The CHAIR (09:31): The committee is considering the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017. The question is that the bill stand as printed.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:32): Senator Fifield, to get back to where we were last night before we moved to the adjournment, the Greens amendment was before us, and Senator Hanson-Young was asking you a number of questions about the ABC. It's clear that, in the last 48 hours, the impact of the further cuts to the ABC has become quite a significant part of the public conversation. Certainly, Friends of the ABC are very concerned about this continuing attack on Aunty, our great institution the ABC. I would like to ask you a few questions around the nature of the efficiency studies et cetera that you have indicated will be part of your further action with regard to the ABC. Firstly, Senator Fifield, do you think that the government's 2014 ABC and SBS efficiency study was effective in getting the ABC to become more efficient?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:33): Yes.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:33): If you believe that it was effective, Minister, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why you need a further efficiency study and review now.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:33): That was 2014. This is 2018. All Commonwealth entities should continually strive to make sure that they are the best stewards of taxpayer dollars, and I think it's a matter of good practice to have periodic reviews of efficiency in organisations. I think this will be to the benefit of the public broadcasters.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:34): Are you aware of the impact of the efficiency measures that were undertaken then, and what part of the ABC's budget is actually purely for operational reasons—what percentage?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:34): I did happily respond to questions from Senator Hanson-Young last night in relation to the ABC, although it's not directly related to the bill, and I am doing so with Senator O'Neil—again, although the ABC is not related to this bill. But if Senator O'Neil or other senators are wanting to go into detail about the ABC's operational arrangements, then those are matters that I would suggest are best saved for the ABC when they appear before estimates. As colleagues know, the ABC has operational independence and is best placed to talk about its operations and the components of that.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:35): Thank you for reminding us of the upcoming opportunity of estimates. And I have to say, the acquired taste is very much one that I enjoy now, and I'm looking forward to the opportunity to get more information from the ABC about what they think the impact of your $83.7 million efficiency cut in the recent budget will be. My understanding is that the ABC's overheads are only eight per cent of its overall operational budget. How much further would the government like to push that efficiency beyond eight per cent?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:36): As the government has indicated, there is an indexation pause for the ABC in the next triennium. The current triennium has a year to go. We have announced that there will be an efficiency review, and we will have more to say in the near future about that efficiency review. But obviously I can't pre-empt what the efficiency review will find before they have undertaken their work, and I'm sure that those who conduct that review will work cooperatively with the ABC and that the ABC will work cooperatively with them.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:36): Just to be clear, you said that you'll have more to say about the efficiency review. Did you mean after it's undertaken? Or will there be more about the efficiency review before it commences?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:37): What I was referring to was that we will have more to say about the efficiency review—who will conduct it and what the terms of reference will be—in the near future.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:37): Senator Fifield, do you concede that the ABC will not be able to find $83.7 million in efficiencies without staffing or content cuts?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:37): I'll just put the ABC indexation pause into context. It represents the equivalent of about 2.6 per cent of the ABC's budget. That's 2.6c for each dollar that the ABC receives. It's important to bear in mind that, over the next triennium, the ABC will receive $3.16 billion, and what we are talking about here is $85 million. I have confidence that the ABC, following the work of the efficiency review and their own efforts, will be in a position to be even better stewards of taxpayer dollars.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (09:38): I have a question for the minister on the same type of subject. We're dealing with the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017. Is there any prospect of ABC rural and regional—which is mainly radio but some TV—having anything to do with the regional innovation fund? That's one question. The other question is related to that but also related to what my colleague opposite has been asking about. As I often point out, the ABC operates across a range of areas—triple j for the young people, and classical music, which is something I really enjoy; they have a range of different radio stations and television outlets. But a lot of them, of course, are concentrated in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide—the capital cities—where there are an enormous number of other opportunities for the listeners or the viewers to hook into other news, information and entertainment outlets. Where I am, in Townsville and Ayr, we do have some opportunities for commercial operations but, when you get a bit further out into the country, as far as radio is concerned the ABC is the principal source of information, and it does a wonderful job. It does a wonderful job with weather, with market reports, with information about what's happening around particular communities. So it's a very, very valuable service. But often it's the only one. Whilst I approve the efficiency—and, as you say, it's a 2c-in-a-dollar saving, which I think even I could save in my own household, and I'm sure the ABC will be able to do it, particularly under the new management—I am concerned that very often when there are cuts to the ABC, or very often when there aren't cuts to the ABC, you'll find that some of those in Ultimo who really don't know Australia, apart from three blocks from the Ultimo headquarters, don't quite understand the importance of the regional services of the ABC. I'm just after some sort of assurance—and I appreciate the ABC is an independent body—on that. That's my second question.

The third question: has any thought ever been given by the government to setting up, with independent budgets, not just ABC and SBS but ABC, SBS and, for want of a better term, 'ABC Regional', as a separate entity with a separate budget and separate management, which will concentrate on this vital service to many people who live outside the capital cities and ensure that it is always there? That's the third question. Has any thought ever been given to that? Is it something that the minister or his department might sometime have a look at, without diminishing services anywhere and leaving the ABC in its current form to continue doing the work it does—some of it good, most of it, I think, questionable, but let's not get into that; that's a matter of opinion. But the certainty of an ongoing service for regional Australia is something that exercises the minds of many people outside the capital cities.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:43): Thanks, Senator Macdonald. To your first question, as to whether any of the innovation fund that this legislation will allow ACMA to administer will be available to the ABC, the answer is that it won't be. The innovation fund is targeted essentially at private publishers in regional areas and small publishers. I should point out, though, that the ABC have, over the last year or so, identified further efficiencies, which demonstrates that that can be done, and the ABC have set up a content fund. Different parts of the ABC organisation can pitch innovative ideas to that content fund that the ABC have established. So there is that avenue there.

Through you, Chair: Senator Macdonald raises a very good point about the important role that the ABC plays in rural and regional Australia, which is why the government has legislation before the parliament to put into the ABC's act a specific reference to rural and regional Australia, which is something that people assume is already there. People assume that the ABC charter already has specific reference to an obligation to rural and regional Australia. It doesn't. We will be seeking to legislate that here, and I hope that will enjoy the support of all colleagues.

In the same bill, we also have a measure which would require the ABC to always have at least two board members from rural and regional Australia. That is a measure that we have already met, because I have appointed to the board of the ABC Georgie Somerset, who is a beef producer from Kingaroy, and Vanessa Guthrie—no relation to the MD—who is the chair of the Minerals Council of Australia. It's very important that we have that representation on the board. The board is the ultimate editorial and operational authority. So, to ensure that rural and regional Australia get the resources that they need through the ABC, that representation on the board is extremely important. That bill also contains a measure to establish an ABC rural and regional advisory committee, which the ABC would be required to consult if there were any decisions that they were taking that had a significant effect on rural and regional Australia. They are some of the safeguards that we are putting in place for rural and regional Australia.

Often, as I move around the community—and, I know, as Senator Macdonald moves around the community—while Australians have a wide range of views on the ABC, as they're entitled to do as taxpayers and consumers, I universally hear very positive things about ABC rural and regional radio. I think one of the reasons is that the ABC are close to the community. They live in the community. They get that constant feedback from the community. It's a good and important service that the ABC provide.

Coming to Senator Macdonald's third question on the ABC's structure and whether thought has been given to having a separate ABC rural and regional entity, it's not something that the government has looked at in terms of legislation. Under the current legislative framework, how they structure themselves is a matter for the ABC board. But I think that the measures in the bill that we have before the Senate to establish in the ABC Act a particular obligation for rural and regional Australia are important and will go some way towards those objectives, as will mandating that there be two people from rural and regional Australia on the board and establishing the ABC rural and regional advisory committee. Senator, I know that you will continue to put propositions forward, and I think, as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2017 demonstrates, we are open to doing whatever we can to further reinforce the ABC's role in rural and regional Australia.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:48): Thank you for your answers this morning, Senator Fifield. You indicated that you felt that the efficiency study from 2014 was quite effective at that point in time and, if I heard you correctly, you indicated that it was time for another efficiency review. One of the consequences of the efficiency review that was undertaken was that 800 staff have left the ABC in recent years. Do you concede that jobs will be lost as a result of the government's budget cuts of $83.7 million from the ABC?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:49): As I said in response to an earlier question, I can't and wouldn't seek to pre-empt the work of the review or the decisions that ABC management might take in the wake of the review and their own efforts. So I can't assist you beyond that.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:49): Minister, it's not too much of a stretch to indicate, on the public record, that the result of your last efficiency cut efforts was very significant loss of jobs and loss of capacity. In your response to Senator Macdonald, you indicated that you were putting people on the board. The fact that people in particular positions make a very big difference to what an organisation can do is well known to you and I and every Australian who's interested in the ABC. We have a situation where the public broadcaster is now 800 jobs short of what it was when you arrived, despite your jobs and growth narrative. How can you possibly stand here in the chamber and pretend that a further cut, a further efficiency dividend—a cut of $83.7 million—will not drive further job losses at the ABC?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:50): I think there's a false assumption in your contribution, Senator O'Neill, and that is that every decision by the ABC to change their employment configuration is a result of funding decisions of the government. As I pointed out earlier, the funding in the current triennium is not being altered. The ABC board and management decided six months or a year ago to reduce middle-management positions in the ABC, I think by about 200. That was a decision of the ABC to free up resources for more content—for a content fund. That decision by ABC management had absolutely nothing to do with resourcing decisions by the government. It happened in the middle of a triennium where funding in that triennium had not been altered. That was entirely a decision of ABC management. ABC management have, over decades, made decisions about employment configuration which were not a result of funding decisions by the government. In fact, Mark Scott made very clear, when he made some changes to employment in the ABC around the time of the last efficiency review, that he had decisions already in train in relation to how the ABC would configure itself and the employment consequences of that. So it is not correct to assert that every decision that ABC management makes in relation to employment matters is a function of efficiency reviews or resource decisions of government. The ABC have always changed the way that they operate as technology has evolved. They have always changed the way that they operate in the wake of their own internal decisions, separate to decisions of government in relation to resourcing.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:53): It's hard to see how 800 people losing their jobs from the national broadcaster is a model of improving access to great news, great journalism and the sort of community representation of ideas heralded and applauded by Senator Macdonald in his contribution. Whether it's in the city or whether it's in the country—and I see we have a delegation of young people here—getting the correct news, and getting people in the profession who have certainty of employment and an opportunity to grow their skills and to serve the nation through our national broadcaster, is a very, very important part of what this country has thrived on. It's an important part of our democracy. It's not like the ABC's a new thing. It has been around for a very, very long period of time and, over that period of time, it has been able to build its reputation to a point where the Australian people hold it in high regard, whether they're from the city or the country.

But I'm sure that the young people here today would be able to understand, Minister, that the loss of 800 jobs from the national broadcaster is a very, very significant loss. And it has happened on your watch. It happened after your first efficiency push in 2014, and here you are proposing another efficiency push, taking $83.7 million out of the budget of the ABC, and that is absolutely going to cause job losses. The minister may dance around it and try to prevent any blame from attaching to him, but the Australian people are too smart to buy that, Minister. They know that the ABC is under attack from this government. Mr Abbott, the member for Warringah, knew this when he was running to become the Prime Minister of this country in 2013, and stood at that stadium in Western Sydney in Penrith and said that there will be no cuts to the ABC or SBS—yet the whole legislative process of this parliament under the Liberal-National government has been cuts to the ABC and cuts to SBS. That's just the historical reality of it. You can't keep cutting the ABC and continue to argue that you're providing sufficient funding for job security, for quality journalism and for the retention of this significant part of the democratic conversation in our country.

In my contribution yesterday at the second reading stage I talked about another matter more specifically related to this particular bill, which I indicated was the result of a deal stitched together with Senator Xenophon. I recall on the evening as the bill was going through, Minister, asking you a number of detailed questions about how this particular bill was going to operate. As I recall, on many occasions you answered the questions with the support of your team in the advisers box, but there were a few where you just didn't know the answers, because Senator Xenophon was still cooking up the scheme. Indeed, in the estimates period that followed, Senator Xenophon tried to get on the record a number of changes, because, after the consideration of a few nights sleep, despite the deal being done, he figured out that there were a few mistakes and was trying to correct them on the run. That's the nature of the bill we're debating today. That's its origin and how it came to be. According to the Bills Digest:

The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee considered the Bill and noted that 'none of the substantive requirements and criteria for eligibility [for grants of financial assistance] are set out in statute'. It stated:

It therefore appears that neither the criteria for the award of a grant nor the purposes or conditions for which grants may be awarded are included in the bill. Instead, these matters are to be determined by non-statutory policy or included in individual agreements. The practical effect of this approach is to delegate general criteria and conditions for the award of a grant to ACMA. It is also noted that if general non-statutory rules are not developed, then the legislation confers on ACMA an extremely broad discretionary power to allocate a substantial sum of money.

The Scrutiny of Bills Committee sought the Minister's advice as to 'why the criteria for the award of the grants and the standard terms and conditions to be imposed are not included in the bill or subject to any other appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny'.

At the time of writing this Digest, the Minister's response had not been published.

Has the minister supplied a response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:58): I have, and let me share it with you. What I conveyed to the committee was:

It is common practice for the details for a competitive grant program, including any criteria relating to eligibility, to be set out in the program's guidelines, as part of a call for grant applications. The Government has determined a set of eligibility criteria for grants under the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, which forms part of the Regional and Small Publishers Jobs and Innovation Package. Whilst the program guidelines are under development, these eligibility criteria have already been made public and will be incorporated into the guidelines for the grant program. In addition, the guidelines will specify a set of merit criteria against which the Australian Communications and Media Authority will assess the relative merits of applications.

It is expected that the guidelines for the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund will be released in the first quarter of 2018, following a process of consultation with industry and key stakeholders.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:59): It would be great if you could table that response.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:59): It is in the latest digest.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:59): Thank you very much. I was attempting to listen carefully to what you said. Is there a particular reason it isn't in the bill? What was the rationale for that? You've explained the process, but why was it not included in the bill?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:59): I'll share again part of my response, which is that it's common practice for the details of a competitive grant program, including any criteria relating to eligibility, to be set out in the program's guidelines as part of a call for grant applications.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:00): What's the decision here around guidelines, rather than putting it in the legislation? Given the hasty nature of the construction of the deal and the concerns that were raised here in the chamber at the time it went through, why have you not put it into the legislation to make sure that the money actually goes where it's supposed to go?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:00): It's a common practice for guidelines and criteria for grant programs to not be in legislation.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (10:00): I have been listening to this exchange between the minister and Senator O'Neill with interest, and I find myself agreeing with parts of what Senator O'Neill says—

Senator Hanson-Young: Shock, horror!

Senator BERNARDI: Yes, shock, horror indeed, Senator Hanson-Young—in that the political ghost of former Senator Xenophon lingers large over this place. The price of a hastily cobbled together deal for much-needed media reform is incumbent and evidenced by this bill, which is why it is entirely wrong. The horsetrading only costs Australian taxpayers hundreds of millions, sometimes billions, of dollars, and the cumulative efforts of Senator Xenophon over the years have, I think, only added to our national debt, which is why we should be voting down this bill. It was cobbled together very late at night, if I recall, and I see that it serves no meaningful purpose other than to disrupt the budget repair that is so necessary.

