The PRESIDENT (10:01): I table for the information of senators a judgement made in the High Court on 22 November this year affirming the power of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services to summon witnesses. The judgement also reaffirmed the validity of the parliament's contempt powers and noted the extensive protections afforded witnesses before committees through the Senate's privilege resolutions, which generally apply to such committees. I table the information for the record and for senators.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (10:03): I present the 172nd report of the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges, entitled The disposition of materials seized under warrant.

Ordered that the report be adopted.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (10:04): by leave—I'd like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate about a return to order relating to notice of motion 1204, requesting that the Minister representing the Prime Minister produce by 10 am today, the 26th, all documents relating to the application and the decision to award government funding to Gretals Australia. Could the minister explain why the documents haven't been provided?

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:05): I believe a response was provided. There you go. I certainly responded to it. It was received by the President's office on 23 November, and I table it now.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (10:05): by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I draw the Senate's attention to the government's response to this return to order. In relation to this motion for a return to order moved by me and agreed to by the Senate on Wednesday, 14 November, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, has indicated that the government is not able to respond to the request for documents concerning Gretals Australia, claiming that the return to order was not specific enough, in that the government didn't understand what the word 'application' meant, what 'decision' meant or what the documents were that we were referring to, and that it was unclear what the time frame was. So we have a real Sir Humphrey Appleby response from the government when it's quite clear that, in terms of the context of the matter that's before the Senate, the member for Dunkley, Mr Chris Crewther, is a shareholder of a company with fewer than 25 shareholders which received a $50,000 grant from the government.

On previous returns to order, I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate to provide all the documents relating to the matter, and this particular matter was admitted from that original return to order, so a subsequent return to order had to be dealt with. It was in the context that I had asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology about this $50,000 grant, and it was indicated that the reason the government was not willing to refer to that is that the application for this money had been withdrawn. The application in question was the application for moneys under the Global Connections Fund, which was an initiative of the Australian government under the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which is funded by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, which is the basis of the question actually asked of the minister and was, in fact, referred to by the member for Dunkley himself in the House of Representatives on 23 October 2017, when, of course, he revealed that the moneys had been received.

Of course, subsequently, the minister at the time, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, also referred to this grant in a press release. In fact, if I recall rightly, the grant under the Global Connections Fund had been referred to on two occasions. It was referred to in a list published by the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering on their website, with associated paperwork identifying the grant, identifying the program and identifying the department of industry as the source of that money. And, of course, it was referred to in a copy downloaded on 2 November of this year. However, when we returned to that website on 13 November this year, that reference had been removed. It struck me as passing strange that this had occurred, and I'm wondering why this concealment occurred. It is apparent on all of these various public references that a $50,000 grant had been received by Gretals, a company with less than 25 shareholders of which the member for Dunkley had been a shareholder. This raised questions about section 44—that is, the constitutional prohibition on someone becoming an MP or senator if they have a pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth. Given the clear statements by the government, by the minister himself on a number of occasions, by the department, by the body that was actually undertaking this work for the department, the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, and by the member himself, I want to know why all of those references do not appear to constitute a confirmation that the moneys have been received. And why was the website changed sometime between 2 November and 13 November? That's why I think the Senate is entitled to these documents.

Minister Cormann, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, has chosen to call me a bush lawyer for asking questions about the member for Dunkley's eligibility to sit as an MP. Minister Cormann doesn't deny the facts in this matter, but he does try to evade the obvious questions that arise about whether this grant has been issued and at what point this grant was issued. And then he sought to talk about another grant—an ARC grant, which was made to the University of Melbourne. They are, of course, entirely different matters under different programs. The grant under the Global Connections Fund, which Mr Crewther has received, was referred to specifically by the member himself. The government, of course, says, 'That was just a mistake.' If that was a mistake, it's the same mistake the minister himself made on, I would suggest, two occasions. If the minister made the mistake, so did the department and so did the academy. I find it extraordinary that the government continues to duck and weave on this issue when it's clear there is much more to be explained about this $50,000—when it was received, whether or not an application was rejected, or, more to the point, whether or not it was withdrawn, which is what I think the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science put to this chamber when this matter was presented in question time in the last sitting period. I think we are entitled to answers to these questions.

The government's explanation on these matters demonstrates a slipperiness that really can't be explained by this flippant Sir Humphrey Appleby approach to politics—by suggesting that the order does not specify what the application was or provide sufficient detail of the decision that we're referring to or suggest the limit of the provenance of the documents that were being sought under the terms of this return to order. Senator Cormann asks what time frame applies. These are the sorts of devious means by which a government seeks to avoid accountability for what is a perfectly straightforward matter, a matter which has been the subject of quite considerable public interest. The government, of course, is vulnerable in the other place because it's suggested that there is an issue of confidence. The member concerned has himself raised these matters. The government now understands that, with its minority status, it simply can't behave in this way in the House of Representatives, let alone in the Senate. And I think the government is now trying to avoid answering some pretty basic questions.

I think the government should respond properly. If necessary, we'll move another return to order, and I trust the government will find that a little easier to comply with, because the answers are very, very clear. The government should provide the documents, which will reveal what actually happened, given the statements that were made by the previous minister, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, by the department, by the academy and by the member himself, all of which suggest that a grant of $50,000 under the Global Connections Fund was, in fact, issued by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science to a Dr Christopher Richards for medical technologies and pharmaceuticals for the purposes of combatting resistance—normal and natural compounds for use in animal health—in China. It was an Australian company working in China.

That's the circumstance, Minister, and I would've thought you would've been properly briefed on this, rather than being required to come in here and utter the nonsense that you've been asked to and issuing a letter such as you've been required to, when, in fact, the evidence is very, very clear that the government itself is now seeking to hide the facts in this matter.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:16): Firstly, the government, in this, as in all other matters, prides itself in being open and transparent. But it is true, as Senator Carr indicated, that his motion for the order of production of documents in relation to the matters he has raised was very poorly drafted, and a very poorly drafted motion which is not clear about what it is that he is actually seeking on behalf of the Labor Party makes it very difficult to respond. However, in an abundance of helpfulness, and having made assumptions about what it is that Senator Carr was seeking—and I note that Senator Carr failed to read the material part of the letter that I wrote to Senator Ryan, the President of the Senate—I just point out to the Senate that, in relation to both grants that were raised in the public debate, which he references, I have provided very explicit advice to the Senate.

