acquisition budget will average 77 per cent across the forward estimates.

Sustainment is defined by the Department of Defence as the provision of the appropriate goods and services required to achieve readiness and sustainability goals for the life of the Defence element. Defence sustainment involves the provision of in-service support, including repair and maintenance, engineering, supply and replacement parts, configuration management and disposal action.

Sustainment can apply to platforms, such as ships, aircraft, vehicle fleets, and commodities, such as clothing, combat rations, munitions, and also services, such as calibration, provision of maritime target ranges.

The Australian National Audit Office concluded that the fundamentals of the Department of Defence's governance and organisational framework for the management of materiel sustainment are fit-for-purpose. However, the Australian National Audit Office found that there remained scope for the department to improve its performance monitoring, and reporting and evaluation activities to better support management and external scrutiny of materiel sustainment.

The committee heard the reintegration of the former Defence Materiel Organisation back into the Department of Defence following the First principles review had had positive cultural effects, but that the department needed to improve its financial and descriptive performance information to provide a 'clear read' across reporting documents. Further, the department should better articulate these positive effects.

The committee considered whether there would be benefit in the Department of Defence developing a document like the Defence major projects report to report on sustainment, but has concluded that continued refinement of external reporting, and periodic ANAO reviews of the Department of Defence's reporting are the most effective way of improving sustainment reporting at this particular time.

The committee found that while it was difficult for the Australian National Audit Office and the Department of Defence to agree on definitions of the acquisition and sustainment stages of a project, that the department's move to a whole-of-life costing model may provide a better understanding of total asset cost.

The committee commended the Department of Defence on its acceptance of the findings of the First principles review and noted that it has declared a moratorium on further reviews to allow for the comprehensive implementation of the recommendations of the First principles review document.

In particular, the changes to Systems Program Offices have led to welcome reform and the delivery of efficiencies, as well as improving the way the department utilises its staff.

The committee also noted issues around the engagement of Bechtel to provide services to support the implementation of the First principles review. The Department of Defence is undertaking a competitive process to find a suitable candidate to run the Major Projects Office and the committee has called for a report on the outcome of the selection process.

The committee has made six recommendations. Several are aimed at improving Defence sustainment reporting, while others seek further information on progress on the continued development of First principles review reforms, an update on the Systems Program Offices review and the whole-of-life costing model, and a detailed progress report on behavioural changes arising out of improvements to internal performance reporting. Finally, the committee has recommended that the Australian National Audit Office review the Department of Defence's new internal monthly reporting system to ensure improvements have been made on information provided to the minister and to the departmental secretary.

In concluding, I would like to thank officials of the Department of Defence and the Australian National Audit Office for their contributions to the committee's inquiry. I would also like to extend my thanks to all members of the committee for their deliberations during this inquiry.

I commend the report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:24): On behalf of Senator Fawcett, I present two reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties as listed at item 15 on today's Order of Business. I seek leave to have the tabling speech of Senator Fawcett incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Reports 176 and 177.

Report 176 contains the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' review of three treaty actions: an Agreement to continue support for the Singapore Air Force Flying Training Institute to continue to use the RAAF Base at Pearce in Western Australia; an Agreement with the Solomon Islands to support the deployment of Australian personnel to the Islands in the event of need; and an Agreement with the United States regarding continued support for America's space program.

Mr President, the Agreement with Singapore replaces an existing Memorandum of Understanding and will provide a legal framework to support the continuing operation of Singapore's Flying Training Institute in Australia. The Institute has been a central element of Australia's defence relationship with Singapore for almost a quarter of a century. This Agreement will allow Singapore to continue flight training at the RAAF Base Pearce into the future.

Mr President, we note that the significant Royal Singapore Air Force presence at RAAF Base Pearce provides economic benefits to businesses in the area and that the community are supportive of the arrangements. We have a significant history of bilateral relations with Singapore and concluded the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with them in 2015. This Agreement further demonstrates our commitment to that Partnership and the ongoing wider bilateral relationship.

The Agreement between Australia and the Solomon Islands enables the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Defence Force to deploy rapidly and effectively in the event of an emergency. Of course, this would only happen at the request of the Solomon Islands government.