I also happened to agree with Senator O'Neill when she was referencing the young people and the obligations we have to them—perhaps for a different reason, because Senator O'Neill did reference the young people who were in the gallery and spoke about their opportunities. Well, we are squandering their opportunities by saddling them and burdening them with a massive debt load. And that debt load is going to have to be repaid by them. No matter how many jobs you create at the ABC, which seems to be Senator O'Neill's great wish, that debt load is not going to be removed—that will only add to it. So this is where I depart from Senator O'Neill's contributions. Cutting spending to the ABC is in our national interest, quite frankly. If you go back through the rich heritage that the ABC has and the important role it has played in our country and continues to play, you will recognise that it's morphed from a radio station available nationally to a television station available nationally to now the largest media empire in the country. It has four television stations. It has, I think, maybe five national radio stations plus its regional outreach. It has a commanding presence in the newspaper of the 21st century, which is the online media portal, which is not paywalled or firewalled; it is cannibalising the commercial media operations.

The media landscape is undergoing radical change, and the ABC is at the centre of it. It is simply too big. It is simply too outrageous. It doesn't comply with its charter. Indeed, the latest managing director, Ms Guthrie, has basically levelled a threat against the government saying that the ABC will use its voice to showcase and highlight the damage that's been done to the ABC and that it wouldn't be able to comply with its charter. Well, here's news for you, Ms Guthrie: you're not complying with the charter now. It is appalling. And I say this not in a partisan sense, but it is appalling that the ABC will defend the use of the c-word on its own shows directed at political candidates in the name of humour yet won't allow that great other c-word to be used—the Conservative!—to get a fair and reasonable platform on the ABC. And congratulations to you, Minister, for not accepting that ridiculous response from Ms Guthrie—a form of which I received as well, where they review themselves and say, 'No, we've done nothing wrong'—and pursuing it with ACMA.

We had a Senate inquiry into commercial broadcasting standards, because other networks were broadcasting similar language in inappropriate timeslots. I don't think it's appropriate at any time, quite frankly, but nonetheless they came to that same conclusion. Channel 9, I recall, wrote a letter or made a public statement that they would not allow that sort of language to be broadcast at any time on their network. And yet somehow the ABC, which is meant to be reporting news and current affairs for all Australians, thinks it's okay—that it's good sport—to just allow all that sort of language; it doesn't matter if it's a Labor candidate, a Conservatives candidate, a Liberal candidate or anyone. They defend it. They are out of control.

If you want to do something serious about the ABC, Minister—$80 million cut, good. Thank you. For the young people of Australia, thank you for applying those funds to debt recovery, to budget repair and to preserving the future of our young people. If you want to do something serious about it, think about allowing our national broadcaster to consolidate, to merge, with SBS, to encourage them to provide a single news and current affairs channel and a single national radio network, or maybe two, to provide news and current affairs for all Australians. I do believe it is important for all governments—we don't know what's going to come down the pipe in the future—to be able to communicate with all Australians, and that includes in areas where market failure means that there are no other, rival services available. I do think the ABC fulfils an important role, but get it to consolidate.

If you don't want to do that, let's make the ABC accountable. Why not provide every Australian with shares in the ABC and allow them all to chip in their 8c a day, if that's what they want to do, or maybe hand in their shares to someone else who wants to pay their 8c or 11c a day. Let all Australians have a stake in it, rather than fund it and simply be told one version of news or current affairs, according to the partisan, cheerleading nature of the zeitgeist within the ABC. It is out of control, Minister, and I continue to encourage you to pursue media reform in this sense.

Returning to the substance of the political ghost of former Senator Xenophon: this bill is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because, as some regional media operators suggest to me, it will allow them to maybe upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, or something along those lines. I just think it's a complete shemozzle and a waste of taxpayers' money. I believe that this is how we get into the problems in our parliamentary system, when the price of enacting important media reform—which you have achieved, Minister—is reflected by additional spending that is not going to make any difference to anyone except the poor taxpayers, who will end up having to pay it back. Minister, I won't be supporting this bill, but I want to go on the record saying that I congratulate you for your media reforms, I congratulate you for making a small start on the ABC and I'm sad that you've attached your name in any way, shape or form to endorsing this bill. Anything I can do to scupper it, I probably will, which may entail supporting some radical amendments from the Greens to make it completely unpalatable. But let's see what we can come up with.

Senator Steele-John interjecting—

Senator BERNARDI: Senator Steele-John is interjecting. I'll ignore the impertinence.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:09): I'll just make the observation that the program that this bill will enable is modest, time limited and targeted. I think it will make a positive contribution. There are media organisations in the regions that do welcome what we would like to put in place, but I also acknowledge that this is a product of the discussions which occurred through media reform and we have always been upfront about that.

Just touching on the earlier part of your contribution, Senator Bernardi, for the sake of completeness, because I haven't mentioned it in my responses to Senator O'Neill, the government has initiated a competitive neutrality review into the public broadcasters to look at the questions that are raised about whether those organisations in any way use their status as government organisations to compete unfairly with commercial broadcasters. The commercial broadcasters have their view and public broadcasters have their view, and what a competitive neutrality review will do is flush out those issues so that they can be canvassed in an open way. The people we have doing that work are: Robert Kerr, the former head of office of the Productivity Commission, who is chairing that review; Sandra Levy, the former head of ABC TV; and Julie Flynn, the former head of Free TV Australia.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:11): I would just like to ask the government a question in relation to the bill before us, to clarify the total amount of funding per year that is set to go to regional publishers. Can we just get some clarification around it not being less than 25 per cent of the non-regional publishers, the conditions for access to that funding and some clarification around the fact that the primary operations must be located in the regional areas. Could the minister give us some clarification around the total funding per year for these grants?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:12): For the Innovation Fund, it's $16.7 million per year over three years.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:12): Could the minister please give some indication as to how you are going to check and maintain that this money is being used for what the criteria sets out? That is, how are you actually going to monitor this and what kind of due diligence is going to be done? As a result of that, who does this, how is that funded and how much is that, in itself, going to cost?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:13): The grant guidelines will have acquittal processes within them outlining how organisations need to demonstrate their expenditure.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:13): The minister didn't answer my question in relation to how much it is going to cost to ensure that people are abiding by the prescribed criteria. The reason for this, of course, is trying to work out if it's really worth the taxpayers' money to be funding these grants if, indeed, it's going to be clogging up other administrative time in the department. I say this as I have just sat here and heard the minister talk about the need for efficiency dividends across various different government agencies, and we know the minister likes to keep taking the axe to the ABC. Could the minister explain how much money from his department is being spent on administering this grant? Also, how much money will be spent administering it and monitoring it from ACMA, and what are any other administration costs that might be included?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:14): Of the $50 million for the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, about $2.1 million will go towards the administration by ACMA.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:14): Thank you. And is that $2.1 million over the three years? Or is that in the beginning, in order to establish it?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:15): That's over the three years.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:15): Thank you. Could the minister explain what consultations his department or his office have done in relation to the creation of this fund—the prescribed criteria, what consultations, who you consulted, who you spoke with, the time frame of those consultations, and who was involved?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:15): There are a range of entities who were provided with a copy of each of the scoping papers on 23 February and were provided with two weeks to provide any comment, by 9 March. I have a long list of the relevant bodies here, and I'll see whether we can put that in a form to table. It involved: ACMA; ASTRA; the Australian Press Council; Commercial Radio Australia; the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia; the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia; the Country Press Association; Foxtel; Free TV Australia; the Indigenous Remote Communication Association; the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia; the Walkley Foundation; Universities Australia; Ace Radio; APN News & Media, which is now HT&E Media; Fairfax; Imparja Television; James Yates and Sons Pty Ltd; Junkee Media; The Courier Mail; Mamamia; Macquarie Radio Network; McPherson Media Group; New Matilda; News Corp Australia; Nine Entertainment Co; NOVA Entertainment; Pedestrian; PRIME Media Group; Private Media; Seven West; Southern Cross Austereo; Star News Group; Schwartz Media; Solstice Media; Network Ten; The Conversation Media Group; WIN Corporation; News Beats Project; News and Media Research Centre; the Public Interest Journalism Foundation; The Civic Impact of Journalism; Facebook; Google; Huffington Post Australia; MEAA; Mumbrella; The Guardian Australia; Digital Policy Industry Group; and what looks to be every university in the nation.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:17): Thank you. I'd just like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that I have circulated a new amendment on sheet 8432. This is a tweaked version of the amendments that were previously circulated on sheet 8373. The amendment goes to the fact that we are extremely concerned that the government has just made a blind and ideological attack on news agencies that don't fit their political agenda. We know that this government, particular members of its frontbench and particular members of its backbench don't like media organisations like The Guardian, BuzzFeed or, let's face it, all the ABC or SBS. This government has a problem within its ranks—thinking that just because it's in government it should be able to pick and choose which journalists and which media outlets it supports, based on whether these agencies give it a good run or not, based on whether they ask tough questions or not and based on whether they're just prepared to swallow the government spin day in, day out.

I concur with many of the things raised by Senator O'Neill in relation to how this bill was constructed and put together as part of a pretty shabby deal with former Senator Nick Xenophon and the Centre Alliance team. It's the whole reason we're even discussing this piece of legislation. The legislation itself is just one of these ridiculous, slap-it-together, 'She'll be right, mate' kinds of legislation that's come out of a deal negotiated by former Senator Nick Xenophon. Despite all of the hoo-ha, he's never been a really good negotiator, has he?

He spends a lot of time putting himself in the kingmaker position. But, when it comes to the crunch, what does he actually ever get? It ends up being pieces of legislation, or amendments, with unintended consequences or, indeed, not much more than a handshake and a promised word. At the end of the day, that is a bit disappointing when he is not even here now to have responsibility for it and be accountable.

The whole point of this package was to support small and regional publishers and help them to continue to have a role and to do a good job in underpinning public interest journalism in Australia. We have one of the most highly concentrated media markets in the world. Here we have a bill that is meant to do something to help support those smaller players, but it is just so ideologically bound and blinded by this government. The amendments on sheet 8432 that I have had circulated—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Sullivan ): Senator Hanson-Young, I'm loath to interrupt you, but I would like to seek clarification. There has been another set of amendments circulated on sheet 8434.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Yes, that's an additional amendment. Perhaps I should clarify it from the beginning. I shall withdraw the set of amendments on sheet 8373 revised. There are two other amendments that have been circulated and there'll be a third one coming. The first one that I'm talking to is on sheet 8432. Then there is a second amendment, on sheet 8434, which is the one you have just referred to, Temporary Chair. And at some stage I imagine—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We don't need to deal with the withdrawal as you had never moved those amendments. So we will set them aside. So the clarification is that 8432 will be the subject, I understand, of a motion from the senator but there are additional amendments on sheet 8434.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Yes.

Senator Fifield: Temporary Chair, I seek clarification as to whether 8432 won't be proceeded with and 8434 is replacing it. It looks as though there are common elements to 8434 and 8432.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, 8432 replaces a set of amendments that were never moved, which were described on sheet 8373. So, to assist the chamber, we ought to ignore 8373. Senator Hanson-Young has just mentioned amendments which I assume are described on sheet 8432. So that's the contemporary set before us. The senator has circulated in the chamber amendments that are described on sheet 8434, which it is her intention to move, and she has foreshadowed that there will be a further set of amendments circulated. So we'll be dealing with three sets. If we can just treat them in order—

Senator Fifield: On my quick examining of the two, 8432 looks to be a subset of 8434. So 8434 has some amendments which are the same as 8432, but 8343 has what 8432 has plus further amendments. So is 8434 ultimately going to replace 8432?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Thank you, Temporary Chair. This is the way the Clerk's office has decided to circulate them. I'm happy to take some advice as to why they have done it in this particular way.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Before I give you the call, Senator Bernardi: Senator Hanson-Young, they are your amendments; so, while Senator Bernardi makes a contribution, you might be encouraged to do a comparative on those two sheets and then guide us as to what you'd like to happen. Senator Bernardi.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (10:24): Thank you, Temporary Chair. I'm conscious that I'll be relieving you in a few minutes, and I suspect these amendments will be discussed when I won't be able to make a contribution. In the event that 8435 is proceeded with, I would like to telegraph a question to Senator Hanson-Young about amendment (3) on sheet 8435, dealing with the grant schedule in subsection H. It says:

(g) the person does not receive financial assistance from, and does not carry on its business with regard to the interests of, any of the following:

It then lists a range of entities, including political parties, trade unions and so forth.

My question is with respect to the definition of 'financial assistance'. Does 'financial assistance' mean entering into any commercial relationship with any of those entities—such as for paid advertisements if a trade union or a political party enters into a commercial relationship with one of these publishers? It's quite a genuine question about what the definition of that is. Should you be proceeding with those amendments, I'd be interested in a response.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:26): I'm still trying to get some clarification on why the drafters have put some of these amendments on the same sheet. If I could just have a bit more time to do that, that would be helpful. Perhaps Senator O'Neill might have some questions that she would like to ask.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:26): In the interests of collegiality—we've all been in a situation where we're trying to figure out exactly what's going on. What I can say, for those who are here, is that one of the concerns I have as a senator in this place—and I have lived most of my life outside the political world—is what happens when you get all of these Independents in here. There's a sense in the media, the champion of the Independents, that this is going to provide fantastic scrutiny and it will be a wonderful thing. What we're actually doing today is cleaning up after the party. We've all been in that situation, where there's been this great big party and there's a big mess and you've got to come in the night after and do the cleaning up. The cleaning up is pretty hard sometimes. This is the cleaning up that's being done because the government wanted to get rid of the two-out-of-three rule—to make sure that, if you live in a particular media market, no one company can get in there and have a massive say about the kind of news and information that you get.

The government did a deal. They did a whole lot of deals, actually. It took quite a degree of contortion to make deals with multiple people. One was with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. But the deal that we're discussing today is the deal that was done with former Senator Xenophon. The way that it's characterised all the time in the media is that the government are pushing for this deal and they're going to deliver this reform. What did they trade off? In the case of this particular piece of legislation that we're cleaning up here today, we're doing it in the absence of former Senator Xenophon, who actually did the deal. The deal went through very late in the evening. Sometimes when you're not here in the chamber you'll hear that we worked until one or two o'clock in the morning. The debate was continuing, but the deal was so uncertain and we had many questions that couldn't be answered. Senator Xenophon left the chamber, the vote was taken and the government got their multiple deals sorted—there were enough votes for their legislation. And now we get this clean-up job to sort out what they actually agreed to. We understand that it was very dynamic that night, and the deals weren't clear and the questions weren't able to be answered. But, when we get to this point and we're about to make legislation, we would hope that everything would be in order.

This morning I asked Senator Fifield a number of questions about what's been going on, particularly with regard to the cuts to the ABC—$83.7 million. I'm very concerned about that, but I have to say I'm very concerned about what this piece of legislation is seeking to do. Increasingly, I'm also a little uncertain about what it is that we're supposed to be debating right now. There are a number of pieces of legislation that get amended and, at the moment, with many amendments coming from the Greens, we're not quite sure where we are. That's as I see it at the moment, and I think that's a fair characterisation.