I've pointed to the response to the Senate on 13 November by Minister Canavan which, in relation to the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, has confirmed that no funds were paid from the Global Connections Funds to Gretals. That is not something that Senator Carr chose to quote when referencing the letter I sent to the Senate. The advice by Minister Canavan to the Senate on 13 November was very explicit, and I will repeat it:

… the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering has confirmed that no funds were paid from the Global Connections Fund to Gretals.

My letter also points out that the Australian Research Council grant that has been referred to in media reports and on which previous questions had been based—and this was another grant which had been referenced in public reporting when it comes to Gretals—is a grant to the University of Melbourne. I refer the Senate to my letter on 12 November, which was also copied to Senator Carr. That grant was not a grant to any company. Under the relevant grant program, universities do partner with the private sector on research projects, but that is the situation.

If Senator Carr wants to submit a further motion which is more precise and more direct and better drafted, then of course the government will do what we always do, and that is respond openly and transparently to the best of our ability.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:18): I also rise to take note of the reasons for the government not fully complying with this order to produce documents. In fact, Senator Carr's motion calling for all documents regarding the application and decision to award government funding to Gretals Australia Pty Ltd could not be clearer. It is not for this place, necessarily, to have to decide specifically, in each and every way, who, in fact, issued this money in order to ask this place a question, because it is the right of this Senate to hold the government to account and to ask them questions. If they have made public statements about giving grants, about giving money, then they should not be hiding who and where that money came from and how. This chamber may not always know the so-called origin of a grant—or any other decision that this government might speak about—but we should not be precluded from asking the questions. So it is, frankly, absurd for the leader of this chamber to come back with weasel words about not specifying what the application refers to, or what decision it refers to, or the documents that are requiring production—because that is exactly why we asked the question. The government is being nothing other than evasive here.

Why are they being evasive? The issues behind this are very clear. The member for Dunkley, Mr Chris Crewther, is a shareholder in a company with fewer than 25 shareholders, and it was announced that this company received a $50,000 grant from the Commonwealth. This is why we're seeking answers to this question. The company, Gretals Australia, is the one referred to in Senator Carr's motion. It is a company that develops pharmaceuticals and medical technologies. Mr Crewther, the member for Dunkley, said that his company had in fact received this money. His admission is in the Hansard of the House of Representatives. This is a grave question for him and for the government's majority in the other place, because, as senators know, there is a constitutional prohibition on any senator or MP having a pecuniary interest in an agreement with the public service of the Commonwealth other than as a member of a company with more than 25 shareholders. So is it any wonder that the Leader of the Government in the Senate wants to be blissfully unaware of what the application refers to, or what the decision is, or to even recognise that what Senator Carr has raised in this place is a legitimate question that should and must be answered.

There are clear questions as to whether such a grant would, in fact, cause Mr Crewther to be a member of the other place. The grants were included in the list of recipients published by the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering in August last year, and Senator Carr referred in this place to the list of those grants. But we've seen—somehow, miraculously—that Gretals Australia were no longer included on that list, which is why Senator Carr has asked for these documents to be tabled. What led to this? What is being concealed? Was the grant allocated? Why was it withdrawn and when? Was its withdrawal something to do with Mr Crewther's eligibility? The government says that Mr Crewther was mistaken in saying the $50,000 had been received. Apparently Senator Sinodinos, who was then the industry minister, was also mistaken. How do we know that? Was the money received? Was it given back? Was his department mistaken?

I commend Senator Carr for raising this very important issue this morning. All relevant documents should be tabled before the Senate. The weasel words coming from the Leader of the Government in the Senate in relation to this matter are purely an attempt to paper over the political problem that the government has.

The government understands very well what this matter is in regard to. They understand it very well. But instead they come back with the weasel words, 'Does not specify what the decision refers to', 'It's unclear to which time frame the order applies,' and, 'What application does it refer to?' You have to go away and figure those things out in the public interest. We and Senator Carr have a right to ask these questions, because we may not always know which grant it was or where it was. But, frankly, Senator Carr does well know—he's made that very clear—and the government knows too. These weasel words won't get you through the significant problems in failing to be transparent around the grant made to Gretals Australia, the grant made where money was apparently received—but was mistaken. Was the money received? We don't know, but we have a right to know.

We know that in November this year Senator Cormann alleged that there were bush lawyers asking questions about Mr Crewther's eligibility to sit as an MP. Bush lawyer or not, this place has a right to the answers to these questions. It is a legitimate question if this money was given and received at any point in time—or given and then given back—this remains entirely unclear to this place. The simple fact is that the government has not denied the facts presented by the opposition in pointing out the problems with this grant and the very real challenge it creates to Mr Chris Crewther's constitutional eligibility to be a member of the other place.

Senator Cormann claimed that the grant had not gone to Gretals but to the University of Melbourne; but, as Senator Carr made clear, that is an entirely different grant. It is not the grant from Global Connections Fund that Mr Crewther referred to in his statements to the other place last year. Nothing has been said or done here that resolves his connection to this grant. The question remains very clearly about his eligibility to sit in that place. That is the core issue here.

The government can obfuscate all it likes with weasel words like, 'We don't even know what grant you're referring to.' It is your obligation to know. You are refusing to acknowledge these issues and to release the documents—and you know very well what they are—that would clarify these issues. You can duck and weave all you want, but it's very clear why Senator Cormann and his colleagues would be so anxious about this issue. I continue to call on the government to supply the documents that have been requested in the order to produce documents.

Question agreed to.

Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (10:29): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2018.

There are things in this life that transcend partisan politics. Even though the matters we debate in this chamber are often of great importance to the lives of Australians, it is rarely the case that what we debate is life or death to most people in an immediate sense. This bill is in the rare category of being of immediate concern to all Australians no matter what their politics.

We all watched with great distress as the reports of drought-affected farmers filtered into our electorate inboxes and onto our televisions. The sight of dying cattle and desperate owners and staff touched all of us deeply. We have also seen fire and flood on a regular basis and endured the consequences of global financial crises.