For fourteen years from 2003, Australia led the RAMSI mission to help to stabilise the country after a period of unrest. RAMSI concluded on 30 June 2017. Mr President, while RAMSI was successful, the Solomon Islands still faces many development challenges. This Agreement will allow Australia to provide ongoing support, helping to build long-term stability and enduring growth.

We note the importance of stability in this region to Australia's security. We heard about the concerns of Solomon Islanders regarding the conclusion of the RAMSI mission and the withdrawal of its personnel. We were assured that the negotiation of this new Agreement has gone someway to allay those fears and, we were told, it has wide support of Solomon Islanders.

The Agreement between Australia and the United States for Space Vehicle Tracking and Communications Facilities consolidates an existing arrangement that has been in effect since 1960. Mr President, Australia's vital support for America's space program is well recognised. Facilities, including the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex at Tidbinbilla, have provided support for missions including the Curiosity Rover's exploration of the surface of Mars, the Cassini mission to Saturn and the Hubble space telescope. This Agreement will allow the ongoing collaboration to continue for another 25 years.

The Committee recommends that binding treaty action be taken for all three agreements.

Finally, Mr President, the Report also contains the Committee's review of five minor treaty actions.

The second report being tabled today, Report 177, contains the Committee's review of the proposed Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties with Jordan.

Mr President, the Committee has a history of supporting extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties, and has recommended that the two Treaties being considered here be ratified.

The Committee has made two further recommendations and a suggestion to address matters raised during the inquiry.

First, the Committee recommends that Australia and Jordan negotiate a less than treaty level agreement setting out how the Extradition Treaty will apply if Australia seeks the return of Australian foreign fighters transiting through Jordan from Iraq and Syria.

The Committee believes the less than treaty level agreement will prevent complications arising from the extraterritorial nature of foreign fighter offences.

Secondly, the Committee recommends an expansion of monitoring arrangements for Australian residents who have been extradited.

Mr President, the Committee feels that monitoring extradited Australian residents contributes to public trust in the extradition process by minimising the possibility that extradited Australian resident will be subject to torture, or cruel and inhuman treatment.

Finally, the Committee suggests that, in relation to extradition decisions for persons who may be tried by Jordan's State Security Court, the Attorney-General's Department advise the relevant Minister that this Court may not be independent.

Mr President, the Committee believes this is necessary in light of both international and local concerns about the independence of this Court.

Mr President, on behalf of the Committee, I commend the Reports to the Senate.

Senator WILLIAMS: I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (17:25): I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:25): I present three government responses to committee reports as listed at item 15 on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report:

Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Special Arrangements for the Supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) Medicines to Remote Area Aboriginal Health Services March 2018

RECOMMENDATION 1

The committee considers that to the extent that compliance with privacy laws and obligations can be maintained, Medicare Australia and DOHA should facilitate the release of information to parties requesting it to ensure that opportunities to understand the impact of the program are not wasted.

Response

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Australian Government collects data in relation to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and this is published on the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services websites.

The Department of Health also publishes Remote Area Aboriginal Health Services (RAAHS) Program annual expenditure data on its website, broken down by State/Territory: (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-indigenous-info).

In addition, and consistent with long-standing procedures, other statistical material may be released to applicants where an appropriate request is received by the Department of Health.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government undertake an evaluation to ascertain whether the increased supply of PBS medicines provided by the program is having a clinical impact on the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote communities.

Response

The Australian Government supports the intent of this recommendation.

The PBS is the mechanism through which the Australian Government provides timely access to affordable, subsidised medicines for all Australian residents. The RAAHS Program specifically supports the delivery of PBS-listed medicines to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians residing in remote communities under section 100 (s100) of the National Health Act 1953.

The linking of medicine dispensing data with clinical outcomes is not undertaken. Each medicine listed on the PBS undergoes significant evaluation to determine its clinical efficacy for use by Australians as part of the rigorous Therapeutic Goods Administration approval process as set out in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Medicines also go through a rigorous cost-effectiveness analysis as part of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee listing process set out in the National Health Act 1953.

The RAAHS Program was not designed to collect clinical data or monitor health outcomes. Clients of RAAHS are able to obtain PBS medicines for free, without requiring a Medicare card or a PBS prescription.