Senator Fifield, how many publishers do you understand will be eligible for the fund? I note that, in response to a question from Senator Hanson-Young, you read quite a long list of supporters of this short-term injection of funding into the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, but, from the advice that you've received from your department, how many people exactly do you think will actually be eligible for this fund?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Bernardi ): For the benefit of the chamber, we are having a general discussion about the bill. There have been no amendments formally moved. The reason for that confusion may be because I addressed an amendment, given I was going to be in the chair shortly.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:31): The list of organisations that I referenced before were those which were consulted in relation to the package, which has three elements: the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, the Regional and Small Publishers Cadetship Program and the Regional Journalism Scholarships. That range of organisations would have had interest in each of those, not necessarily all of them. Some of the organisations may have only had an interest or potential eligibility for some of them. Some of them are organisations which make contributions to public policy and so were interested from that point of view. So that was the list that I referred to before.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:32): In terms of eligibility, there's a reasonable degree of certainty about what you think's going to happen there. How many applications does the government anticipate will be made, and how does that interface with the responsibilities that you now have apportioned to ACMA, for which I understand you indicated there was a $2.1 million funding allocation for administrative and supervisory purposes?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:32): I can't provide an estimate as to the number of applications that will be forthcoming. That's something that is beyond my knowledge, and it is up to each individual media organisation to assess whether they're eligible to make application and whether they wish to make application. But we are confident that the $2.1 million that is part of the $50 million for the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund will be appropriate to administer the applications that are received, and ACMA is also of that view.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:33): With regard to the amount that's been negotiated, the $50 million for this particular fund, how arbitrary is that number? Is that just what was agreed for the purposes of getting the deal done, or is that an assessment of the need that you're responding to, presumably, in agreeing to this deal?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:33): That is what was determined by the government and also former Senator Xenophon to be an appropriate quantum for a program of this nature.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:34): The quantum was clearly agreed. By what means did you determine it was appropriate? And, will there be sufficient funds there to meet demand? Has there been any demand analysis?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:34): It was determined through discussion and, obviously, government has its own internal processes whereby ministers need to seek agreement for propositions, and that quantum was agreed within government.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:34): If I'm hearing you correctly, the number was agreed. You had to convince your colleagues to give you $50 million, for this part of the deal at least?

But there has actually been no analysis of the need or whether this is going to be an efficacious program, and it does have a time limit of just three years, which indicates the hasty and short-term nature of the deal. Is that correct, Minister?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:35): No.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:35): Why am I not surprised by the minister's answer? But I would think that my characterisation of what happened is probably pretty close to the truth.

Finally, how will the ACMA decide between competing claims if the demand—which you are unable to explain—is far greater than the funds that are there? Conversely, if there is little demand, how will the ACMA decide between competing claims?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:35): ACMA will apply the grant criteria and, as with a range of grant programs, not every applicant meets the criteria; not every applicant is successful.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Bernardi ): I'm in the hands of the Senate. I do recognise that there is some discussion going on in regard to some amendments. I'll look for an indication as to whether those amendments are ready to proceed with. One option may be that the committee reports progress. I'm in the hands of the Senate. Minister?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:36): I'll endeavour to be of assistance to colleagues, because we operate in real time in this place and we could all find ourselves, when presenting amendments, in a situation where the machinery is racing to catch up. I wonder if this may be of assistance: just looking at these two amendments sheets here, it looks to me as though it may have been the intention of the Australian Greens that the third amendment on sheet 8434 be circulated as a separate amendment, so that sheet 8432 stood as it was. If that's the case, then it might be possible for 8432 to be moved while amendment (3) on sheet 8434 comes as a separate amendment. I just offer that as a suggestion, as it may have been the intention of the instruction that the Greens gave.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:38): Thank you, Minister, for that. Yes, I think what has happened is that these have been put up as separate sheets when really they should have been on one sheet and then we could move the three blocks of amendments separately. I understand that the Clerk is just circulating a revised sheet that puts it all together, and then we can discuss each amendment as we go. So we now have a sheet in front of us, sheet 8435, which includes amendments in relation to making sure that we can get the maximum amount of effectiveness out of this fund. I would like to suggest that we move amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 8435. And if we can have a bit of a conversation about those things, that would be good.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, are you seeking leave to move amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 8435 together?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:39): Yes, I am.

Leave granted.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8435 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 18 and 19), omit all the words from and including "The Minister" to and including "ACMA.".

[simplified outline]

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 4 and 5), omit all the words from and including "unless" to the end of subsection 205ZH(2), substitute:

unless:

(a) the ACMA is satisfied that the person satisfies the criteria specified in section 205ZHA; and

(b) the person is party to an agreement under subsection 205ZJ(2).

(grant criteria]

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 10), after section 205ZH, insert: 205ZIIA Grant criteria

The following criteria are specified in relation to a person for the purposes of paragraph 205ZH(2) (a):

(a) the person carries on a business that in the financial year commencing on 1 July 2016 had a turnover of between $300,000 and $30 million;

(b) the primary activity of the business is journalism that investigates and explains, from an Australian perspective, public policy and issues of public interest or significance;

(c) the primary activity of the business is carried on by individuals resident in Australia;

(d) each senior manager of the person is resident in Australia;

(e) either or both of the following apply:

(i) the person is a member of the Australian Press Council;

(ii) the person has in place a process for the making and handling of complaints made to the person in relation to the person's business;

(f) the person has in place a code of conduct, editorial guidelines or other framework directed at the provision of quality journalism;

(g) the person does not receive financial assistance from, and does not carry on its business with regard to the interests of, any of the following:

(i) a political party;

(ii) a trade union;

(iii) a superannuation fund;

(iv) a financial institution;

(v) a non-government organisation;

(vi) a policy lobby group.

(grant criteria]

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 7), omit "grants; and", substitute "grants.".

(annual report]

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (lines 8 and 9), omit paragraph 205ZL(d).

(annual report]

Basically, what these amendments do is correct the problem that we have had with this piece of legislation from the beginning: that there is an ideological blindness that's been drawn into this bill. We want to make sure that if you're an Australian publisher, if you're an Australian news outlet, if you employ Australian journalists, if you're reporting Australian news and you're doing it for an Australian audience and you're within that small sphere as outlined by the criteria, you have access to this fund. It shouldn't matter whether you are friends with the government ideologically or not. The issue in relation to this would mean that we can ensure that the applicants, to be able to access this fund, must have a body corporate controlled by Australian residents. That is of course important. In this way it ensures that eligible applicants must have Australian management and Australian control with independent Australian editorial direction. But it is not based on whether it is from the right-wing media or the left-wing media—that shouldn't matter. It should be about whether the editorial control and the management are within Australia. It is Australian taxpayer funds, so let's ensure that we are supporting and that this fund can support agencies and news outlets that report Australian stories and employ Australian journalists.

One of the key elements of this whole debate that came out of the media reform package was: how do we protect Australian journalists' jobs? We know that it is becoming a tougher and tougher gig to be a journalist in Australia. The margins to be able to keep funding organisations are getting harder and harder to work within. We know that the 24-hour media cycle has an impact on that. These are all of the different elements that we have covered over the months and years that we've been debating this issue in a broad sense. The whole objective is to protect Australian journalism, because it's in the public interest to have good journalists writing about Australian stories and what's going on, informing the Australian public, reporting on what we do here in this parliament, at a time when trust in politics is so low. It is a matter of having good support for the journalists who scrutinise us, question what we're doing and make sure that, as a government and as parliamentarians, we're upholding our obligations to the public properly. These are all important roles in relation to why we want a strong journalism sector in Australia. If that's the case, let's make sure this fund actually does that: supports Australian stories and Australian journalists and gets away from just saying, 'Well, it's only available to these people because they fit certain criteria.' The criteria should be that it is Australian managed, that it has Australian editorial control and that they're employing Australian journalists for an Australian audience. I don't see why this chamber should have any issues in relation to that.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:43): The bill that we have before us is intended to be a simple amendment to give legislative authority to ACMA to independently administer the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. We have set down a number of eligibility criteria. They are outlined in the explanatory memorandum to the bill but aren't proposed to be legislated. It is normal practice for guidelines and eligibility criteria to sit outside legislation.

The other point I would make is that if the grant criteria were to be legislated it would mean that the government wouldn't be able to make minor tweaks to the criteria in a straightforward fashion—based on feedback from industry—in light of the administration of the fund, which is something that I think would be helpful.

The final point I'll make is that the Greens amendment does clear the way for outposts of large foreign media outlets to be eligible for funding, and that would mean less funding available for Australian publishers.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:45): Could the minister explain why the government would be opposed to ensuring that this bill clearly outlines that this fund should be available to publishers who are writing Australian stories and employing Australian journalists for Australian audiences—organisations that are Australian managed and have Australian independent editorial control? Surely that's the objective of this entire bill?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:46): It's the view of the government that outposts of large foreign media outlets should not be eligible for funding. That would mean less funding available for Australian publishers in genuine need.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:46): Could the minister explain whether the government supports the objectives of public interest journalism—small publishers who are trying to ensure they can keep themselves sustainable to support the role of public interest journalism, particularly in regional Australia, where the local news is really important when you turn on the radio or you open up your local paper? It is often the lifeblood of the community—the heartbeat of the community—to know what's going on and who's saying and doing what. Surely, the government must believe that those entities, if they put their hand out for public money, should have independent Australian editorial control?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:47): The government does want to support small publishers and regional publishers; that's the purpose of the fund. But I can really only reiterate that we think the funding that's available should go to Australian publishers and not to parts of what are large foreign media organisations.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:47): Temporary Chair, I'd just like to answer one of the questions that was asked by you during the committee stage, before you entered into the chair, in relation to clause 3 of the amendments on sheet 8435. From memory, you were asking about the types of things that this money could be spent on and the grant criteria. This is probably a question that needs to go to the minister in some respects, because we need to make very clear that this money is being spent on public interest journalism. This is what this is for; it's not to offset the budgets that bigger organisations perhaps have from their parent bodies in the city. This is about supporting journalists here in the regions, to ensure that those regional communities get the news and the analysis that they deserve. Just to be clear: we need to make sure—and it is in here—that the following criteria are specified in relation to a person for the purposes of this grant:

(g) the person does not receive financial assistance from, and does not carry on its business with regard to the interests of, any of the following:

(i) a political party;

(ii) a trade union;

(iii) a superannuation fund;

(iv) a financial institution;

(v) a non-government organisation;

(vi) a policy lobby group.

This money needs to be spent on journalism. This money should be being spent on what it takes to make sure Australian communities know what's going on in their communities and what their government is doing, and to underpin their ability to do that. Most newspapers or radio stations have advertising and sell ads to keep the newspapers in print or the radio stations on air. Their advertising revenue is up to them, but how do we ensure the money from this bill is being spent on journalists and journalism?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:50): The purpose of the innovation fund is to assist eligible organisations to make changes to their business processes to ensure they're in a better position to compete in the changing environment. Examples might include commissioning feasibility studies or planning work; commissioning IT builds or installations; acquiring intellectual property or installing new technology, plans and equipment; acquiring assets that are directly and solely employed to achieve the project outcomes, which might take the form of acquisition or lease costs; training staff that directly support the achievement of project outcomes; and defraying the costs of financial auditing of project expenditure. They're some of the things that are eligible.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:52): How are we going to keep track of that? How are we going to know what's happening? Is there going to be an auditing process? Will there be spot checks? How will we know that organisations aren't just spending this to subsidise other activities? What type of quality control is the government foreseeing to ensure the money will be spent in the right places?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:52): Regular reporting and acquittal arrangements will be required, as is usually the case with grant programs. There are clear criteria as to what is eligible and what is not.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:53): I don't quite understand. It feels as though the government hasn't really thought about how they're going to manage the quality control very well. I understand that a lot of it will be left up to ACMA, but is this part of the consultations the minister has had? Has the minister spoken with the various agencies about how best to ensure this money is spent in the right place? Have these organisations asked to be able to spend this money on other things, and have you had to reject those requests?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:54): There will be standard audit and assurance processes, as undertaken by departments and Commonwealth agencies across portfolios. The Commonwealth and its agencies are well experienced when it comes to audit and assurance of grant programs.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:54): When coming up with this whole idea for the innovation fund, how did the minister come up with the figure of $50 million? Was this just plucked out of the air or was this done through research? Do we know how many jobs $50 million will actually create, keep or sustain through this fund? Why is it $50 million?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:55): I did canvass the question of $50 million with Senator O'Neill a little earlier and how that was arrived at in discussions with then Senator Xenophon. We reached the view that that was an appropriate quantum to be meaningful and that amount was agreed to by the government through its usual internal processes for such matters.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:55): I hate to say it, but that's not very illuminative in terms of why it is $50 million. Is that all the Treasurer let you have, a measly $50 million for your negotiations? Is that what happened or is that just loose change at the back of the couch that you had left over from something else? If we are serious about the demise of public interest journalism in this country, why is it only $50 million? If you're genuinely interested in making sure you protect Australian journalists' jobs, why is it only $50 million?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:56): It's not the practice that ministers will go to the internal deliberations of government and its internal decision-making processes. But, clearly, when you are in discussions over legislation such as the media reform package, colleagues from across a range of parties come forward with different propositions, and different colleagues will suggest what they think to be appropriate quantums for particular projects that they think might be important and that might be of assistance in helping them to crystallise their thinking about a piece of legislation. I know, Senator Hanson-Young, that you're not unfamiliar with those processes and propositions which might from time to time come from your party to the government in relation to different pieces of legislation.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:57): Does the minister have any idea of how many publishers or media agencies would be eligible to apply for these grants across the country? Do we have a comprehensive list of how many candidates are eligible and is that broken up by press, newspapers, radio, television or online? Do we have a list of potential candidates who would be able to apply for access to these grants?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:58): There would potentially be dozens and dozens of media organisations who would potentially be eligible, but I can't furnish a list of organisations that would be eligible. It's ultimately up to individual organisations to assess themselves against the criteria to see if they meet those criteria in order to be eligible to make an application. I should point out that just because an organisation is eligible to make an application doesn't mean that an application that they submit will necessarily be successful.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:59): I find this interesting. You think that there could be dozens and dozens of these organisations who could be eligible. Have you done any work in your consultation as to how many organisations might apply? You said you've done some consultation. You must have an idea of how many applications you're going to get. The reason I'm interested in this is that it helps us to understand how effective this is going to be as an innovation fund. If there are dozens and dozens of organisations that would be eligible under the criteria, how on earth will you determine which organisations in which locations will get access to this support? Would we be in a situation where Queensland, for example, gets nothing but your home state of Victoria and the regional newspapers in Victoria get a lot? Or, indeed, would it be that the media agencies in Queensland would get a lot and, say, those in my home state of South Australia will not?