These hardships, though tough, often bring out the best in Australians. Within moments of hearing that our compatriots are in need, the spirit of mateship kicks in, leading to private donations, fundraising events and no shortage of offers to help. Australians are generous people, it is heartwarming to see, and long may the spirit of philanthropy reign in this land.

But these hardships ought not be left solely to ad hoc support. Nor should they remain in the political sphere of a sitting government to decide if, how and when such support should be offered to an industry or a community.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2018 calls for the creation of a cross-party joint committee to assist in the support and reconstruction of Australian rural and manufacturing industries in times of crisis. The Australia Fund would have the ability to provide emergency and ongoing drought, flood and bushfire relief. It could loan money to businesses, act as a guarantor for loans, capitalise or waive interest, purchase existing bank loans and assume control of relevant property of the business for a specified time. In this way, the fund would be designed to enable businesses to continue operations to earn revenue, employ workers and pay taxes, rather than being prematurely wound up. This would support communities affected by natural disasters for the long term.

In order that the committee may deal with what is needed in Australian communities, it is intended that the committee would undertake hearings in all capital cities and major rural centres and specifically examine the impact on rural Australia of ongoing drought and global market price fluctuations for primary industry produce.

The committee's terms of reference would also include reviewing existing bankruptcy and insolvency laws, with the aim of introducing legislation designed to assist companies to trade through difficult times, rather than be closed down. The existing taxation laws relating to bankruptcy would also be reviewed. The possible introduction of the equivalent to the United States chapter 11 provisions would also be investigated.

The committee is designed to be as representative as possible, so, as well as having two government and two opposition members from both houses, it would also have two minor party or Independent members from both houses. At the completion of its inquiry the committee would table before parliament a detailed report of its findings and recommendations.

I have said before in this chamber that Australia is truly a blessed country. Not only are our natural resources bountiful and our land fruitful, but our people are generous and kind. In supporting this bill, senators will be able to give relief to those who suffer as a result of events beyond their control above the party political landscape, and direct it to those that all Australians see the need to support for the good of all. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (10:34): I thank Senator Burston for bringing on for debate the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2018, and I appreciate what Senator Burston has said today with regard to the intent behind the introduction of the bill—what it does and how he believes it will benefit Australians who are doing it tough. As Senator Burston outlined for all of us here and for those listening, the bill would set up a parliamentary committee to consider the matters relating to relief and support for those manufacturing and regional businesses that would be impacted by natural disasters or global economic events and allow these businesses to continue to operate through these adverse circumstances, whatever they may be. Obviously, there are a great number of events that might fall into the category we're talking about here. Natural disasters come in all shapes and forms and, indeed, sizes these days, and with very little warning as well, and they have many, many flow-on and knock-on consequences for many regional communities across the country. Additionally, when we talk about the economic factors, events like world global financial crises, or even local issues, such as commodity prices et cetera—those things have an impact. I'm not quite sure whether all of those things are covered by this bill, having a look at the functions of the committee and of course the definitions relating to the term 'crisis'. But that's something I'll come to a bit later on.

This Australia Fund that would be set up, should a parliamentary inquiry run its course and recommend that the fund be set up and should a government then give effect to those recommendations, would provide a range of various mechanisms to support businesses, as Senator Burston outlined: loans, interest waivers and financial grants, either through industry bodies or directly to individual businesses, obviously taking into account the specific circumstances of the situation the fund would be dealing with. Indeed, Senator Burston also mentioned that the committee would look at assessing whether bankruptcy and insolvency laws could be or should be relaxed as another means of trying to assist businesses get through these tough times, largely—in fact almost always—not of their own doing.

It is important though, I think, to reflect on the fact that the parliament—not this one but the one that preceded the one we are now in—inquired into a very, very similar matter, a similar bill, to assist businesses with the same sorts of issues. I think it was chaired by Dr Andrew Laming and had a number of hearings across a number of cities across the country, including Hobart. I'll turn to some of the evidence that was given to that inquiry, particularly at the Hobart hearing, from a number of industry bodies and the like a little later on. I think it's important to point out that, given this parliament—or at least the preceding parliament—has inquired into a virtually identical issue previously and given that the matter has been discharged, the parliament, with the limited time we have before us between now and whenever an election may occur, should spend its time wisely. Reconsidering the same issue, in effect the same terms of reference, would not be a good use of time. Particularly when it comes to issues of urgency like this, dealing with natural disaster relief—things like drought and other types of natural disaster—I think Australians want the government to just get on with it.

I'm all for trying to restore the Australian people's faith in politicians, but I don't think having another parliamentary inquiry into an issue of such significance, when one has already been conducted, is a great way of trying to get an outcome on this issue. I think a government, perhaps with the input of other senators and other political parties, is better off dealing directly with the communities affected and understanding directly what they need, not through a parliamentary inquiry but just by getting out of this building, getting out of our Senate and joint committees, and going and talking to people. I think it's a novel approach, but it's one that does seem to yield results, particularly in places like Tasmania.

The previous inquiry did go to a number of issues that were cited as mechanisms for support already in place for regional communities and businesses that do suffer and face the consequences of these disasters, both environmental and economic. Of the three hearings that were held throughout the country, in Canberra, Melbourne and, of course, Tasmania, the parliament heard from peak bodies, including the National Farmers' Federation, AUSVEG, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council and also experts in disaster relief and recovery, including the Tasmanian Bushfire Recovery Taskforce, who had a lot of work to do following the 2013 bushfires in south-east Tasmania. The committee also took evidence from public service officials from a number of government departments and, indeed, a number of individual businesses. The committee received around 18 submissions.

Going back to that point, during the conduct of that inquiry, about a degree of evidence provided around programs and initiatives already on offer to support Australian communities, individuals and businesses, we have things, as I mentioned already. There are programs to support those suffering the impact of the drought that this country faces. There's the $5 billion Drought Future Fund that's been set up, that will, over the next 10 years, grow to the value of $5 billion, noting that drought relief and dealing with environmental conditions is dynamic and an ever-changing occurrence that is sadly becoming more common. We need to just get on, hit the ground and support people with the these programs, rather than talk about them and rather than reprosecute the issues in a parliamentary inquiry. We need to get out and actually provide the support and the resources necessary. Of course, there's always room for improvement. People who want the best for their communities and who are on the ground, who run programs like this, will always listen to that feedback. I think it's important to take it all into account.