The Australian Government acknowledges that, while an assessment of the clinical impact of the program may be beneficial, an evaluation of any links between PBS medicine supply and clinical outcomes would be a major undertaking, requiring considerable research expertise and ethics clearance. Such research is likely to impose a significant reporting burden on relevant practitioners in participating Aboriginal Health Services (AHSs), whose primary role is the provision of healthcare to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

A regular biennial review of health outcomes and the determinants of health is reported through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework. Data analysis of 68 different measures by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is used to report on progress made under the framework.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government provide specific funding for remote area AHSs to be able to provide dose administration aids (DAAs) to their patients.

Response

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

At present, the Australian Government funds the provision of Dose Administration Aids (DAAs) through programs and initiatives under the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement (6CPA). The Government has supported the provision of DAA services to the general population through incentive payments under successive CPAs.

As part of the historic compact reached between the Government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, announced in the 2017-18 Budget, from 1 July 2017, community pharmacies participating in the DAA program will receive a fee of $6 per patient per week as a contribution towards the cost of providing DAAs to eligible patients, in place of an incentive payment.

As part of the 6CPA, the Australian Government also supports DAA services to clients of rural and urban AHSs through the Quality Use of Medicines Maximised for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (QUMAX) Program.

The Australian Government also continues to fund the s100 Support Allowance Program, allowing pharmacists to visit remote area AHSs and to provide quality use of medicines and medication management services to suit individual AHS needs.

The Indigenous Australians Health Program Integrated Team Care (ITC) Activity aims to contribute to improving health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with chronic health conditions through better access to coordinated and multidisciplinary care. ITC Supplementary Services funding can be used to expedite a patient's access to an urgent and essential health service, such as a DAA, where the service is not otherwise available in a clinically acceptable timeframe.

The RAAHS program provides for the supply of PBS medicines to RAAHS through a bulk supply arrangement. In addition to these bulk supply arrangements, some states and territories require pharmacies to provide PBS medicines labelled for individual RAAHS clients with chronic conditions. Many of these are supplied through a DAA. In November 2016, the Australian Government agreed to provide an additional payment to eligible pharmacists from 1 January 2017, in recognition of the additional effort required by pharmacists to provide medicines for individual RAAHS clients. This payment will be continued through the 2017‑18 Budget measure Improving Access to Medicines — maintaining Remote Area Aboriginal Health Services pharmaceutical dispensing.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The committee agrees with submitters and recommends that program flexibility be implemented to give remote area AHSs increased and direct access to the services of a pharmacist. This could be done by AHSs engaging a pharmacist directly or in collaboration with other stakeholders or service providers. Options for funding and operating these services could include cashing-out existing program funding, access to alternative funding measures, expansion of the Practice Nurse Incentive Program to include pharmacists, remunerating remote pharmacists for services though the Medicare Benefits Schedule, and removal of legislative barriers that prevent the operation of pharmacy businesses in remote areas.

Response

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Australian Government provides a range of funding to AHSs for various activities, including the employment of pharmacists, where this is deemed appropriate by the individual AHS. More than 130 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) in urban and rural areas have access to funding flexibility under the Indigenous Australians Health Program, which was established in July 2014. Activities that support primary healthcare service delivery are eligible for this funding, including development, employment and enhancement of workforce capacity.

The 6CPA s100 Support Allowance Program provides funding for pharmacists to provide a range of quality use of medicines and medication management services to remote area AHSs.

An individual AHS may employ health professionals, such as pharmacists, subject to its operational needs. However, the remoteness of some AHSs, the low population and lack of community amenities continue to present a challenge in attracting and retaining pharmacists in some areas. These issues are consistent with the wider issues of attracting and retaining other health professionals in regional and remote locations.

Commonwealth legislation does not limit the operation of pharmacies in remote areas. State and Territory legislation determines where a pharmacist can dispense medicines. For example, in the Northern Territory, a pharmacist is only authorised to dispense PBS medicines from an approved community pharmacy, not from an AHS.

Through the 6CPA, the Australian Government has committed $50 million to support a Pharmacy Trial Program, to fund a number of trials to improve patient outcomes and expand the role of pharmacy in delivering a wider range of primary healthcare services. A particular focus of the trials is on programs which would benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and consumers in rural and remote areas. One of the first trials is a feasibility study that aims to improve medication management for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through pharmacist advice and culturally appropriate services. The feasibility study, to be jointly led by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO), commenced in late 2017.