You said to me you didn't want to explore, in this place, why $50 million was put on the table. You're now telling me that dozens and dozens of agencies would be eligible. How on earth are we going to decide which ones get them? How do we make sure this isn't just a pork-barrelling exercise for the government?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:01): It's independently administered.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:01): Yes, but how do we make sure, Minister, that there is a genuine spread that supports the entire Australian community with what you say would be an effectiveness of this innovation fund? How do we make sure that, whether you live in a regional area in Queensland or you live in a regional area in South Australia, as a taxpayer, you're going to get some benefit from this fund? Otherwise, it just seems like it is purely $50 million put on the table to satisfy former senator Nick Xenophon without any thought about the actual benefit to the taxpayer and to regional communities.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:02): The criteria have contained within them that two-thirds of the fund needs to go to regional publications.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:02): You're not answering my question. My question is about how, if there are dozens and dozens of these organisations that would be eligible, they're not all going to be able to access this fund. You've said that yourself. What protections are there? How will you manage to ensure that it's not lopsided? How do we make sure that it is not just communities on the east coast of Australia that are benefiting from this and no-one from Western Australia, South Australia or, indeed, Tasmania? How are you going to make sure that doesn't happen? It sounds as though, perhaps, you haven't really thought about (a) whether $50 million is appropriate or (b) how many are eligible in the criteria in relation to ensuring that you've got a fund that will effectively meet the needs of small publishers and media agencies whether they are in the suburbs or the bush.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:03): It will be a merit based process. The outcomes will be determined by application quality, and we're sure that there will be good-quality applications from around the nation. As I said before, the criteria require that two-thirds of the grants go to regional publications.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:03): I've been itching to ask Senator Hanson-Young a few questions about her amendments. I know she tried to address one that I foreshadowed earlier, but I don't believe it was adequately clarified for me. I'm specifically referring to amendment (3) on sheet 8435, in which there are very specific grant eligibility criteria. One of them is subsection (g): 'the person does not receive financial assistance from'—and then it lists political parties, trade unions and so forth. My question specifically is: what is the definition of 'financial assistance' in this case? If a political party undertakes a commercial contract with a person, as defined by this schedule, for advertising services or other engagement of a commercial nature, does that rule the person as described ineligible to apply for the grant?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:05): This wording is directly out of the minister's explanatory memorandum. It is his wording. It's already in the bill as their criteria. Perhaps the minister could give you that response.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:05): Thank you for that direction. I look forward to a response from the minister on that particular matter. Minister, you could nod if you'd like me to restate my question, because you might have tuned out earlier.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:05): Thank you, Senator Bernardi. As your question was to Senator Hanson-Young, I may have momentarily been otherwise focused.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:05): I understand how difficult it can be managing so many complex issues in your portfolio, Minister. For the benefit of you and your advisers, amendment (3) on sheet 8435 lists a range of grant criteria which Senator Hanson-Young has advised are directly out of your explanatory memorandum. I'm interested in the definitions of several clauses and several words in there. The one I particularly raised was financial assistance. What denotes financial assistance from one of those political entities? Is a regular commercial contract engaged, say, between a publisher and a political party or a financial institution deemed to be financial assistance because they are, in effect, giving money to the publisher? I want to know what criteria, specifically, apply to financial assistance.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:06): Senator Bernardi, I can't help you because the wording in Senator Hanson-Young's amendment is not the wording that is in our explanatory memorandum and is not the wording that is in our criteria. Our criteria, in relation to that, are much broader. In our explanatory memorandum, where we talk about an independence test, we say that it not be:

… affiliated with a political party, union, superannuation fund, financial institution, non-government organisation or policy lobby group);

So we talk about affiliation, which is a much broader concept than that which is in Senator Hanson-Young's amendment. What Senator Hanson-Young is referring to by way of financial assistance I can't tell you because it's not our criteria and it's not in our EM.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:08): Thank you, Minister. You'll understand why the Senate may be a bit confused when one senator says one thing, and I'm sure it's not due to malfeasance or anything else, and the minister says another. I will redirect the same question to Senator Hanson-Young. Do you have a response, Senator Hanson-Young?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:08): The wording 'financial assistance' is used throughout the explanatory memorandum. That is why those are the words.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:08): 'Financial assistance' is used in the explanatory memorandum in terms of the Commonwealth's grant to an entity. It's not in relation to the relationship between the entity and a third party.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:08): Thank you for that. As these amendments are moved and circulated by the Greens, I'm going to address the question to the Greens. In order not to delay the Senate in considering this bill in a timely manner, there are other questions about definitions as well which the minister may like to take under advisement should they be redirected towards him. There are questions around the phrase in the Greens amendment: 'each senior manager of the person is resident in Australia'. A 'person' being, let's presume, a corporate entity, does that mean each and every director? Does it mean the editors? Does it mean any senior personnel within the organisation? These are very specific questions because they go to the ability to implement the amendments that Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens have put forward. I'm just seeking some sort of assurance that Senator Hanson-Young has received the appropriate advice and is ready to respond, which I believe she is.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:10): These would be matters for ACMA to interpret, as per the rest of the criteria in the current bill as before us. As the minister has said, this fund is meant to be administered by ACMA. We set down the criteria as they are, and they oversee them. I'd be interested to know, from the minister's perspective, how on earth ACMA are meant to interpret, for example, to ensure which of these 'dozens and dozens' of organisations that he believes would be eligible won't all just be concentrated in the same state.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:11): I've already answered that.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:11): I regret that I can't just accept the buck-passing to ACMA. I do note that the other amendments deal with ACMA dealing with it, but these are very specific issues because the description of each senior manager of the person is one that could lead to ongoing legal dispute, if I may say so. What is deemed a 'senior manager'? Is it a director? Does having one foreign director on your board in a corporate entity contradict the grant criteria, if you've got some international expertise? These are quite genuine questions because they go to the workability of it. Similarly with 'financial assistance': I could mount an argument that financial assistance is a regular commercial contract. If you're preventing small publishers from entering into a commercial contract with a financial institution, a political party. a trade union, a superannuation fund, a policy lobby group or a non-government organisation you're probably killing their business. I'm sure that's not the intention, but I've learned in my time in this place that you're better off being quite specific and resolving these issues now rather than leaving it to an outside entity to interpret them, because they're prone to problems later on. I'm trying to avoid the problems.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:12): In relation to paragraph (g), I would point out to Senator Bernardi:

(g) the person does not receive financial assistance from—

and—

does not carry on its business with regard to the interests of …

The argument about a regular commercial contract and advertising—I don't believe that is caught by this at all. The point is that this is about the interests of these political organisations or trade unions or superannuation funds or whatever and the rest of that group. It's not just about the financial assistance. It's about ensuring that the interests of that group are not going to be supported by any of the activities that this fund would underpin.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:13): Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young, that's very helpful. Just to clarify: something that is like The New Daily, which is funded by industry super funds, I understand, would be ineligible to receive a grant under this criterion. Is that correct?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:14): I would imagine that would be the case, or that would be up to ACMA to make that determination.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:14): In respect of the definition of what a senior manager is, amendment (3), paragraph (d), reads:

(d) each senior manager of the person is resident in Australia;

What is a senior manager?

Is it a director in a corporate entity—as most of these small publishers would be for liability reasons? And if they had a foreign director, even if there were only one of them, would that deem them ineligible? What if they had an editor in an offshore post somewhere, maybe in the Pacific or in an Asian country, and the editor were effectively deemed to be a senior manager? Where do the criteria begin and end?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:15): I do believe that this would be something that, in terms of those details, ACMA would need to oversee. But let me just be very clear: the intent of this is to ensure that eligible applicants have Australian management of the media outlet and agency—that they are Australian controlled—with independent Australian editorial direction.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:16): Can we get some clarification, because there are so many bits of paper moving around in the chamber at the moment. Could Senator Hanson-Young clarify the status of the sheet that was distributed during her contribution, which is numbered 8434 revised?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Whish-Wilson ): Do you mean clarify whether she wants to withdraw that?

Senator O'NEILL: Are there going to be votes on any of the other pieces of paper before us, or is their proposal simply that there will be a vote on the amendments as indicated on sheet 8435, which is before us currently?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, would you like to respond to that?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:17): I'm working off sheet 8435. That's the current one. Those are the amendments that I have moved.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:17): Are they the only proposed amendments that we're going to be dealing with before we go back to the bill?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, do you have other amendments that you propose to deal with?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:17): I don't believe so.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young has moved amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8435 together. Would you like us to split them up, Senator O'Neill?

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:17): No. It's fine with us if they're moved as a block. I just want to put some comments on the record, as it looks like we're about to go to a vote—I think we are. Labor will support this amendment, which seeks to ameliorate one of the flaws with the fund—that the grant criteria is ideologically motivated.

Public interest journalism, the fourth estate, is a key pillar in our democracy. Support for public interest journalism in our democracy should not be ideologically motivated. We had several things to say about that on the night the bill came before us for the first time. It was sadly ironic that the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule, which acted as a democratic safeguard in promoting media diversity in Australia, was done away with through a deal that was conducted behind closed doors and away from democratic scrutiny.

Labor understands and shares the sentiment behind this amendment. On the night the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund was announced in this place, Labor decried the government's ideologically motivated exclusion of certain innovative publishers from the fund. That included The Guardian Australia, BuzzFeed and The New Daily. The concerns we have about those very important parts of the media, which we have access to every day as citizens of this country, are the key motivation for our support of this amendment. Labor will continue to hold the government to account for the deal, and we'll monitor the uptake of this fund. We will be watching who applies for it, we will be watching who accesses it and we will certainly be watching to see what, if anything, it achieves.

Labor are aware that the government has valid concerns with the drafting of this amendment, such as concerns that there are technical defects. I have to say that we do share some of those concerns, but we do not think that these concerns are insurmountable, and we believe that the government will have the opportunity and resources to remedy them as the bill progresses through the parliament.

Labor is also conscious that legislating the eligibility criteria will mean that any changes to the criteria in future would require legislative amendment. For example, if the minimum revenue threshold of $300,000 were too high, it would be necessary to return to parliament to amend the criteria. To the extent that flexibility to tweak the criteria is desirable should the government discover along the way that the criteria are not fit for purpose, Labor notes that the government took the decision to forge these criteria behind closed doors, away from parliamentary scrutiny. That the government is making this fund up as it goes along is a matter of concern for the government and it is certainly of concern to us. While, as the minister outlined, it is standard practice to include criteria in guidelines and not legislation, the government has, unfortunately, acted to create a fund that is ideologically motivated, and has thus motivated the amendment that is now before us. Labor notes that, without legislating the criteria, it would be open to future governments to revisit the eligibility criteria. But the issue before the Senate with this amendment is whether the overarching criteria are actually suitable. As the criteria are ideologically motivated, we believe they should not be supported because they are not suitable.

I want to close by putting on the record that Labor has sought consultative engagement with both the Greens and the government with regard to this particular amendment. There are many unanswered questions on this bill and on the amendment. The amendments circulated by the Greens today are many and, in our view, they are not drafted perfectly. Yet, on balance, Labor believes that this does address an ideological attack on a vital part of the media landscape of this country and the amendment goes a significant way to redressing that balance. So, on balance, Labor will support this amendment on 8435.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Bernardi?

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:22): Thank you, Chair. I've just received a text message saying that I referenced InDaily as being sponsored by Industry SuperFunds. I meant The New Daily. InDaily is, of course, a reputable South Australian online journal of note. So I want to correct the record.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Bernardi. Minister.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:22): Thanks, Chair. I would make two quick observations. Firstly, it's very interesting if the Labor Party are saying that, henceforth, they believe program criteria and guidelines for grants should always be legislated. That's very interesting. That seems to be the Labor Party's new position across programs and portfolios. We'll be watching that with interest. Secondly, Labor themselves have conceded that there are errors and difficulties in the Greens amendments. It's very odd that the Labor Party, recognising that, are proposing to support the amendments and are saying that it's somehow the government's job to clean up inadequate amendments to give effect to something that is not government policy.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator O'Neill, do you want to respond?

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:23): Just for the record, I don't intend to allow the minister to verbal me and declare that this is a position for Labor going forward. This is a bill that you constructed in the dark, in a dirty deal with Senator Xenophon, who's no longer here. This is a bill with guidelines that you constructed that excluded key participants in the media landscape of this country. This amendment is important in that it seeks to redress that ideological attack. This is an extraordinary situation, not business as usual, Minister. So I don't want you to misunderstand in any way our action on this very particular matter.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:24): I can only take the implication from that comment that the Labor Party are against any cross-party agreements and that they will not, from this point on, be entering into any agreements with any crossbench groupings in this place and will never have discussions outside of this chamber with any crossbench grouping. So, again, that's a curious development.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator O'Neill.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:24): For the record, I think the senator is deliberately misinterpreting the nature of my comments this morning. I would not like his interpretation to stand as an accurate record. Of course the Labor Party will continue to constructively converse with all participants here in the chamber.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Whish-Wilson ): The question is that amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 8435 be agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( 11:3 3 ): Senator Hanson-Young, it would assist the chair if you'd clarify that you won't be moving amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 8435 separately?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:33): No, I won't.

Bill agreed to

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:35): I rise to speak on the Interstate Road Transport Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2018. The repeal of this bill is the next stage in the implementation of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator brings together the heavy-vehicle regulatory regimes of six states and territories, excluding only the Northern Territory and Western Australia. While there were originally six different heavy-vehicle regimes for those states and territories that have now signed up to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, there's now only one.

The act created the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme, or FIRS, which was designed as an alternative scheme for those vehicles solely engaged in interstate operations. By registering through FIRS, heavy-vehicle operators were able to avoid registration through the multiple state and territory regimes and have a one-stop shop, creating a smoother process for interstate freight trade. But FIRS also had a dual purpose. The stamp duty exemptions that came from registering through the scheme were intended to encourage and facilitate the trucking industry to upgrade their fleet and put cleaner, safer, more efficient vehicles on the road. But as has been demonstrated in what has happened since then, and has been noted in the other place, a review of FIRS demonstrated that this scheme did not achieve its objective. So this, along with the implementation of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, is enough reason for the Greens to support this bill.

But just because FIRS didn't work, it doesn't mean that we should abandon the government's role in achieving a more efficient and cleaner heavy-vehicle fleet. The World Health Organization estimates that eight million people die every year from air pollution. Half of this is from indoor air pollution, but half is from outdoor pollution, which overwhelmingly comes from the combustion of fossil fuels in our power plants, our industrial facilities and our vehicles. One-third of all stroke deaths, more than one-quarter of heart disease and nearly two in every five instances of lung disease are due to air pollution—and this is the World Health Organization saying this, the peak expert body on health at the global level! That's globally. In Australia, it's estimated that more than 3,000 people die prematurely every year from air pollution—1,420 from motor vehicle pollution was the most recent estimate—and the economic cost of mortality and morbidity related to motor vehicle pollution was estimated to be $2.4 billion. That was in the year 2000—18 years ago. Our standards for heavy vehicles have, sadly, hardly improved since then, and we've got a lot more trucks on the road.

That's Australia; let's talk locally. I live in Footscray in Melbourne's inner west. I live 50 metres from a major freight route and when I and my family walk to the railway station or the local shops, we are accompanied by semitrailers and B-doubles rattling and roaring alongside us. The 2016 count showed 2,000 trucks a day use Moore Street, the street that I've got to walk along, in a 24-hour period. In Francis Street, Yarraville, it's more than 5,000 trucks a day. These aren't small white delivery vans. No, they are the real McCoy. They are huge semitrailers, B-doubles and tankers. There are 5,000 trucks a day in Francis Street. That's a truck every 20 seconds. In the 15 minutes or so that I will be speaking here today, there will be 50 trucks roaring past. Francis Street has had some of the highest levels of diesel pollution ever recorded in Australia, so much so that a report by Environmental Justice Australia has given it the title of 'Australia's most polluted residential street'. Every one of these trucks is pouring out diesel particulates that are known cancer-causing chemicals.