These programs, like the Drought Future Fund, will provide community services and assistance when it comes to the conduct of research and will also assist with the adoption of various new, emerging and innovative technologies. They provide advice when it comes to the construction or reconstruction of infrastructure, to make sure we are futureproofing the investments we are making now so we don't have the same problems. All too often we see timber bridges that were washed away in regional communities being replaced with timber bridges, and we know, next time we have a one-in-50-years event, it will wash away again. We've got to make sure we're using the best technology possible. While that is a flood related example, programs like the Drought Future Fund will assist farmers, communities and businesses related to this sector to be equipped into the future.

Similarly, the government, rather than talking about it, gets on with investing in things like the Medical Research Future Fund. It is about putting aside funds to make sure that we can invest in the future to make sure we can support emerging innovative technologies, rather than just talking about it here in this parliament. In terms of supporting industry, the Medical Research Future Fund does exactly that: it supports the manufacturing sector in a number of our communities. We have the $100 million Advanced Manufacturing Fund, the $238 million Industry Growth Centres Initiative, the $90 billion continuous shipbuilding industry program and the $220 million Regional Jobs and Investment Packages. These programs do deliver tangible outcomes. They are there to support industry, business and these communities that are affected in the way that, as I think Senator Burston rightly points out, is felt particularly in regional communities. They have tangible outcomes that people benefit from. That's why I don't believe it's right for us to initiate another inquiry into a matter we've already inquired into as a parliament, but, rather, get on with the job of actually doing what people want us to do—that is, support those regional communities.

Earlier on, I did refer to the Hobart hearing of the previous inquiry, which was held in February of 2015. A number of very credible witnesses appeared at this hearing, including representatives of the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Unions Tasmania, the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council, the Tasmanian Fire Service, WAFarmers, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and the Tasmanian Bushfire Recovery Taskforce. Upon hearing what a number of these witnesses had to say, I thought there were a number of things borne out of this that are important for government to take on board when it comes to considering the design and construction of programs to assist communities, businesses, families and individuals to be resilient in these times of need.

At this Hobart hearing, a number of the members of the other place were present and a number of issues were canvassed, starting with the evidence given by Professor Carter from the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, where it was difficult to sort of pinpoint the definition of what is a natural disaster, particularly when it comes to issues that impact on the aquaculture industry and related industries. In Tasmania in recent years we've had Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome hit our oyster industry, which wreaked havoc for quite some time. It cost jobs. Whether or not that could be classified as a natural disaster is something that Professor Carter questioned in his evidence. This was in response to questions from the member for Denison—soon to be the member for Clark—Mr Wilkie: how would a fund like this support businesses like that, if they happened to fall outside the definition of a natural disaster? Those things needed to be taken into account. Through the course of the conduct of this inquiry, and through the recommendations that have been presented as a result, those are things the government has to listen to.

Indeed, it was acknowledged that we need to make sure that there is funding available for research to increase the resilience of these businesses. Professor Carter, as a research scientist, is very keen to make sure that we do structure these industries—particularly ones like the oyster industry, for example—which provide hundreds of jobs in very regional communities in Tasmania, so that they are geared up as best as they possibly can be, using the best technologies available them into the future.

Moving now to the advice provided by the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the two witnesses who appeared were Mr Michael Bailey and Mrs Susan Parr, who was then the chair of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They were very frank about their views on what was being proposed here. They were concerned about the narrowness of the terms of reference of the inquiry and about what the resulting fund would cover, should one be established. The biggest concern they held—in the evidence that I was able to read from their contribution to that hearing in 2015—was around the unintended consequences of perhaps providing support to businesses who feel less inclined to make wise business decisions, knowing that there is a safety net. I'm not sure I share that view 100 per cent, but it is something the chamber did point out as a matter of concern when looking at how you would structure such a fund. All of these things can't be discounted. We need to make sure that whatever the design is, whatever the government does in terms of supporting communities, actually does do the right thing by the community more broadly, that it ticks those boxes when it comes to the original intent of being able to help those industries sustain themselves through the tough times, and that it keeps those jobs in those regional communities and enables those businesses that people have invested in—that create jobs—to carry on business and not go to the wall, which we have seen before, sadly.

Taking a look at the advice of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry particularly, they went to the issue of insurance premiums. If a fund, like the Australia Fund, were to be set up, one of the concerns the TCCI had related to whether a business may decide, for instance, not to take out appropriate insurance, knowing that, being in a regional community, they thought, 'Well, you know what? If things go bad, if we have a flood or a bushfire or something like that, or if there is a major economic event, I might be covered by the fund.' So therefore businesses might see this as a disincentive to taking out appropriate insurance, because they know that, if things do go wrong, they can save themselves the cost on the way through, on the premium, and if things do go wrong they will still be covered. That was a matter drawn out by, as I say, the member for Denison, Mr Wilkie. These unintended consequences could create an uneven playing field for businesses in the community, and that is not what we want to see. I think that would be classified as an unintended consequence, and I'm sure Senator Burston would agree with me as well.

Moving to the evidence provided by Unions Tasmania, there were concerns there about, again, the breadth of the terms of reference; whether the fund and its intentions had missed the mark; and whether the fund might have been a way of perhaps investing in entities that were looking to shed workers, using natural disasters and economic events as a reason for doing so and using the funds from such a fund to support themselves in mechanising their workforce and doing away with the jobs. Again, that would miss the point of what we're talking about here. The families who require funds to pay their bills, to pay the mortgage and to be able to afford to send their kids to school need jobs. A fund like this could potentially end up with jobs being lost, because it assists a business in basically doing away with employees and replacing them with a mechanised workforce. That would definitely be an unintended consequence.

The Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council similarly had a number of concerns around whether this type of fund would apply to sea based or aquaculture industries equally as it does to terrestrial based industries—on-land farms, viticulture and other forms of business. That was a concern for them. That was not clear for them. It remains the case. Going back to the evidence provided by Professor Carter from IMAS, it is difficult to properly say whether something like this would help businesses that operate in our waterways and on the sea as well.