In July 2017, the Minister for Health, the Hon Greg Hunt MP, announced plans for a trial that will see a pharmacist working directly as part of a primary care team within ACCHSs. This trial aims to improve patients' understanding of and use of their medicines and will leverage existing relationships with community pharmacies to improve patients' access to programs under the 6CPA. This trial will be jointly led by the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and NACCHO and is expected to commence in early 2018.

RECOMMENDATION 5

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government establish a consultative body of relevant stakeholders to develop proposals and options to increase direct access to pharmacists for remote area AHSs, consult program participants and others, and provide support to AHSs to allow them to make informed choices about options.

Response

The Australian Government supports the intent of this recommendation.

The Australian Government provides funding for remote area AHSs to obtain direct access to pharmacists through the Section 100 Pharmacy Support Allowance Program under the 6CPA. This program provides funding to pharmacies to provide services to support a remote area AHS in its implementation of, and ongoing participation in, the RAAHS Program. These services include provision of education services to AHS staff in relation to the Quality Use of Medicines.

The Australian Government undertakes a range of stakeholder consultation activities for programs supporting AHSs and the delivery of healthcare for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Australian Government is committed to ensuring that the views of stakeholders are heard and meetings with a range of stakeholders are held regularly to enable their views to be heard by Government. This includes ongoing discussions with NACCHO, a peak stakeholder organisation representing community controlled AHSs across Australia.

Under the 6CPA, wide-ranging consultation with stakeholders is designed to assess how well current arrangements work and how they can be improved. This includes consultation to improve clinical outcomes for consumers and extend the role of pharmacists in the primary healthcare setting. The Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation (the Review) was an independent assessment of pharmacy services provided under, and outside of, the community pharmacy agreement model. As part of the Review, stakeholder views were sought on programs responsible for delivering PBS medicines to remote communities and the arrangements for distribution and guarantee of supply to community pharmacies across Australia. This occurred through 'town hall' type meetings, targeted consultation meetings, written submissions, on line surveys and a national interactive webcast consultation.

Remuneration for supplying government-subsidised medicines and rules governing the location of pharmacies were also examined under the Review. In addition, how existing arrangements contribute to patient health outcomes and improved quality use of medicines, including for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, was examined. Aboriginal Health Services and other peak groups were provided with opportunities to contribute to the Review. The Final Report on the Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation Review is currently being considered by Government.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The committee is surprised to note that there is no universal system in place to provide for accurate and legible labelling and recording of medicines. The committee therefore recommends that the Commonwealth Government urgently support the development and introduction of efficient standardised systems for accurate labelling of medicines in remote area AHSs, and that these systems are developed to ensure accurate collection of medicine data and use.

Response

While the Australian Government supports the intent of this recommendation, labelling of dispensed medicines is a state and territory responsibility.

The Australian Government provides funding to the States and Territories, and to ACCHSs under the Indigenous Australians Health Program, to support the provision of clinical and cost-effective health services. This may include the purchase and development of relevant systems. The Australian Government does not generally direct how this funding is used.

Aboriginal Health Services in remote Australia participating in the RAAHS Program can access the s100 Support Allowance Program, which provides AHSs with the opportunity to negotiate arrangements with 'support pharmacists' to provide a range of quality use of medicines and medication management services to suit the individual AHS' needs.

Each State and Territory has its own legislation concerning the labelling and recording of medicines dispensed by community pharmacies and hospital authorities throughout Australia. Commonwealth law requires collection of certain information about medicines that are funded under the PBS. Pharmacies and AHSs participating in the RAAHS Program must adhere to the relevant State and Territory laws which vary between jurisdictions, which limit the implementation of a universal system for labelling and recording medicines for the RAAHS Program.

RECOMMENDATION 7

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government publish information on the status of recommendations from previous reports, making it clear which recommendations will be implemented, timeframes and responsibility for implementation.

Response

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

The Department of Health submission to the inquiry, available at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/pbsmedicines/submissions, provided a significant amount of detail on the way in which the Government has responded to the recommendations of previous reports.