I want to commend the incredible work of the Maribyrnong Truck Action Group, who have worked so hard over 20 years to raise the health consequences of heavy vehicles on residential streets. We need to be cleaning up those trucks, just as we need to be getting the trucks off the residential streets. In the case of Maribyrnong, it's building truck ramps off the West Gate Freeway. We need to be getting more freight on rail, but particularly we need to clean up the trucks that we are going to continue to rely on and need as critical parts of our transport system.

What does it mean to clean up those trucks? There are standards that the government should continue to implement. Just because we're passing this legislation today doesn't mean giving up on the project of cleaning up those trucks. The Euro standards have for decades set the benchmark for the reduction of vehicle pollution. Since their beginning in 1999, the Euro standards have led to a dramatic reduction in carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and particulate matter from cars and trucks. Yet our government, as is all so common when it comes to pollution, is dragging its feet. Although the Australian design rules now enforce compliance with the Euro 5 pollution caps for all cars and trucks sold into Australia, the far more up-to-date Euro 6 standards are not enforced. We acknowledge that, through the Ministerial Forum on Vehicle Emissions, the government has begun the work to implement these standards, but let's be honest: it's been nearly three years since this body was set up—three years of people breathing in diesel fumes, children and the elderly being hospitalised and, sadly and tragically, unnecessary deaths.

I know I'm going to run out of time before finishing my speech. I would like to take this opportunity to move our second reading amendment, which is saying that, even though we are recommending that this legislation no longer continue, we need to have action on vehicle emissions. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) approximately 3000 Australians die from the effects of air pollution each year;

(ii) the transport sector is accountable for nearly 19 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to ongoing and dangerous climate change;

(iii) Australia is not compliant with the International Energy Agency's 90 day stockholding requirement of liquid fuels; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) introduce Euro VI standards for light and heavy vehicles at the earliest possible opportunity;

(ii) immediately begin work on the design and implementation of a heavy vehicle fuel efficiency standard; and

(iii) develop a plan for Australia's transition to electric and other zero emission transport for freight.".

This is an opportunity for us to put this on the table and say, 'Yes, we are getting rid of this legislation that's no longer needed because of the new national truck arrangements, but we must not give up the quest for getting cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles.'

If we go back to the Ministerial Forum on Vehicle Emissions, we've got a draft regulatory impact statement from the forum. That was unequivocal about vehicle pollution. The rapid introduction and enforcement of Euro 6 standards for all new light and heavy vehicles in Australia is the best option on the table for the Australian community. Euro 6 compliant cars and trucks have been sold in Europe, Asia and the Americas for nearly five years now and there is no reason why they can't be sold here. It is doable, it is straightforward and it is high time that the government acts.

The situation is just as dire when it comes to the fuel efficiency of our trucking fleet. The burning of diesel and other fuels from our trucking fleets is responsible for almost five per cent of our national greenhouse gas pollution, and diesel consumption is the fastest-growing fuel in the transport sector, which is itself the fastest-growing section of the economy in terms of carbon pollution.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rice, the time for this debate has now concluded. You'll be able to speak in continuation when the debate resumes.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (11:45): I present the fifth report of 2018 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 5 OF 2018

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 9 May 2018 at 7.25 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 August 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the provisions of the Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018and Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 June 2018 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 June 2018 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 and National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 June 2018 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(e) the provisions of the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 June 2018 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(f) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 June 2018 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(g) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2018 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(h) the provisions of the Water Amendment Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 June 2018 (see appendix 8 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018

Australian Astronomical Observatory (Transition) Bill 2018

Australian Human Rights Commission Repeal (Duplication Removal) Bill 2018

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018

Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Amendment Bill 2018

Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018

Customs Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018

Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018

Interstate Road Transport Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2018

Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) Levy Bill 2018

Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) Levy Collection Bill 2018

Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018

Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payments for Carers) Bill 2018

Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing ASIC's Capabilities) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (OECD Multilateral Instrument) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2018

Underwater Cultural Heritage Bill 2018

Underwater Cultural Heritage (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018.

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

Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018

Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018

Defence Amendment (Sovereign Naval Shipping) Bill 2018

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2018

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Medicare Levy Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018

A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Maintaining Income Thresholds) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Axe the Tampon Tax) Bill 2018.

(David Bushby) Chair

10 May 2018

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

As the first legislation to propose the removal of Commonwealth restrictions on cannabis, there is a case to examine: the merits of legalisation, law enforcement issues, extradition issues, constitutionality, treaty issues, trade rule issues, Commonwealth-state issues, and budget issues.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Cannabis suppliers and regulators in jurisdictions that have legalised cannabis; cannabis users; law enforcement bodies; experts in extradition, constitutional and treaty and trade rule issues; representatives of the poppy industry; drug/health experts; state/ territory governments; and revenue authorities.

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): Week of 2 July 2018 or week of 6 August 2018

Possible reporting date: 10 September 2018

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s): Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Scrutinise the Government's policy case

Unpack any unintended consequences

Explore whether this change could lead to new policy initiatives in terms of VET student loans

Possible submissions or evidence from:

TAFE Directors Australia

Department of Education and Training

Private education and training peak bodies

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date: 15 June 2018

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: The bill makes significant amendments to various areas of intellectual property

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Agricultural organisations

Medical research industry

IP peaks

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date: 22 June 2018

Senator Rachel Siewert

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018

National Redress Scheme for institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: the differences between these bills and the Commonwealth Redress Scheme bills

Possible submissions or evidence from: Blue Knot Foundation, Bravehearts, Knowmore, CLAN, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, Law Council of Australia, Tuart Place, Sexual Assault Support Service

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date: 18 June 2018

Senator Rachel Siewert

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Ensure the proposed arrangements meet the needs of victims of child sexual abuse

Make sure states are in agreement with the proposed National Law

Examine the detailed elements of the proposed law, which have previously contentious

Allow stakeholders an opportunity to raise issues and see the Government questioned on a matter with is very important to many people

Possible submissions or evidence from:

CLAN

Blue Knott Foundation

Knowmore

Indigenous organisations — National ATSI Legal Services, The Healing Foundation

People with Disability Australia

Open Place

Micah Projects

Legal professional bodies

Academics e.g. Professor Kathleen Daly

The Centre Against Sexual Violence Inc

The Alliance of Forgotten Australians

Anglicare WA

Institutions

State governments

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the Committee

Possible reporting date: 12 June 2018

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To investigate the amendments proposed relating to the operation of the levy payer register; to identify any unintended consequences of the amendments.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Council of Rural Research and Development Corporations (CRRDC)

Australian Egg Corporation Limited (AECL)

Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC)

Australian Pork Limited (APL)

Australian Wool Innovation (AWl)

Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC)

Dairy Australia

Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC)

Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited (FWPA)

Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC)

Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation (GWRDC)

Horticulture Australia Limited (HAL)

LiveCorp

Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA)

Rural Industries Research and Development (AgriFutures)

Sugar Research Australia (SRA)

Dept Agriculture and Water Resources

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the Committee

Possible reporting date: 13 June 2018

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Detailed scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill and their implications

Possible submissions or evidence from: Superannuation and financial services industry, employers, unions, ATO, Treasury, community stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date: 13 June 2018

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 7

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To understand the financial and distributional impacts of the policy proposals.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Treasury

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Business Council of Australia

Australian National University's Centre for Social Research and Methods

Associate Professor Ben Phillips

Victoria University's Centre of Policy Studies

The Australia Institute

Grattan

ACOSS

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the Committee

Possible reporting date: Tuesday 19th June 2018

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To consider the distribution of the expected $140B (over ten years) worth of tax cuts.

To understand the impact of government service delivery.

To understand the broader economic implications.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Economists

Civil society

Employer groups

Trade unions

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation

Possible hearing date(s): July 2018

Possible reporting date : August 2018

Senator Rachel Siewert

Appendix 8

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Water Amendment Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Impact of changes on Murray-Darling Basin Plan; impact on stakeholders

Possible submissions or evidence from: Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, The Australia Institute, The Murray Declaration, Australian Conservation Foundation, Government of South Australia, Government of New South Wales, Government of Victoria, Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment & Comms

Possible hearing date(s): TBA

Possible reporting date: 10th September 2018

Senator Rachel Siewert

Senator BUSHBY: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:52): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 808 by omitting '15 May 2018' and substituting '6 June 2018'.

Leave granted.

Senator SIEWERT: At the request of Senator Di Natale, I move the motion as amended:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations be extended to 6 June 2018.

Question agreed to.

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11:53): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation, by no later than 10 am on 5 June 2018:

(a) all documents relating to Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's (CSIRO) involvement in the Genetic Control of Invasive Rodents Program (GBIRd), except those documents that are already public documents;

(b) all correspondence between CSIRO staff and the Australian Academy of Science regarding its report on gene drives; and

(c) all documents relating to CSIRO's Australian Stakeholder/Community/Public Engagement Plan on synthetic biology.

Question agreed to.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:59): I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee into the obesity epidemic in Australia, be established on 16 May 2018 to inquire into and report on 14 August 2018, on the following matters:

   (a) the prevalence of overweight and obesity among children in Australia and changes in these rates over time;

   (b) the causes of the rise in overweight and obesity in Australia;

   (c) the short and long-term harm to health associated with obesity, particularly in children in Australia;

   (d) the short and long-term economic burden of obesity, particularly related to obesity in children in Australia;

   (e) the effectiveness of existing policies and programs introduced by Australian governments to improve diets and prevent childhood obesity;

   (f) evidence-based measures and interventions to prevent and reverse childhood obesity, including experiences from overseas jurisdictions;

   (g) the role of the food industry in contributing to poor diets and childhood obesity in Australia; and

   (h) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee consist of seven senators, two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens and two nominated by minority groups and independent senators.

(3) That:

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

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

   (c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

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

(5) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

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

(7) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.

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

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

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

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

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (11:59): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government does not support this motion, as we consider this proposed committee to be a Trojan Horse to implement a sugar tax. The government recognises the importance of tackling obesity and we have two key initiatives: the Healthy Food Partnership to encourage healthy eating; and the Health Star Rating system, a front-of-packet labelling system. As announced in Tuesday's budget, the government will also invest $230 million in sport and physical activity initiatives over five years.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Di Natale, No. 824, on the establishment of a select committee, be agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:15): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018:

The financial and tax practices of for-profit aged care providers, with particular reference to:

(a) the use of any tax avoidance or aggressive tax minimisation strategies;

(b) the associated impacts on the quality of service delivery, the sustainability of the sector, or value for money for government;

(c) the adequacy of accountability and probity mechanisms for the expenditure of taxpayer money;

(d) whether current practices meet public expectations; and

(e) any other related matters

Question agreed to.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:15): I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Senator McGRATH: The government is delivering lower, fairer and simpler taxes, but they must be paid. The government has strengthened our tax laws so they remain robust and has given the Australian Taxation Office the tools it requires to enforce those rules. For example, the government has established a Tax Avoidance Taskforce that has resulted in the ATO raising $5.2 billion in tax liabilities from large companies since July 2016. This budget contains further government initiatives to ensure companies and individuals are paying their tax. This includes a package to tackle the black economy and further resourcing for the ATO to enhance taxpayer compliance. The government also notes the ongoing workloads of committees and committee secretariats, and related concerns about additional references.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:23): The President has received a letter requesting changes in memberships of committees.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:23): by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees, as set out in the document available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red.

Obesity Epidemic in Australia—Select Committee—

Appointed—

Senator Di Natale

Participating members: Senators Bartlett, Hanson-Young, McKim, Rhiannon, Rice, Siewert, Steele-John and Whish-Wilson

Stillbirth Research and Education—Select Committee—

Appointed—Participating members: all opposition senators

Question agreed to.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:24): I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:24): I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2017

SECOND READING SPEECH

Proactive industries are the future of Australian agriculture, fisheries and forestry – industries that see an opportunity to promote their product, grow their business and become more profitable. This bill will help a range of rural industry sectors to make it happen.

In the late 1980s, industry and government established the rural research and development (R&D) corporations under the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989. Since then, the R&D corporations have helped to keep rural industries productive and profitable by conducting research, development and extension which is practical and relevant to each industry sector. Industry and government both invest in the R&D corporations. Industry invests through levies on production and the Australian Government invests by matching industry's R&D levy expenditure. According to ABARES estimates, for every dollar invested in broadacre agricultural R&D farmers generate a $12 return within 10 years.

Strong agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries are good for all Australians. ABARES forecasts our farm exports to be around $47.7 billion in 2016-17 and $48.7 billion the next year.

There are 15 rural R&D Corporations, of which 14 can carry out marketing activities. Only ten do, however, and they provide a valuable service to their industry sectors. Marketing has helped to build our pork, wool and red meat industries, to name just a few, and expanded Australian access to international markets.

Four statutory R&D corporations are still governed by the 1989 legislation – the Fisheries, Cotton, Grains and Rural Industries R&D Corporations. Unlike most R&D Corporations, they must have a statutory levy attached to the corporation in order to undertake marketing. This change was made in 2013 following wide consultation which lead to the passage of the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Act 2013.

The process to impose a statutory levy is often time consuming and its collection can be expensive. The Fisheries R&D Corporation and its industry bodies say that smaller industries cannot afford the costs of establishing and collecting a statutory levy.

This bill provides that the Fisheries, Cotton, Grains and Rural Industries R&D Corporations will be able to carry out marketing activities using voluntary contributions – for example a gift, grant or bequest. This will add to their existing ability to conduct marketing with statutory levy funds.

The R&D Corporation will have to report on the marketing activities it carries out each financial year in its annual report.

The bill will expand the definition of 'marketing activities' to include matters incidental to marketing. This will allow R&D Corporations to scope, plan and coordinate marketing activities without having to use funds provided to them for R&D purposes. The expanded definition mirrors the definition of R&D activities to make it easier to apply and understand.

The affected R&D Corporations support the provisions in this bill.

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (WORKING HOLIDAY MAKER EMPLOYER REGISTER) BILL 2017

SECOND READING SPEECH

This Bill introduces changes to ensure that details of the working holiday maker employer register are not made public. It also ensures information sharing between the Australian Taxation Office and the Fair Work Ombudsman, is undertaken in situations in which an entity is actually or is reasonably suspected of non-compliance with a tax law.

Through minor amendments to the taxation laws, this Bill removes the ability for details of the employer register to be made public on the ABN Lookup.

This change will not affect the operation of the employer register or the rules applying to employers of working holiday makers. All employers of working holiday makers will still be required to register with the ATO in order to withhold at the 15 per cent tax rate.

The register addresses concerns about the exploitation of working holiday makers and will provide valuable data on working holiday makers. This amendment being introduced today does not affect the requirement for the ATO to report this information annually to the Treasurer, for presentation to the Parliament. This reporting process involves aggregate employer information and will not identify any working holiday maker employers.