So there was a whole heap of evidence provided there, raising a whole lot of questions which I'm not sure were properly answered at the time but that give a government food for thought when it comes to structuring programs to provide direct relief to regional communities and to businesses that need it and to ensure that we have those jobs that we so desperately need. All members of this place talk regularly about doing what can be done and doing our best to ensure that regional communities have the economic benefits of larger population centres. It is regional communities—Senator Burston is right—that bear the brunt of the effects of these sorts of events, so we need to make sure that we gear ourselves up properly. That's why I point to the Future Drought Fund and other industry related future funds to make sure that communities, industries, families and businesses get the support they need.

It's also important to point out that it's not just the realm of the state government. We've seen it in in many parts of this country. Again, if I turn to Tasmania, in 2013 we had the Dunalley bushfires. We've also had, as I've already referenced here, the POMS outbreak in south-eastern Tasmania which decimated our oyster industry and took with it many, many jobs of young Tasmanians; the 2016 northern Tasmania floods, which we experienced during the double-dissolution election campaign; and, of course, in May of this year the extreme weather events in southern Tasmania, which had a huge impact on businesses, households and a number of industries right across the south of Tasmania. State and local governments have a huge responsibility in that respect. The state government in Tasmania, in those examples, provided huge resources in supporting these communities and initiating programs to make sure that appropriate action was taken to support communities and industries and protect those jobs. So it's not just about the Commonwealth. It's not just about a fund.

Fundamentally, I don't believe having a parliamentary inquiry into something we've already, in effect, identically inquired into is the way to support Australian communities, Australian industries and Australian jobs. So I'm not a supporter of this bill, I'm afraid to tell Senator Burston, but, as I say, it's important to debate these issues thoroughly.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (10:54): I rise, too, to make a contribution on this morning's private senator's bill, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2018. The purpose of this bill, as described, is to establish a joint parliamentary committee to investigate establishing an Australia Fund.

I want to say from the outset that Labor has some concerns about the mechanism that's being used today to establish this parliamentary committee. Under normal circumstances, such a committee would be established by motion. That's certainly the normal method for establishing a committee. I was hopeful, in listening to the senator's contributions this morning, to come to some better understanding about why this mechanism was sought, but I note that it was a rather short contribution and I certainly didn't get any clarification about why this was the mechanism. So I just put that on the record: we have concerns about legislating to establish a committee when the mechanism is already well established for this to be done by motion.

But, that being said, there's no doubt that, should such a committee be established, it would look into issues that are of great interest to Labor. According to the explanatory memorandum, the fund, as described by Senator Burston, would be designed to assist in the support and reconstruction of Australian rural and manufacturing industries in a time of crisis. It would assist in situations of natural disaster, such as drought, flood and bushfire, or in cases of a world financial crisis or unfair market intervention or manipulation.

It is envisaged, according to the explanatory memorandum, that:

… the Australia Fund would have the ability, on the basis of an assessment of the industry and/or businesses, to provide emergency and ongoing drought/flood/bushfire relief, loan money to businesses, act as a guarantor for loans, capitalise or waive interest, purchase existing bank loans, and assume control of relevant property of the business for a specified time.

Through you, Acting Deputy President, that's a rather extraordinary range of capacities that Senator Burston is attempting to enable this fund to undertake, and I have some concern that we have had very little detail about the way in which some of the things that are proposed and documented in the explanatory memorandum would, practically, operate.

The fund, according to the EM, would be designed to enable businesses to continue to operate, in order to earn revenue, employ workers and pay taxes, rather than to be prematurely wound up, and to support communities affected by natural disasters. Well, of course, the Labor Party is always interested in jobs and keeping people in jobs, but, again, I think that—with the issues of companies being wound up and concerns that have been raised over the course of this government's tenure of five years so far—there are many issues around insolvency that are live and are worthy of government's consideration, and certainly have been advised to be pursued, that are currently not being considered at all.

The bill articulates a determination to provide funds for industry and/or companies restructuring, and the acquisition of new technologies to make businesses more economically viable and internationally competitive. Again, those are enormous goals.

As part of its investigation into the need for the fund, it's intended that the committee would undertake hearings in all capital cities and major rural centres, and, specifically, examine the impact on rural Australia of ongoing drought and world market price fluctuations for primary industry produce. I will make some further comments around this, but, at this point, can I absolutely indicate that—as Labor has been pointing out, day after day, when we've gathered in this place, and in our practical action, where we have the capacity to control the agenda, of getting our committees out and into regional and rural Australia—there is a big problem out there. There is a massive problem.

I note Senator Siewert here in the chamber as well, preparing for the next private senator's bill that's to advance in this place this morning. Senator Siewert and I have been out in regional and remote communities inquiring into mental health services and access to mental health services. The standard that is accepted in the bush—the risk that is there—which is impacting on people and their businesses because they simply are not getting access to basic health services, is of critical concern. It speaks to a government that are completely out of touch with regional and remote Australia. Despite their formal partnership with the National Party, who claim to be the party of the bush, we have seen this government cut services, cut support to small business, cut away at the very fabric of the communities that the National Party's supposed to be standing up for, and the National Party have not been here to defend them. I think that is why we saw some very significant swings to Independents in the Victorian election—because of the government's abrogation of its responsibility to go out into the bush and then come back into this place and represent them. They should stop pretending that they support the bush and stand up and do something about it. I'm not surprised that one of the elements that Senator Burston has embedded in his bill is a trip out to the bush, to basically go and have a look and see what's going on, because the current representatives in the National Party are not standing up for their constituency. That is absolutely the case.

The committee's terms of reference would also include reviewing existing bankruptcy and insolvency laws with the aim of introducing legislation designed to assist companies to trade through difficult times rather than be closed down. The existing taxation laws relating to bankruptcy would also be reviewed. If there's sufficient time after I've finished my prepared material, I will go to the issue of insolvency and bankruptcy and the recommendations that were made a very long time ago by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which Senator Ketter was a part. We raised significant concerns early in the years of this parliament and made very significant recommendations aimed at looking at what's going on in that space. But the government, just like they resisted the banking royal commission for 600 days, have failed to undertake adequate scrutiny of what's going on in insolvency. Certainly we heard an awful lot around the impaired loans inquiry—and a lot of bank loan concerns that were raised by many from rural areas were from your constituency of Western Australia, Acting Deputy President Sterle. There's a lot of work that the government could have been doing on this the whole time, but over five years we've seen them in disarray and not doing what has to be done for the benefit of small businesses and small regional communities across this country. At the completion of the inquiry, the committee proposes to table before parliament a detailed report into its finding and recommendations. It's indicated, in the EM, that the bill will have no financial impact.