The independent Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation considered programs designed to improve access to, and affordability of, medicines, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The interim Review Report was released in July 2017 and included a proposal that access to medicines programs for Indigenous Australians under the RAAHS Program and the Closing the Gap PBS Co-Payment Measure be reformed so that the benefits to the individual follow that individual, regardless of where the prescription is written or dispensed. The Final Report on the Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation Review is currently being considered by Government.

RECOMMENDATION 8

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government ensure that participants in the section 100 program have sufficient opportunities to participate in the implementation process.

Response

The Australian Government supports this recommendation and will build on the existing range of mechanisms to ensure this recommendation is realised.

The independent Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation considered programs designed to improve access to, and affordability of, medicines, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The interim Review Report was released in July 2017 and included a proposal that access to medicines programs for Indigenous Australians under the RAAHS Program and the Closing the Gap PBS Co-Payment Measure be reformed so that the benefits to the individual follow that individual, regardless of where the prescription is written or dispensed. The Final Report on the Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation Review is currently being considered by Government.

RECOMMENDATION 9

The committee would like to see greater integration of existing programs to provide complementary services to patients of AHSs. The evidence the committee received during the course of this inquiry supports this. Therefore the committee recommends that DOHA develop a process for integrating existing programs, and that a clear policy and program logic is published to show how these programs will work together.

Response

The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle and is committed to the development and implementation of programs and services that are well integrated.

The PBS medicine supply programs and related measures have the same intended aim, to overcome barriers that inhibit access to PBS medicines by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, wherever they reside. In order to ensure programs meet the varying needs of the community, such as geographic isolation, socio-economic factors, and/or the availability of health infrastructure, flexibility needs to be built in to allow for different ways to access medicines.

RECOMMENDATION 10

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government clarify the application of the section 100 supply program to remote aged care facilities, and advise operators of these facilities accordingly.

Response

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

Commonwealth funded residential aged care facilities (RACFs) are not included within the definition of an AHS under the RAAHS Program. That is, they cannot receive bulk supply of medicines and store them for resident use. Accordingly, they are not eligible to participate in the RAAHS Program. PBS medicines in RACFs are provided under normal PBS arrangements. The operators of aged care facilities that have contacted the Australian Government for advice on this matter have been advised accordingly. The Department of Health will ensure that this and other related information continues to be made available to RACFs.

Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report:

Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017 [Provisions]

Introduction

On 16 August 2017, the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017 (the Bill) was introduced into the Parliament.

On 17 August 2017, the Senate referred the Bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 October 2017.

On 17 October 2017, the Committee released its report. The report makes two recommendations, which are addressed below.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1

2.35 The Committee recommends that the wording of paragraph 338(2)(d) is reconsidered to ensure that the paragraph is clearly understood while also achieving its policy objective.

Response - Noted

Paragraph 338(2)(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) sets out the circumstances in which onshore applicants for prescribed visas can apply for merits review of a decision to refuse to grant a visa. Some of the visas prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 338(2)(d) require the visa applicant to be sponsored and nominated by an approved sponsor; others only require sponsorship.

The intention of proposed new paragraph 338(2)(d) is to clarify the circumstances in which applicants who require both sponsorship and nomination can apply for merits review. This addresses the decision in Kandel v the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCCA 2013, which interpreted current paragraph 338(2)(d) of the Migration Act in a way that is inconsistent with the policy intention.

Proposed new paragraph 338(2)(d), as currently drafted, achieves this intention, whilst also ensuring that visa applicants who do not require a nomination are not negatively impacted by this amendment.

Recommendation 2

2.36 The Committee recommends that the bill be passed.

Australian Government response to The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Report 2-2017

Inquiry into the Proposed Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre Hardening Project at Mitchell Avenue, Northam, Western Australia

Government Response to Recommendations:

The Australian Government accepts recommendation 2 items 3.43 and 3.44 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works final report for the inquiry into the Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre Hardening Project, Mitchell Avenue, Northam, WA.

Recommendation 2:

3.43 The Committee recommends that the Department of i mmigration and Border Protection seek to establish community consultation groups for all of the immigration detention centres in Australia, and to use these groups as:

A means of providing the local community with information on all construction works undertaken at immigration detention centres; and

A means for local residents and groups to ask questions, provide feedback on, and raise concerns about proposed construction projects.