This Bill also ensures information sharing between the ATO and the Fair Work Ombudsman will be limited to situations in which an entity is actually or is reasonably suspected of noncompliance with a tax law.

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

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:25): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (ASIC GOVERNANCE) BILL 2018

SECOND READING SPEECH

Today I introduce a Bill that bolsters the effectiveness of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

ASIC is Australia's integrated corporate, markets, financial services and consumer credit regulator. ASIC is an independent Commonwealth Government body set up under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (ASIC Act).

In support of the Government's ongoing commitment to combatting misconduct in the financial services sector and boosting consumer confidence, the Government is strengthening ASIC. We are doing so by implementing recommendations from the Financial System Inquiry and the ASIC Capability Review, that will provide new tools and powers to ASIC, as well as making it more accountable.

We have provided ASIC with a stronger funding base through the introduction of the industry funding model. This will ensure the costs of regulation are borne by those that have created the need for it, rather than the Australian public, who too often bear the costs of financial sector misconduct.

In December 2017, the Government released draft legislation to give ASIC the power to intervene in the sale and distribution of financial products, where there is a significant risk of consumer detriment.

In February 2018, the Parliament passed legislation, giving ASIC new directions powers to strengthen its oversight of the new one-stop-shop dispute resolution body – the Australian Financial Complains Authority.

Soon, ASIC will also be responsible for the management of expected additional disclosures following reforms to whistleblowing laws.

Along with new powers, ASIC also has new responsibilities, for example it will soon be responsible for administering the new Asia Region Funds Passport regime, including the regulation of a new collective investment vehicle that will be available under the passport framework - the corporate collective investment vehicle.

To fulfil its role, ASIC needs to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, and for that it needs strong leadership and internal governance. Given the breadth of ASIC's responsibilities, it's also crucial that ASIC's leadership has the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience.

ASIC is led by a Commission consisting of between three and eight members. At present, one member must be appointed Chairperson, and another member may be appointed Deputy Chairperson.

This Bill amends the ASIC Act to allow ASIC to have two Deputy Chairpersons.

This is entirely appropriate. Having two Deputies will assist ASIC in operating as an effective and efficient regulator by improving oversight of ASIC by its leadership. It will also provide greater flexibility for the Commission to determine how it undertakes its functions.

It reflects the greater scope of ASIC's responsibilities and ensures that the Commission has the necessary depth of knowledge, skills and experience in its leadership team.

Finally, taking this important step will also support ASIC in engaging more closely with its stakeholders and better communicating its role, priorities and resource allocations. This is an essential part of ASIC now being funded by industry.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (12:27): I rise to put on the record Labor's position in regard to the Interstate Road Transport Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2018. Labor is of the view that efficient rail, sea, air and road transport remains fundamental in the 21st century—as fundamental, indeed, as it was at Federation. The birth of our nation had its roots in our colonies coming together on the need for a standard rail gauge to facilitate the efficient movement of goods and military assets. It's as vital now as it was then that we do not increase the cost of getting goods to market. This is particularly important when it comes to road transport. Labor has always known this, and that's why the former Labor government created the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to administer regulation of heavy vehicles over 4.5 gross tonnes. Before agreement to this landmark change by the Council of Australian Governments in 2011, and the commencement of the regulator in early 2013, there were six state and territory agencies involved in regulating heavy vehicles. That old system meant the drivers and companies needed to deal with vast amounts of paperwork. This increased their work and costs, which were ultimately passed on to the consumer.

We now have one law covering vehicle standards—mass, dimensions and loading requirements—fatigue management accreditation and on-road enforcement. The creation of this single set of regulations administered by a single regulator, along with the creation of single regulators in the maritime and rail sectors, will boost national income by $30 billion over the first two decades of operation. The harmonisation of transport regulation was the culmination of regulatory reforms commenced by the Labor government in 1991 with the establishment of the National Transport Commission. Even though Western Australia and the Northern Territory are still not participating in this national system, the established changes are making a real difference to our national economy.

The creation of the national regulator is the key reason the Interstate Road Transport Legislation (Repeal) Bill is before us today. It was the Hawke Labor government that in 1987 created the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme—known as FIRS—a voluntary alternative to the bewildering array of state and territory regulations still in existence in that time. Labor created FIRS in response to industry concerns that interstate road transport rules were restricting their businesses.

Vehicles that operate under FIRS are required to comply with Australian design rules, standard requirements regarding vehicle equipment and performance standards and a requirement of third-party insurance. State and territory governments administer FIRS on behalf of the federal government, and registration charges are redistributed amongst the states to be spent on road maintenance. FIRS was also designed to promote road safety, so participants are exempt from standard state and territory stamp duties on newly purchased vehicles to encourage them to use newer, high-productivity vehicles.

The bill before us creates a process to abolish FIRS. It would amend the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985. The bill would close FIRS to new entrants and reregistration from 1 July 2018. The bill would allow the scheme to continue for a 12-month transition period and the bill would also close FIRS to all operators as of 30 June 2019. The Labor Party supports this bill as the logical next step in regulatory harmonisation. When FIRS was introduced in 1987 it represented the first step forward on the process of change, but after more than 30 years operation and the introduction of the national regulator, the scheme is finally becoming redundant.

Australia is a vast nation with an ever-increasing freight task. It's important that we invest in freight rail as well as roads to ensure that we can meet the ever-growing need for movement of goods around our nation. But it's also important that we keep moving forward on reducing regulatory complexity. Our road transport system needs one set of laws, one set of registration and compliance papers, one logbook and as little red tape as possible. I commend the bill to the house.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:32): I was discussing the impact and the importance of cleaning up our vehicle fleet, because we have got a huge issue in terms of truck pollution in our cities and across our country. It is so important because diesel is the fastest-growing fuel in the transport sector, which in itself is the fastest-growing sector of our economy in terms of its carbon pollution. Reducing the pollution from our truck fleet is incredibly important. If the government is serious about its commitments under the Paris Agreement, it needs to get serious about decarbonising our road transport industry, taking action so that we have more efficient diesel vehicles, switching more freight onto rail and, in time, moving our trucking fleet off fossil fuels entirely.

Global warming is the overwhelming issue facing the world. If we don't reduce our carbon pollution, we are literally cooked. And Australia is lagging so much when we have so much potential to take serious action that would mean not just that our carbon pollution would plummet but that it would leave us with a legacy of clean air and healthier communities.

In addition, this isn't just about carbon pollution and climate change. Minister Frydenberg intervened in our national energy debate earlier this week, drawing attention to our record-low liquid fuel stock holdings and calling for an urgent review into Australia's fuel security. The Greens take Australia's fuel security really seriously. I was an active participant in the Senate inquiry into fuel security three years ago that made some very important recommendations. We supported the government's liquid fuel emergency bill that was introduced last year to empower the government to enter into ticketing arrangements with liquid fuel producers and bring us back into compliance with our 90-day stockholding requirement under the International Energy Agency. We also supported the government's bill to improve the collection of statistics on petroleum and other fuels, which allowed the collection from industry of statistics on their existing oil holdings and operations and which will improve the transparency of Australia's total current holdings across the sector. We welcome the government's proposed fuel security review, but it needs to look at all the options that are needed to keep our country moving. The current shortage of real liquid fuel stock holdings should not be seen as an excuse for the oil and gas supermajors to open up new oilfields across our land and oceans or for the government to subsidise the construction of new refineries or other fossil fuel infrastructure.

We need to remember that, to achieve 90 days of stock holdings, it's just as valid to reduce overall oil demand in our transport sector to the point where our existing stock holdings reach 90 days. It's as effective to do that as it is to build up our stock holdings without reducing demand. Both would achieve the same effect but each would entail very different consequences. The latter path, the path big oil and gas want us to go along, would lead to an increased risk of catastrophic oil spills, more greenhouse gas pollution, boom-bust communities left footing the bill for stranded assets and unrehabilitated wells, and corporate super profits being whisked off overseas. We've seen this over and over again. Instead, we can reduce demand, which will reduce our independence on oil, lead to cleaner air, healthier communities, lower carbon pollution and cheaper fuel bills for freight operators, while allowing our trucking industry to keep pace with the ongoing revolution in vehicle technology.

We, the Greens, released our electric vehicle policy in March this year. We've set out a path for 100 per cent of new light vehicle sales to be battery electric, plug-in hybrids, or fuel cell vehicles by 2030. We've been campaigning for decades for a dramatic increase in funding for public transport and cycling infrastructure, and an end to ideological commitment to funding toll roads, which has no effect on relieving congestion or improving our cities. We're calling for more freight on rail, for high-speed rail to reduce the need for intercity aviation and for the speedy implementation of tight, light vehicle fuel efficiency standards. Yet, as we saw in the budget this week, these are exactly the sorts of measures that the government has squibbed on. Not only have we essentially seen no action on reducing pollution from heavy vehicles; this week's budget has continued to lead us down the path of funding more and more polluting toll roads, which is only going to lead to a tangled web of tollways across our cities—more polluted air and more deaths from vehicle pollution.

Today we're taking action, as per our second reading amendment, to reduce pollution. We are expanding on the suite of real solutions that the Greens are putting forward to reduce Australia's oil dependence and transform our cities into healthy, livable places in which to live and thrive. We are calling for a determined government action to reduce carbon pollution and fuel consumption across our heavy vehicle fleet. There are plenty of countries that have been doing this. Japan has seen its CO2 and fuel consumption decline by approximately 1.2 per cent a year. China, the US and India have followed in its wake, and the European Union is deliberating on its preferred model as we speak. We've got to catch up with the rest of the world. It's not good enough for the government to sit on its hands and let the oil and gas companies and the big manufacturers set the agenda and standards for our transport sector.

The stamp duty exemptions which were contained in the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme were set up to drive improvement in the safety, environmental quality and efficiency of our heavy vehicle fleet. It's now clear that that program came up short in making those changes happen, but the core idea that the federal government should take the lead on building a cleaner and safer future for our children, our cities and our communities should not be lost with the repeal of this bill. I commend this bill to the Senate and I call on the chamber to support our second reading amendment, which would mean we would be moving ahead on getting cleaner cities that will benefit us all.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:39): I'd like to thank senators for their contributions. I indicate the government does not support the second reading amendment, but I commend the bill to the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ) (12:47): As no further amendments to the bill have been circulated, unless any senator wishes this bill to go into Committee of the Whole, I'll now move to the third reading.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (12:48): The Crimes Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme—Worker Screening) Bill 2018 facilitates access to criminal history data held by the Commonwealth for the purposes of conducting an NDIS worker screening check clearance. It's a bill that Labor both welcomes and supports. The change proposed in this bill enacts part of the Council of Australian Governments' decisions of December 2016 to implement a new quality and safeguards framework for the NDIS, which includes a commitment to work with states and territories to deliver nationally consistent worker screening for the NDIS.

Labor of course supported the establishment of a new quality and safeguards framework in the parliament last year. The aim of the NDIS worker screening policy is to protect people with a disability from harm and abuse. This bill will permit criminal history information to be disclosed and taken into account when assessing whether a person who works or seeks to work with a person with a disability poses a risk to such a person.

The Crimes Act 1914 of the Commonwealth states that people who have been convicted of a crime and have subsequently been pardoned or had their conviction quashed, or if their conviction has spent, are not required to disclose their criminal history. Currently, a small number of exceptions to this rule exist—for example, for those applying for a working-with-children check, or applying for employment with a law enforcement agency or an intelligence or security agency. This bill amends the Crimes Act to extend this exception to disclose criminal history to people who work or who seek to work with people with disability.

Of course, as the National Disability Insurance Scheme continues to roll out across Australia in the coming years, the number of disability service providers will increase. This growth is most notable in my own state of New South Wales, where the rollout is most advanced and where it will later this year reach full rollout. As we continue to see this growth in the NDIS, we need to make sure that the people taking these new jobs as part of the NDIS are thoroughly screened. This is a sensible reform that will go some way to improving the safety of people with disability.

Just this morning, we saw people on the front page of the Herald Sun with another tragic story of abuse against a young autistic boy outside a school in Melbourne. There was utterly appalling video of the boy being surrounded and punched by other young boys. Words cannot describe just how disgraceful this act of abuse was on this young boy with disability. Sadly, these shocking and harrowing cases of violence and abuse are far too often experienced, particularly by people with disability. They cannot be ignored.

We do need a royal commission into violence and abuse against people with disability so that we can bring about the systemic and lasting change that is needed. That is why, almost a year ago now, we announced that a Shorten Labor government would establish a royal commission into violence and abuse against people with disability. I again urge the Prime Minister to begin the work to establish a royal commission on this issue as quickly as possible.

Labor supports this particular bill because we support any action to protect people with disability from abuse, violence and neglect. Facilitating access to criminal history data held by the Commonwealth for the purposes of conducting an NDIS worker-screening check is an important safeguard in protecting people with disability. A nationally consistent worker screening check will make it more difficult for people with poor records in one jurisdiction from moving to another jurisdiction and continuing to place people with disability at risk of harm.

Labor welcomes this bill because we are serious about the safety and wellbeing of Australians, particularly Australians with disability. We continue to call on the Prime Minister to do the right thing and establish a royal commission into abuse and violence against people with disability as soon as possible.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (12:53): Disabled Australians experience discrimination and segregation every single day. The NDIS is an important reform that promotes the inclusion of disabled people within our society. It is also extremely important that the rights of people with disability are upheld. Violations of our human rights must end.

In 2015, the Community Affairs References Committee reported on the violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings. The fourth recommendation of this report was that the Australian government consider establishing a disability worker registration scheme, including nationally consistent pre-emptive screening. The bill we are debating today amends the Crimes Act 1914 to allow criminal history information to be disclosed and considered for the purposes of worker screening related to work with disabled persons within the NDIS. This bill is a precursor to the full worker screening registration proposal, which I hope we will be debating soon. The Australian Greens support the bill before us today and the action to protect disabled people from violence, abuse and neglect. Minister Tehan stated, in his second reading speech in the other place, that people with disability have the right to be protected from exploitation, violence and abuse. Disabled people also have the right to safety. We have the right to be free from exploitation, violence and abuse. It is important to consider both the right to safety and our right to be supported by the people we choose when considering such legislation. Any safeguard should serve to inform, rather than dictate, these choices.

The Behind closed doors report, which was produced by my good friend Samantha Connor, of People With Disabilities WA, and Ben Keely, of Developmental Disability WA, stated:

… it was not clear that many of the regulatory systems (like Clear/Vulnerable Persons Cards or workers blacklists) would be effective preventers of violence, abuse and neglect …

and that 'the implementation of some of these systems would negatively impact upon choice, control and autonomy' of disabled people and further segregate us from society. An emphasis on developmental safeguards, including institutional developmental safeguards, is what will prove to be most effective. It is also important to keep registration costs to a minimum, particularly for those who are young or who work with young people and already need to complete working-with-children checks, which cost more than $100. These fees could create barriers to workforce participation.