Labor is deeply concerned about many of the issues that the proposed Australia Fund committee would deal with but none more so than the issue of financial misconduct in the banking sector. The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry is undertaking very important work. Labor called for this royal commission—Labor pushed for this royal commission—for 600 days, and the Liberal-National Party fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening. As more and more financial scandals began to pile up, it became clear to Labor that this was not a case of just a few bad apples. The excuses from the big banks started wearing very thin, and the apologies started to become quite routine: 'Yes, I'm sorry; I'm sorry'. I don't know about you, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I was taught that when you say you're sorry you are supposed to undertake a change of behaviour and not continue to repeat the old one. What we've seen, revealed during the course of this inquiry, is the absolute disregard for community standards around banking and the banks constantly returning to inappropriate behaviours and unethical action.

In April 2016, the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Treasurer took the bold and courageous steps of announcing that Labor would call for a royal commission into the banks and financial services industry. It was clear to us that Australia needs better protections and that banks and financial firms needed to lift their game. Again I want to acknowledge the great work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which Senator Ketter was a very significant and valuable member, and its joint report. The joint report made serious recommendations that it was time for us to call a banking royal commission and described the egregious behaviours that were replete within the sector.

The decision to call that royal commission, though, was not easy, particularly from opposition. You'll recall, Mr Deputy President, that we were pilloried for it, we were derided by the government—including by the current Prime Minister, the member for Cook, who told us that a royal commission would be nothing more than 'a QC complaints desk', 'a populist whinge' and 'a reckless distraction'. Well, I'd say the Australian history book will show that the prime ministership of Mr Morrison is in fact a reckless distraction. This government and the Prime Minister consistently asserted that a royal commission would be a waste of time. They did everything they could to stop it from happening. They voted against a royal commission no fewer than 26 times in the parliament. They set up parliamentary inquiries to try and cut across a royal commission. They tried to show that a royal commission was unnecessary. They tried to convince the Australian people that we didn't need a full-blown royal commission. They thought that, by doing so, they could protect the banks from scrutiny.

But they were wrong. Labor's determination to stand up for the people who were being ripped off by banks was the driving force that continued to push until we got the call for a royal commission. The evidence that we built with the community and through the work of other parliamentary committees was simply too strong to be overlooked. Victims of financial services and the misconduct that they experienced came forward. They came through week after week. Media stories—and members of parliament standing up for them—told the Australian community about an industry that had lost its ethical and moral compass.

When this government finally saw the writing on the wall, when they finally caved in to the pressure from Labor and agreed to a royal commission at the very end of 2017—mindful that we called for it in April 2016, more than a year earlier—the now Prime Minister, the member for Cook, described the decision as 'regrettable'. The Prime Minister and the government thought it was 'regrettable' that the misconduct of financial firms would finally be exposed to the Australian people. They thought it 'regrettable' that victims had lost their homes, their livelihoods and even family members because of that very misconduct. They thought it 'regrettable' that such people would have the chance to tell their stories. They said it was 'regrettable' that the toxic, unethical culture that has infiltrated the financial services sector might finally be exposed.

The Prime Minister's comments that day betrayed him. They showed him for what he is. They showed the Australian people very clearly which side he and his government will always be on, and that is the side of the big banks. When the government have been hostile to a royal commission from the outset, it's no surprise that they severely curtailed the time for the royal commission to do its work. The royal commission has barely had the opportunity to scratch the surface of the misconduct that's occurred in the financial services industry. Commissioner Hayne and his team have done an admirable job—indeed, an extraordinary job given the circumstances that prevail, the circumstances constructed by this government. Commissioner Hayne was given a mere 14 months to inquire into all of these things—retail banking; home lending; consumer lending, including credit cards and personal loans; small business lending; farm lending; general insurance; life insurance; superannuation; and financial advice. Fourteen months was all this government would allow. After 600 days of resisting a royal commission, and after voting against it 26 times, that's the best they could do. They tried to make it as short as they possibly could. When we look at those facts, the commission has had just two weeks to spend on each of these complex subject areas, some of which touched the lives of millions of Australians and some of which relate to services used by nearly every member of the Australian community.

The royal commission received over 10,000 submissions from members of the public. Ten thousand Australians took the time to let the commission know about their experiences of bank and financial services provider misconduct. But, because of the restrictive time line imposed on the commission by this government, who thought the whole endeavour was 'regrettable', only 27 victims had the chance to tell their story in person—27 out of 10,000 Australians who made written submissions. That is a disgrace. That is an absolute disgrace and a shame on this government.

We've learnt through the hearings of the commission that this misconduct was so widespread that it affected hundreds of thousands of Australians, if not millions of Australians. Labor has called for the royal commission to be extended to allow more victims to have the opportunity to share their stories. The government has stubbornly refused to give the commission more time.

This is why the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for financial services, along with some of my Labor colleagues around the country, have run a series of bank victim round tables to hear from some of the tens of thousands of victims whose voices haven't been heard through the royal commission process. The stories we have heard through these round tables have been harrowing. People around the country are hurting. The consequences of the misconduct identified by the royal commission and indeed—

Senator Ian Macdonald: I raise a point of order on relevance. I was under the impression that this debate was about Australia's Future Fund. I've listened to the speaker and not once has that been mentioned. She has been talking about some banking royal commission which doesn't seem to be relevant to the terms of this particular bill or the matter before the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Thank you, Senator. I'm sorry, Senator O'Neill—on a point of order?

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. Let me rule on this. Senator Macdonald, there is no point of order. You know that speeches in this place are far ranging. If we wanted to start applying that, I think half your side would have to sit down every time they stood up.

Senator O'NEILL: Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President. Indeed, if the senator had been in the chamber, he would have heard my discussion of the explanatory memorandum, and financial misconduct was seriously a part of this bill, so not only has he abused a point of order but he was wrong in fact.