3.44 The Department of Immigration and Border Protection will provide the Committee with three-monthly updates on the progress and outcomes of community consultation for the hardening works at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre until the completion of the project.

Response:

The Department is committed to strengthening stakeholder and community engagement in all communities in the vicinity of an immigration detention facility. Community Consultation Groups exist for all facilities in the immigration detention network, and the Department engages with these groups on significant infrastructure works.

The Department has engaged with the Northam community since the Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre (YHIDC) Hardening Project was endorsed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works (PWC) in March 2017. This dedicated Community Consultation Group has been established with local business representatives, local Indigenous Elders, the Shire of Northam, the Northam Chamber of Commerce and the WA Legislative Assembly Member for Central Wheatbelt. These meetings provide an opportunity for community members to raise any issues or concerns. The meetings are held quarterly and focus on welfare, services, infrastructure issues, recruitment processes and opportunities for local businesses.

The Department is currently providing the PWC with three-monthly updates on the progress and outcomes of community consultation for the hardening works at YHIDC, and will continue to do so until completion of the project.

The Department signed the construction contract for the hardening project on

18 December 2017, with practical completion expected in mid-2018. Construction will commence in January 2018.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ) (17:27): The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:27): by leave—I move:

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

Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples—Joint Select Committee—

Appointed—Senator Siewert

National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—

On 26 March 2018—

Discharged—Senator Steele-John

Appointed—Senator Siewert

On 27 March 2018—

Discharged—Senator Siewert

Appointed—Senator Steele-John

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Marshall ) (17:28): The committee is considering the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, and the question before the chair is that the bill as amended, subject to requests, be agreed to.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:28): I need to ask the minister whether there are any calculations with respect to amendments tabled by One Nation before the Senate. One Nation has told us that they increase the amount of payments that are available under the bereavement allowance to either the equivalent of what is currently paid in a bereaved situation or more. Is that correct?

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:29): I will have to take that particular information on notice. I don't have advice on that to hand, but I'm sure I will have it to hand shortly.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:29): We are seeking advice as to the extent to which those amendments reinstate and improve eligibility for those allowances, and the extent to which they reinstate payments. As we understand it, the payments have been reduced to the equivalent of the jobseeker allowance, and we want to know what the One Nation amendments increase them to.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:30): Thank you very much for that clarification. As I indicated, I should soon have the answers to what the impact of the One Nation amendment would be on those particular payments, so I'll take that on notice.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:30): You're aware that a bereavement allowance is a payment for people whose partner has died and is paid for a maximum of 14 weeks currently at the rate of the age pension. Is that the rate that these amendments will pay the allowance at? I might also direct this question to Senator Hanson.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:31): I heard half the question. Would you like to repeat that, please?

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:31): You have some amendments before the Senate that amend the bereavement allowance, schedule 4, which you had your colleagues vote to oppose yesterday. That vote was then reinstated when you said you would support the government. Now you've put forward amendments in this place that completely contradict your support for the government on schedule 4, because they're much closer to changing the payments. What are those payments changed to in your amendment?

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:32): Thank you very much for your question. We opposed the amendment the Labor Party put up because it wasn't as good as the amendment we have put up. In 567FB the amount of payment is seven times better for the person. Previously it was only the Newstart payment; then there was a one-off payment two weeks later. My proposed amendment is far better for the people. No-one is going to be worse off under this. Some people are going to be better off with it. The government's costing for the bereavement was $1,040,000. It will cost a little bit more to instate this, but it is important that people in bereavement be looked after. That's why we put up this amendment. I understand you are going to support this amendment, and I'm pleased to hear that.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:33): You've asserted some people would be better off under this amendment. What do you mean by that statement?

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:33): After talking to the government with regard to this, the minister assured me no-one will be worse off and some people will be better off under the proposal I put forward, which is what I wanted to ensure. The payments they will receive will be better under this amendment.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:34): Who exactly will be better off under this amendment?

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:34): The government have the costings for this. I suggest you direct your questions to them.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:34): Senator Cash, Senator Hanson has asserted that some people will be better off under the Hanson amendment. Can you please explain to us who these people are.