Finally, I would like to reiterate once again that these safeguards do not replace the need for a royal commission into violence and abuse against and neglect of people with disability, which was the only recommendation of the community affairs committee's report that was not adopted or actioned. I do not want to hear another good word from the government in relation to disabled Australians until they have taken action to establish that royal commission. Until that action has taken place your words ring hollow and reveal the emptiness of your sentiment. Act now so that we can be heard and justice can be done. Together we must create an accessible and inclusive future for all.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (12:57): I thank senators for their contributions and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (12:58): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

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

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (12:58): I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (ASIC Governance) Bill 2018. This bill amends the ASIC Act to provide the Governor-General with the discretion to appoint a second deputy chairperson of ASIC. We note that the government has also announced its intention to nominate Mr Daniel Crennan QC to this role. Labor supports an additional deputy chairperson. As the explanatory memorandum notes, amending the ASIC Act to provide for two deputy chairpersons will assist ASIC in operating as an effective and efficient regulator.

Senator Williams: We hope so!

Senator O'NEILL: We should talk about ASIC's budget too, Senator Williams. I understand ASIC have discovered this morning that they've got another cut from this government. But, with regard to this bill before us today, Senator Williams, we in the Labor team believe that this bill will provide greater flexibility for the commission to determine how it undertakes its oversight and other governance functions. As the explanatory memorandum notes, amending the ASIC Act to provide for two deputy chairpersons will assist ASIC in operating as an effective and efficient regulator. Having the second deputy chairperson will also support ASIC in engaging with its stakeholders to better communicate its role, its priorities and how its resources are allocated. In recent times, ASIC's role has been expanding. ASIC has new directions powers to strengthen its oversight of the new one-stop-shop dispute resolution body, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

We note that the government has also proposed that ASIC be responsible for the management of expected additional disclosures following reforms to whistleblowing laws. ASIC may soon also have new responsibilities for administering the new Asia Region Funds Passport regime. Given the shocking evidence that has been presented to the royal commission so far, it's clear that we absolutely need strong and effective financial regulation. Yet it was this government that actually cut ASIC's funding by $120 million in the 2014-15 budget. While I have been in the chamber this morning I've received by electronic communications an indication that there's been a further cut to the budget of ASIC. So you really have to question what on earth this government really thinks about what's going on at the top end of town with its reluctant entry into allowing a royal commission after two years of resisting it and after voting against it 25 times. Now here we are, supporting this bill to give further support by having a deputy chairperson appointed to ASIC, two days after the government's just cut ASIC's budget again. It simply doesn't make sense—unless you're the government, apparently; they say one thing and do another.

The government only moved to restore the funding after Labor called for a royal commission into the banking and financial services sector over two years ago, and even then it was just so that they could actually look like they were doing something whilst stubbornly resisting the royal commission. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison spent the last two years telling the Australian people that a royal commission was completely unnecessary. Those opposite had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Labor and the many victims of financial scandals to hold the royal commission. And I will acknowledge that Senator Williams was one of the first breakaways from that side to actually come and support it. In fact, the government spent around 600 days bitterly resisting the urgent need for a royal commission and, when the Prime Minister finally announced it after he either jumped or was pushed, he called it 'regrettable'.

Senator Williams: Nationals forced it.

Senator O'NEILL: Senator Williams is indicating that it was the Nationals who forced him to it.

The reality is that this is a government that even now, as it cuts the funding for ASIC, as it provides a bill here that will provide an additional deputy chairperson, is going to give a $17 billion tax cut to the banks who are before the royal commission.

The bill before us today will provide for an additional deputy chairperson for ASIC as Australia's corporate markets, financial services and consumer credit regulator. We need ASIC to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, and that, despite the clear deception that's practised by the government around their concern for the rights of Australians to have the banking sector operate in a fair and ethical way, is the reason that we will support this bill, because it does indeed provide the second deputy chairperson to ASIC.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:04): I thank senators for their contribution and I commend the Treasury Laws Amendment (ASIC Governance) Bill 2018 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (13:04): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:04): I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2018 on behalf of the opposition. I'm glad to be able to inform the chamber that the opposition will be supporting this bill. This is an omnibus criminal justice bill designed to address a number of inconsistencies and issues in our federal criminal law. The key focus of the bill is international crime cooperation—the way that we work with and assist other nations and international organisations to tackle crime and human rights abuses. This bill will expand the assistance we provide to the International Criminal Court and international war crimes tribunals.

The International Criminal Court brings some of the worst people in the world to justice—those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. International war crimes tribunals perform a similarly important role, trying those accused of committing atrocities and crimes against humanity during war, such as genocide, torture and rape. These bodies perform important work, protecting human rights and enforcing international criminal law. However, Australia's capacity to provide assistance to these bodies with their investigations and prosecutions is currently more limited than our capacity to assist foreign countries. The bill will improve Australia's work in this space by providing additional assistance to international war crimes tribunals and the International Criminal Court, further aligning the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act and implementing necessary changes relating to extradition and foreign evidence.

These changes will ensure that Australia can provide the International Criminal Court and international war crimes tribunals with the same level of formal and informal assistance that we can currently provide to foreign countries. Importantly, the safeguards which currently apply to the assistance we provide to foreign countries will also apply to any assistance we provide to the International Criminal Court and international war crimes tribunals. Labor welcomes these changes.

Another key area of reform in this bill relates to slavery. Most people think that slavery is a 19th century crime—a relic of the past. Unfortunately, slavery is alive and well in the 21st century. The Walk Free Foundation estimates that there are more than 40 million people trapped in slavery today. Although we live in a rich, free and democratic nation, an extraordinary 4,300 people are estimated to be trapped in slavery right here in Australia. It shocks me, it shocks the Australian Labor Party and it should shock every single person in this parliament. This bill will build on reforms bills that were enacted under Labor, including the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act of 2013 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Act of 2013. These bills were targeted at protecting victims of slavery and prosecuting the offenders of these awful crimes. They introduced new offences into the Criminal Code of forced labour, forced marriage, harbouring a person for the purposes of furthering the offence of trafficking and organ trafficking. They also introduced a range of protections for vulnerable witnesses.

Schedule 5 of this bill will amend the vulnerable witness act to clarify the offence of publishing any material that identifies or is likely to identify vulnerable witnesses or complainants without the leave of the court. This is an appropriate and sensible reform to protect victims who have often been subjected to violence or intimidation and who are reluctant to give evidence.

Schedule 6 of this bill will clarify and expand the operation of existing slavery offences and slavery-like offences in divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code. Debt bondage is the most common yet the least well-known form of modern slavery. It occurs when a person is forced to work in order to pay off a debt. Often they're tricked into working for little pay or, in some cases, even no pay, and then they're forced to put all their wages towards the repayment of their loan. People trapped in situations of debt bondage face intimidation, coercion and violence, if they try to leave.

Schedule 6 will expand the definition of 'debt bondage' to specifically cover the condition of a person whose personal services are pledged by another person. This often happens when a family member pledges the service of another family member to repay a debt. Schedule 6 will also move the debt bondage offence from division 271 of the Criminal Code to division 270. This will recognise debt bondage as one of the most significant forms of modern slavery. Anti-Slavery Australia, in their submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill, noted:

Women and children are particularly vulnerable to this form of exploitation, as they may be bonded as a result of the debt of an authoritative member of the family.

They further argued:

The extension of the definition of debt bondage in the Criminal Code will ensure that Australia has the tools to combat this grave abuse of human rights.

This bill will also address evidentiary issues relating to forced marriage. Forced marriage is absolutely an abuse of human rights. Often, the victims are young women or children directed into marriages against their will by their parents or family members. This bill will enable a trier of fact to take into account personal circumstances when determining whether a person was incapable of understanding the nature and effect of a marriage ceremony.

Labor welcomes these changes to our Criminal Code to strengthen our laws against slavery and slavery-like offences. However, strong laws alone will not stop slavery. Labor believes that we must work to prevent these crimes from occurring, we must work to identify victims already suffering in slavery or slavery-like conditions and we must prosecute the perpetrators of these horrific crimes. Australia's track record on slavery is disappointing. Although there are an estimated 4,300 people trapped in slavery in Australia, we only had three successful prosecutions for human-trafficking and slavery-related offences in 2016-17. Clearly, our enforcement approach is not working. We need more than just strong laws in our Criminal Code.

Last year, Labor committed to an Australian modern slavery act, which would require major Australian businesses to report on the steps they are taking to identify and respond to slavery in their supply chains. Unlike the government, Labor believes there should be penalties for companies who breach the act. There's no excuse for turning a blind eye to slavery. Labor has also committed to establishing an Australian independent anti-slavery commissioner. The commissioner would assist victims right here in Australia and work with authorities to improve our responses to these horrific crimes.

Finally, Labor believes we must adequately resource the Australian Federal Police to tackle these crimes. The Turnbull government has provided no guarantee that its enormous cuts to the Australian Federal Police will not affect our investigation and prosecution of slavery and slavery-like offences. The AFP are a critical element in our efforts in this space, and Labor believes that the AFP must be supported in the work that they do. This piece of legislation before us is a detailed bill which contains a large number of important changes to improve our criminal law. Labor has a strong track record on the issues dealt with in this bill. We believe it's important that our laws stay up to date to ensure that we tackle crime both in Australia and abroad. Labor supports this bill, and the many measures it contains, to improve our federal criminal laws.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:15): I thank senators for their contribution, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (13:15): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:15): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:16): I rise to support the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. As an island nation, it's vital that we accept and meet our shared responsibility to care for the health of our oceans—from our responsibility as individuals, taking care not to litter our beaches or to throw rubbish overboard from boats, to our shared responsibilities as members of our communities, ensuring we prevent harmful substances entering the oceans as run-off from our farms and sewers. And there is our responsibility as a nation: Australia must always meet its responsibilities to collaborate in the forums of the world to improve international maritime regulations relating to pollution. It is in this context that the Labor Party will support the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill.

This bill enacts Australia's international obligations regarding the way in which we treat pollution from ships. It puts the responsibility on shippers to classify and declare waste from their solid bulk cargos and undertake not to dump waste that is designated as dangerous to the environment. Further, it prohibits dumping of waste that is harmful to the environment in designated special areas, like the Great Barrier Reef, the Torres Strait, the Coral Sea and the Antarctic Zone.

The bill tightens the existing legislation to reflect Australia's commitments under the latest annexure of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, also known as MARPOL. MARPOL is a convention in the International Maritime Organization, and it came into effect on 1 March. The new rules classify pollution from ships as harmful if it poses an environmental threat. These are sensible changes. In a perfect world, we would never have to release any waste material into our oceans. However, we have to accept the reality that we do need to move cargo by sea and that this will inevitably involve the production of waste that will make its way into the ocean. This legislation, though, is a step forward because it bans the release of waste that is demonstrably harmful while allowing the release of relatively safer materials, so long as this is outside of areas that are designated as particularly sensitive.

This is a good outcome for Australia because, as an island nation, we move 99 per cent of our cargo by sea. Sea cargo is critical to our economic wellbeing because ships carry our mineral and agricultural exports to our customers around the world. But, at the same time, Australia has some of the most environmentally sensitive marine environments on the planet. These wonderful habitats attract tourists from around the world.

In the year to the end of February, 8.9 million overseas visitors entered Australia, and, between them, they spent $41.3 billion. Our tourism industry employs more than a million Australians, and we owe it to future generations to protect our environment. But we also owe it to ourselves to utilise these resources to create jobs and income. And the key in all of this is to get the balance right.

Another key interest for Australia in this bill is that the Antarctic region will also be designated as a special place. It's a sensitive environment and, in many respects, it remains unspoiled. Increasingly in recent years, cruise vessels have been taking tourists to the region. These provisions will reduce the tourism footprint by prohibiting vessels from releasing waste.

Australia has an excellent record when working with other nations in the world to improve international laws on pollution and maritime issues. Usually, our considerations in these areas have not been subject to partisan politics—and that is as it should be. This parliament has a responsibility to future generations to continue to play a central role in the protection of the environment. I commend this bill to the house.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:20): I thank senators for their contribution, and I commend the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (13:20): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:21): I rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment Service Providers Bill 2017. This bill would extend the operation of the safe harbour scheme set out in the Copyright Act 1968 to a broader range of service providers. Labor have long advocated for this change, and we've worked with the government to bring this bill forward.

The existing safe harbour scheme established by the Copyright Act protects carriage service providers—in particular, internet service providers such as Telstra and Optus—from the civil liability they would otherwise be exposed to for hosting or communicating material that infringes copyright. To be able to rely on this legal safe harbour created by the Copyright Act, the carriage service provider needs to demonstrate that they operate a scheme for removing copyright-infringing material if they are notified of such material by a rights holder.

This bill would extend that safe harbour scheme beyond carriage service providers to include education institutions through their administering bodies, including universities, schools, technical colleges, training bodies and preschools. It would also include libraries that either make their collection available to the public or are parliamentary libraries through their administering bodies. It would include archives through their administering bodies, including the National Archives of Australia and specified state archives, galleries and museums; key cultural institutions through their administering bodies, including specific archives and libraries that are not open to the public; and organisations assisting persons with a disability.

The extension of the safe harbour scheme pursuant to this bill is generally supported by rights holders and their peak groups because it provides a social good without undermining the commercial interests of content creators or their capacity to negotiate effectively with commercial enterprises for the distribution of their copyright materials. Labor supports this bill because it's founded on the principle that passive carriers with no control over the material carried on internet services should not be liable for copyright infringement, provided they take steps to remove infringing content when they are notified of its use.

Labor have consulted widely on this bill, and we support it because it will provide greater legal protections for our schools, universities, libraries and cultural institutions to operate efficiently in this digital age. At the same time, this bill balances the interests of right holders with those of important education and cultural institutions that will benefit from the extended protections provided under the expanded safe harbour scheme. This is in part because the entities protected by the expanded safe harbour scheme established by this bill do not benefit financially from use of content on their networks, and so these reforms, importantly, do not distort the commercial market.

In contrast, the more radical changes to our copyright laws supported by the Greens party in their dissenting report on this bill have the capacity to undermine the capacity of Australian artists, musicians, authors and other rights holders to negotiate viable commercial arrangements for the distributions of their work. The changes wanted by the Greens blithely ignore the serious concerns expressed by Australia's artists and creative industries, in favour of the arguments put forward by some of the world's most profitable companies, in particular US tech giants. The US scheme of massively expanded safe harbour that the Greens have argued we should adopt here in Australia has been the subject of ongoing criticism in the United States and, in fact, is currently being reviewed by US lawmakers.

Given the divergence of stakeholder views, the complexity of the issues being considered and the current review of the safe harbour scheme in the United States, Labor does not believe that we should be charging ahead with reforms that have the potential to cause great damage to Australian artists, to our creative industries and to our culture. Labor supports the bill before us today as a balanced and reasonable approach to copyright reform, and we'll continue our consultations with stakeholders on whether further changes to the legal safe harbour scheme under the Copyright Act may be desirable.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:25): The Australian Greens welcome the progress that the Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017 makes in bringing Australian copyright law up to date and in line with international best practice. In order to expedite the passage of this bill we have supported it as non-controversial, although we would like to see further consideration and review of Australian copyright law in the near future.

The Australian Greens are strongly supportive of both the creative and the innovative industries in Australia. These fields are increasingly overlapping as digital distribution becomes more and more prevalent, which creates both opportunities and risks for content creators and service providers. Currently, Australian universities, libraries, schools, digital innovators, cultural institutions and tech companies provide online services without the benefit of the same safe harbour as their equivalents overseas. This bill goes to addressing a portion of this issue, and we welcome this progress.