The stories we have heard through the round tables have been harrowing. People around the country are hurting. The consequences of misconduct identified by the royal commission and indeed the consequences of other misconduct that Commissioner Hayne didn't have the time to consider are still being felt by families in every state and every territory, every city and every town in Australia and indeed in the rural and remote contexts that the senator proposes that this committee should attend to.

The government never wanted a royal commission. They fought tooth and nail to stop it from happening. They called it 'regrettable', and they tried to get it over and done with as quickly as possible. But Labor will not let this commission wrap up quietly and have its recommendations sitting in a filing cabinet in Treasury gathering dust, which is what I expect that the government will do with this report, as they have done with the parliamentary joint committee's inquiry into life insurance. It is just sitting there, with no response, as if it doesn't affect millions of people. Life insurance is critical. They've got the report.

Through you, Acting Deputy President, to Senator Burston: they are a government that, even when you do the work and you report, still do nothing on it, because they don't think they have to, and they're going to protect their mates at the top end of town—unlike Labor. We will roll up our sleeves. We'll continue to speak with victims, with industry, with consumer groups and with regulators, and we will consider the commission's report in detail when it's released—in what we would say is premature time—in February next year. We will make sure that the abuses and the misconduct that have been exposed through the royal commission and through victim round tables never happen again.

Of course, Labor is also deeply concerned about the impact that the drought is having on our farmers. Australian farming communities are being affected by a shocking and protracted drought, and Labor knows that governments have a role to play to assist drought-affected farming families. This is why Labor has always stood ready to support meaningful drought assistance by the government. Sadly, though, the Turnbull-Morrison government has been slow in this area, while it has been pushing a fast pace for the banking sector. This government's done nothing to develop a long-term drought strategy. Unfortunately, one of the first acts of the Abbott-Joyce government, elected in 2013, was to abolish the COAG council that dealt with these matters in a responsible matter. As a result, for five years drought reforms stalled—and our farmers, the environment and the economy are paying the price.

Labor will provide a science based approach to help farmers better adapt to what may be a new normal, and Labor will ask the council of RDCs to lead the development of an agricultural climate response plan to dramatically increase the uptake of drought mitigation, best practice and sustainable farming practice methods. Senator Burston, you've given the opportunity for a discussion of significant issues here in the chamber today, but I do continue to raise concerns about the method in which this is advanced. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave not granted.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (11:15): I thank Senator Burston for raising the proposal to set up a parliamentary committee to inquire into the Australia Fund. From listening to the previous speaker, I have no idea of what the Labor approach to this particular bill is. Whilst we had a very interesting discussion on the banking royal commission, it's not germane to the debate before the parliament. It always amazes me how the Senate has standing orders and rules, and senators bring matters forward for debate, but some senators completely ignore the debate before the chamber and talk about matters that are completely irrelevant to the debate. For this reason, I often wonder why the Senate bothers with standing orders that are never followed or enforced.

Notwithstanding that, this debate on the proposal to set up an Australia Fund is an important debate and, again, I indicate my appreciation to Senator Burston for raising the matter. I might note in passing, though, that the leader of the party that he now represents brought forward a similar bill in the House of Representatives in 2014, when Mr Palmer was a member of the lower house; he was the member for Fairfax at the time. These matters were fully investigated at that time. Part of the proposal for the Australia Fund is to allow rural manufacturing businesses in Australia to continue operating through times of crisis, such as natural disasters and global financial downturns. The previous speaker spoke a little bit about the drought—not much, but she did raise the drought, and I'm glad she raised it, because I've just driven to Canberra via the drought affected shires of Queensland and New South Wales. Over a period of five days I spoke to most of the councils in Queensland that have been subjected to this horrendous drought. I'm very pleased to say—and I take some credit!—that in most of the northern shires that were impacted by drought it was pouring rain as I arrived. So I do, in the best Joh Bjelke-Petersen style, claim that I actually brought the rain with me! Of course, those areas do need a lot more rain; the drought isn't over. But almost unanimously, the councils that represent those areas were appreciative of the work the government had done to help those in need. They understand that governments can't affect the drought. They understand that governments can't make it rain—although I tried to pretend that I could! But they do acknowledge that in these times of crisis the government, including the Queensland and New South Wales state governments, have been very generous in the support they've given. A number of matters were raised with me as to where improvements could be made, and they're matters I'll be talking about at a later time.

I would point out that the government is establishing a $5 billion future drought fund that guarantees support against future droughts faced by farmers and communities in rural and regional Australia, and it's important that not only farmers but also regional communities are considered. Too often, in years gone by, drought relief was given to people on the land without considering the impact of droughts on the communities—on the people in those communities who are not farmers but who support the farmers, help the council create infrastructure, help the hospital and health services to continue operation and help in educating the young people of the community. This future drought fund being established by the Liberal-National government will be setting up guaranteed support against future drought faced by farmers and communities. The future drought fund starts with an initial $3.9 billion investment each year, and $100 million in earnings will be available to be used to fund important water infrastructure and drought resilience projects while the balance is ploughed back into the fund so it grows to $5 billion over the next decade.

I emphasise that this fund will help to fund important infrastructure projects. Regrettably our opponents in this chamber, the Labor Party, because they are beholden to the Greens political party for political support in this and various state parliaments, will never become involved in water infrastructure projects. That's a great shame. Our government funds feasibility studies into water infrastructure possibilities, but we always acknowledge that, under the Constitution, rivers and streams, except where they cross state boundaries, are the province and the responsibility of state governments, and so only state governments can decide to build dams. We have the difficult situation in my state of Queensland where the state government, because it's in power due to the support of the Greens political party, who don't like any form of water management schemes, will not agree to any dams. We promised to build the Rookwood Weir near Rockhampton. After great work by the local member there, Michelle Landry, the state government refused to answer anything and refused to comment for a number of months. It was only as the state election was approaching that they finally agreed that a weir could be build—the Rookwood Weir on the Dawson River, funded by the federal government—and reluctantly put in some funds to match the federal government. But that's the only way we can get any action out of a government that relies on the Greens, who oppose dams, for support. We are very conscious that this future drought fund will have an important water infrastructure role, and I think Senator Burston and Mr Palmer would be grateful for that approach, because I think they both understand the importance of water infrastructure as part of drought resilience in the drier parts of Australia. The challenges of a drought vary from farm to farm, district to district and town to town. The government continually needs to adapt and build capacity to support those communities, and the future drought fund will do just that.