A safe harbour provides protections for service providers that make information and culture available online where they do not control, initiate or direct users' activities online. This bill defines 'service provider' to be a carriage service provider; an organisation assisting persons with a disability; or a body administering a library, archive, cultural institution or educational institution. However, the safe harbour protection is not extended to digital innovators or content service providers. There was substantial support for this further extension of safe harbours expressed in submissions to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. They came from digital innovators, tech companies, government bodies, libraries and independent advocates. There was also concern expressed that the defined service providers in the proposed legislation would in effect not be protected due to a lack of protection for providers carrying out activities on behalf of service providers, such as third-party providers contracted by universities. Various submissions also noted that the proposed safe harbour scheme fails to comply with the Australia-United States free trade obligations to provide liability limitations for service providers for copyright infringement.

These issues notwithstanding, the Australian Greens welcome the progress made in this bill, including the issues raised in this speech, along with the consideration of fair use and geoblocking. We will continue to work to ensure that the interests of both the creative and the innovative sectors and industries are protected, and we do not believe that these two things are mutually exclusive. Our future will be made brighter by Australian creators and innovators working together to deliver Australian content to the world. These two industries are fundamental to future work and play in our country, and the more support and protection we provide the more we are investing in jobs, particularly for young Australians. I thank the chamber for its time.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:29): I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017. The addendum responds to concerns raised by the Environmental and Communications Legislation Committee. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ) (13:30): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:31): This afternoon we are debating the Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018. The purpose of this legislation is to correct largely typographical errors that have occurred in acts as a result of drafting and clerical mistakes. The bill has a further purpose of removing obsolete and spent legislation from Commonwealth statute books. We note that it's essentially a routine housekeeping bill to keep our statute books up to date.

I cannot help but note the lack of fanfare around this bill. If I cast my mind back to the way in which the Abbott government dealt with routine updating of typographic errors or spent legislation, their approach was markedly different. The Senate would remember the great farce that was the Abbott government's multiple repeal days. We heard feverish talk of a bonfire of regulations, with tremendous congratulations coming from the other side and much boasting on each of its two repeal days in 2015. But I see no such boasting now. This should be just the ordinary business of government.

The government claimed at the time that they would achieve somewhere between $1 billion and $2.1 billion worth of savings in compliance costs. This, as with so many of the Abbott and Turnbull governments' proclamations, was completely fanciful and disingenuous. The Australian people could be forgiven for thinking that the statute revision bills and amending act repeal bills of 2015 heralded a new global age of bold reform. Yet, on the contrary, they provided for nothing more than the routine and somewhat mundane work of our parliament.

Every year the Australian parliament passes these bills, which correct typos, update drafting and improve formatting and numbering, among other things. Amending act repeal bills simply remove redundant laws from the statute books which are no longer in force because they have served their purpose of amending or repealing other acts of parliament. The very idea that meaningful deregulation was ever achieved by repealing amending acts which had not been enforced for decades was nonsense and highly misleading.

We on this side of the chamber, in the Labor Party, believe in appropriate and necessary regulation. Where there's a clear need for deregulation, Labor, naturally, supports it. But this deregulation must be meaningful and, unlike our opponents, we will not cast the routine work of parliament as an exercise in massive deregulation.

Labor governments have successfully provided sweeping competition reform, the floating of the dollar and the slashing of tariffs—that's meaningful deregulation. We've never shied away from removing regulations which don't serve a worthwhile purpose. However, we do believe, unlike the government, that we need regulation. Good regulation protects consumers and good regulation protects workers and labour standards. Employers and their employees depend on good regulation to create a prosperous, harmonious working environment. We certainly need good regulation to protect our environment. But we've never supported regulation for regulation's sake. So, when the government puts forward anodyne, but necessary, measures like those in this bill, we're clearly very happy to support them.

The amendments in this bill are intended to enhance readability, facilitate interpretation and administration, and promote consistency across the Commonwealth statute book. They're minor and technical in nature, and make either no change or only minor changes to the substance of our laws. We have before us six schedules. Schedule 1 corrects errors in five principal acts and makes minor technical improvements to clarify the text of the law. Schedule 2 amends four acts to replace outdated references to 'the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia' with references to 'Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand'. Schedule 3 to the bill makes amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 which are consequential to the enactment of the Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) Act 2015. Schedule 4 repeals 22 obsolete references to the Crown in right of Norfolk Island, reflecting the abolition of that body politic on 1 July 2016. Schedule 5 repeals spent provisions in two acts and schedule 6 repeals 40 amending acts which are now obsolete.

This bill, like many similar bills that have come before successive parliaments, does not set the world alight. This bill is a necessary part of our administrative tasks in this parliament, and the Labor Party supports it. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:37): I want to thank Senator Pratt for her contribution. I apologise to her for not giving this bill the due recognition that it deserved. We are, unfortunately, as a government, guilty of occasionally hiding our light under a bushel. So, on behalf of the coalition, I'd like to apologise, but I absolutely, with great enthusiasm and vigour, commend the Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ) (13:38): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:39): Labor in this place today supports the Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017. The bill introduces two offences into the Criminal Code Act 1995 and prohibits false representations that a person is a Commonwealth body or acting on behalf of a Commonwealth body. I note in this respect the comments of my own colleague, the shadow Attorney-General Mr Dreyfus in the other place, that this bill is a near mirror provision to those protections relating to impersonation of a Commonwealth officer. Together with the offences established, this bill outlines penalties of two years imprisonment for the primary offence and a maximum of five years for the aggravated offence.

Labor supports these protections in order to provide faith to the Australian people that the information distributed by Commonwealth agencies is from a genuine source and can be relied upon. It is vital for our Australian democracy that the system of democratic debate be not only be fair and balanced but also seen to be fair and balanced. The public's confidence in the political system and in political communication itself is a key tenet for maintaining a healthy democracy.

Earlier this year provisions that Labor supported have come into force, providing the Australian Electoral Commission a greater discretion over the authorisation of material. We trust the AEC as an impartial and independent body and indeed as the cornerstone of our democracy. We've always sought to improve disclosure, transparency and integrity surrounding our political system and therefore we're here today to support these reforms.

That being said, it is, however, disappointing that this bill has been introduced purely as a response to the prime ministerial dummy-spit on election night in 2016. No member or senator in this place should be fooled. We know that, following the Prime Minister's tantrum, which blamed everyone but himself, he sought to construct a conspiracy to explain the lacklustre election result back in 2016. So I feel for government ministers here and in the other place who've had to prosecute the argument that it was Labor's defence of health care and Medicare that cost the Prime Minister his sanity on that night in July 2016.

We remain concerned on this side that, in order to explain the outburst of the Prime Minister, the government has introduced legislation out of step with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. We remain concerned as to the method and scale of the government's overreach in relation to such issues as this. However, here today I clearly say we support these provisions to satisfy not the government but the Australian people that there is at least one party in this place that will act in their interests alone. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (13:42): I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017. As colleagues would know, this bill creates two new criminal offences. It imposes penalties of up to two years in prison for people who engage in conduct that results in, or is reasonably capable of resulting in, a false representation that the person is a Commonwealth body or is acting on behalf of or with the authority of the Commonwealth body. It also introduces an aggravated offence with a penalty of up to five years where a person falsely represents that the person is a Commonwealth body, acts on behalf of or with the authority of the Commonwealth body and with the intention of obtaining a gain causing a loss or influencing the exercise of a public duty or function.

This bill, at least in part, is borne out of government's anger about the so-called 'Mediscare' text messages from Labor during the 2016 election campaign. However, with typical artlessness, the Liberals are again trying to use this parliament to pursue their political opponents. Many of us remember Prime Minister Turnbull's absolute fury at those texts, expressed in his speech on election night in 2016, when he roared at his supporters, 'No doubt the police will investigate'. The matter was referred to the AFP, and no Commonwealth offences were identified. In their frustration, the government have come out wildly swinging a legislative sledgehammer trying to crack a tiny little walnut. The consequences of this bill are likely to be far further-reaching than criminalising text messages such as the so-called 'Mediscare' texts and similar acts.

The wild executive overreach of this bill introduced by the supposedly freedom-loving Liberal Party will unreasonably burden freedom of speech and freedom of expression in Australia. In particular, this bill has the potential to see political satirists imprisoned for up to five years for doing what they do best: making us laugh and making us think. The bill creates an exemption for conduct engaged in solely for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes, which leads to some very reasonable questions. What separates genuine satire from non-genuine satire? And what if a person's work achieves more than solely being satire? For example, what if it's also educational? This unclear drafting comes from a government which has undermined and attacked the arts every step of the way.

During a previous Senate estimates hearing I challenged then Attorney-General Brandis on the chilling effect this bill would have on satirists. What we learnt was that we cannot trust the protection of freedom of expression to a government that, firstly, obviously has no sense of humour and, secondly, has an extreme sensitivity to criticism. I presented the Attorney-General in estimates with a satirical and heavily modified Commonwealth coat of arms produced by The Juice Media in their video series Honest Government Adverts. The heads of the kangaroo and the emu on this heavily modified coat of arms had been replaced with surveillance cameras. Australian was spelt 'Australien'. And the words 'not the real logo' were even included in the graphic. I then asked the Attorney whether he thought that the logo would be considered genuine satire under the act. He responded, 'It's only clearly satire if you study it.' He also emphasised that the question of whether the logo was genuine satire or not would be 'a matter for the courts'.

The question is: is the Liberal Party so cavalier in sending satirists to the courts that it does not already acknowledge the ruthless way in which it treats those who challenge it? While it may seem far-fetched that the Liberals or a government agency may pursue a satirist because of their work, we know that this is already happening. Five days before this bill was produced to the parliament, Giordano Nanni, the producer of The Juice Media's Honest Government Adverts, received an email from the national symbols officer asking that 'The Juice Media productions do not use the Australian government logo, to avoid The Juice Media productions being mistaken for Australian government material'.

Where does this leave satire in Australia? Does it mean that figures such as Shaun Micallef, The Juice Media and The Chaser team, as well as upcoming comedians, will have to think twice before they crack jokes lest they find themselves on the stand or in the slammer? As the government's then Attorney-General put it, 'The test of what genuine satire is will be, as I said, up to the courts.' Australian common law has never previously had to deal with defining genuine satire, meaning that satirists will be in the dark as to the potential limits of their jokes until a body of common law has been established.

Put yourself in the shoes of a young comedian contemplating writing a skit where she impersonates the Department of Finance. She knows her jokes are funny, she knows they'll make people laugh, she knows they'll make people think and she knows her jokes are relevant to current events. If you were in her position and this law were in place, would you think twice about telling your jokes or performing your skit? If a public servant or this humourless government took offence to the skit, the comedian could be taken to the courts. Even if she were taken to the courts and her work was found to be genuine satire, she would have been dragged through the legal system. She would have had to pay for a legal team, give up her time and fear imprisonment all for the sake of her art and her work. If I were a comedian, I'd probably write a different skit, and this is what I mean by a chilling effect.

Make no mistake, the government knows exactly what it's doing here. The government last year moved to change and water down the protections against race based hate speech by changing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, all under the false banner of freedom of speech. That is rampant hypocrisy. Of course, watering down 18C was about making it easier for people in Australia to be racists. That's what it was about. It had nothing to do with freedom of speech. This bill puts the lie to the government's claim to being the great defenders of freedom of speech in this parliament and this country. They are anything but. This legislation will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. People will think twice before they engage in satire or art, and our cultural landscape will be significantly the poorer for it. As I said, to add to the outlandishness of this legislation, it's been dreamed up and introduced by the self-anointed freedom warriors of the Liberal Party.

There's another example I'd like to raise about the hypocrisy of the government claiming that they are warriors in the cause of freedom of speech. The evidence is this: the government's attempts to take charity status away from environmental NGOs, their clamping down on public servants' social media use and their weird, obsessive vendettas against figures such as the former President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs. Those who crow the loudest about free speech in this place seem to be the first to call in the lawyers and threaten defamation suits against those who hold them to account. This bill makes one thing abundantly clear: the same government that fought so hard for your right to be a bigot is fighting hard against your right to crack a joke at its expense.

This bill is yet another in this government's ongoing campaign to chip away at human rights in this country and to clamp down on political dissent and civil society. It shows the great need that Australia has for a charter of rights. We are the only liberal democracy in the world that doesn't have a charter of rights, either on our statute books or in our Constitution. The rights and freedoms that our people currently enjoy are the result of wars, hard-won campaigns and community activism. Yet, since taking office, this government has been steadily eroding our rights, our liberties and our freedoms. We can see it in the metadata laws. We can see it in the disastrous Northern Territory intervention. We can see it in the degradation of the environment, through allowing projects like the Adani Carmichael mine to pollute our environment, destroy watertables and threaten the future of our farmers, and, of course, in the ongoing torture on Manus Island and Nauru of refugees and people seeking asylum. This government is made up of human rights criminals.

Without a charter of rights, it's simply too easy for the Liberals—unfortunately joined in this case by Labor—and the corporates to take our freedoms away and to trample on our rights and liberties. When bills like this come before parliament, it's a reminder to all of us that cherished rights such as the right to freedom of expression can be all too easily undermined by the Liberal Party—today, unfortunately and disappointingly, joined by the Labor Party on this bill—without the safeguards a charter of rights would represent. The Greens are committed to a charter of rights for Australia that will protect all Australians from the ongoing erosion of the rights that they enjoy.

While the Liberals may pretend that this bill intends to only outlaw acts such as the now infamous 'Mediscare' texts, it is clear that they welcome the ambiguity around the definition of 'satire' in this bill and the chilling effect it will have on satirists and comedians. Despite most submissions regarding this bill being critical of the wording 'genuine satire' for the very reasons I've outlined today, the government has not moved to amend the bill. It's a very fair and safe assumption to make that that is because they want outfits like The Juice Media and many others to think twice before they satirise this government. The chilling effect on free speech, and the significant impact on Australia's cultural landscape, that this bill will create is so detrimental that the Greens will strongly oppose it.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (13:55): I want to make a brief contribution towards this debate on the Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017, as chairman of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which conducted an inquiry into the bill. Most of the other speakers have gone through the bill in some detail, so I won't. I will say that the committee carefully considered the information provided by all of the submitters, to which Senator McKim referred—that is, that the proposed offence may violate Australia's human rights obligations; that it goes beyond its stated intention; that there may be unintended consequences, such as limiting freedom of speech and political satire; and that exemptions should be unambiguous. The committee carefully considered all of those submissions and the sorts of things Senator McKim spoke about. The committee weighed these concerns with the fact that the proposed offences almost mirror the current offences for impersonating a Commonwealth official, including the form in which the proposed exemption has been articulated.

Additionally, the committee notes—and this is very important—that the human rights committee, which looked into the bill, and the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which is a Labor majority committee, reported that they had no scrutiny or human rights concerns in relation to this amendment. Ultimately, the committee was of the view that the bill is both proportionate and necessary, and the committee was able to recommend that the bill be passed. I wish to, as chairman of the committee, thank the committee secretariat and, indeed, all of those who took the time to make a submission to the committee. The committee, obviously, supports the bill. I support the bill.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) (13:56): I commend the bill to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill be read a second time.