The proposal by Senator Burston and his party also relates to research into things that might help in Australia. I remind the Senate that the Morrison government has created the Medical Research Future Fund, another sovereign body which is specifically designed to supercharge the growth of our health and medical research industry while fuelling jobs, economic growth and export potential. In addition to that, the Australia Fund proposed by Senator Burston relates to manufacturing, but the government has already invested in key measures to ensure people working in manufacturing are supported as industry changes. I remind the Senate that the government has established the $100 million Advanced Manufacturing Fund, the $238 million Industry Growth Centre Initiative and the $90 billion continuous shipbuilding industry.

Just pausing for a moment, for a long time Australia has lamented its ability to have a long-term shipbuilding industry. I remember in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years that the Labor Party did absolutely nothing to support the shipbuilding industry in Australia. Since the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government was defeated, we've had a lot of complaints from Labor about things that they never did, but this government, the Liberal-National government, has established a $90 billion continuous shipbuilding industry which won't just build ships but will train Australians in the finest trades relating to all aspects of shipbuilding. I envisage that in years to come we'll be exporting some of our skilled tradesmen to go and help other countries in shipbuilding programs. It's a wonderful program, it's a huge program, and it will give Australia a decent, ongoing and sustainable shipbuilding industry for many years into the future.

We are seeing the measures that the government has introduced actually work. The total number of people employed in the manufacturing sector in Australia is now 978,000. In fact, over 93,100 new manufacturing jobs were created in the 12 months to August 2018. So, whilst this bill talks about setting up a committee that will look at an Australia Fund to possibly help manufacturing jobs, the government's actually doing it already. As I say, the work the government's been doing is already having a very, very positive effect. The 25 months of consecutive expansion in the manufacturing area is the longest period since 2005. Unfortunately, Senator Carr's not taking part in this debate. He was the minister for industry in charge of manufacturing when all of the motor car manufacturing in Australia shut down, when shipbuilding ground to a halt and when many other manufacturing jobs were lost. That has changed under this government, which has a serious interest in manufacturing jobs and the skilled workers who actually—

Senator O'Neill: Oops! Your government shut the whole thing down. Congratulations!

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Shut what down?

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Senator IAN MACDONALD: No, you don't understand, Senator. You've only been here for a minute. You wouldn't understand that the premise to the shutdown of the manufacturing industry all occurred when Senator Carr was the minister. Senator Carr did nothing and eventually the car manufacturing industry ground down to a halt. And what did that? It was the fact that Senator Carr, as industry minister, did absolutely nothing to help the motor car building industry, the same as he and his party in government did absolutely nothing to help with a sustainable shipbuilding industry into the future. All they could do was complain about Australia not having a shipbuilding industry. They were in government for six years and did not build one ship—they did not even think about building one ship—and did nothing to support the car manufacturing industry and both of them failed. But, since the Liberal-National Party has been in charge, the number of people directly employed in the manufacturing sector in Australia is now almost a million workers. I repeat: 93,100 new manufacturing jobs have been created in just the last 12 months—something that never occurred when Senator Carr and the Labor Party were in charge. More than one million jobs have been created since the Liberal-National government was elected back in 2013.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I hear Senator O'Neill shouting about some state election recently, but she never answers the fact that one million new jobs have been created in Australia since the Liberal-National party government was elected.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Senator IAN MACDONALD: You're right: we don't create the jobs. What we do is create facilities and the parameters so that private industry can invest and can create jobs that are great for Australian workers, because we are the party that is interested in the workers in Australia. We're not the party that only looks after the union bosses and the heavies in the union movement. We are the party that actually creates jobs for the workers in Australia.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senator O'Neill! Ignore the interjections.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I appreciate the thoughts behind Senator Burston's bill, which, again, is a bill to establish a joint parliamentary committee to look at whether an Australia Fund should be created, for all the right reasons. But I've demonstrated in the short time available to me just some of the things that the government's done that are already doing what Senator Burston imagines the Australia Fund bill might do. I also point out to the Senate that, as I mentioned previously, a similar bill was brought before the House of Representatives in 2014. A committee was set up, and it was informed by a public consultation process and inquiries. It held a number of hearings throughout Australia, including in Canberra, Tasmania and Melbourne. It heard witnesses from a range of stakeholders including industry peak bodies and Public Service officials. Furthermore, the committee received 18 submissions from groups from as wide a field as Oysters Australia, the Australian Prawn Farmers Association and rural business development. Based on the evidence, the committee did not believe that the case had been made from public submissions to support a new fund of the type outlined in this bill. Recommendation 9 of that committee's report stated:

The committee does not recommend the establishment of an Australia Fund.

So I won't be supporting this bill and the government won't be supporting this bill, for the reason that it's already been investigated by a parliamentary committee that decided not to recommend the establishment of a fund. As I've pointed out in my speech, the government has already, in different ways, done the sorts of things that the fund would seek to do if it were established following the parliamentary committee. I say to Senator Burston: in fact, you're repeating or borrowing from the ideas already introduced by this government. I might say Mr Palmer is very good at that, and I always take it as a sign of praise that Mr Palmer also has pinched the idea that I have been talking about for some months now, about a review of the current zone tax rebate system. I see on TV advertisements that Mr Palmer has picked up my idea and is now talking about it. I quite like Mr Palmer, but I say with respect to him that his idea of giving everyone 200 kilometres from a capital city a 20 per cent reduction in income tax just doesn't pass the seriousness test. But I'm hopeful, and I keep advocating to the government that the zone rebate scheme—set up, I concede, by a Labor government in 1945—was a good scheme. It ticked all the right boxes then. It needs review and updating, and it needs an indexation of the benefits. I'm hopeful that the government will hear the calls for a review of that existing zone tax rebate scheme and the analogous remote area allowance.

But thanks to Senator Burston for raising this important issue. It allows me to point out the things this government is already doing to address the concerns that Senator Burston raised when opening this debate.

Debate interrupted.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:35): I rise today to speak to the private member's bill that I put forward in 2016 but which is now absolutely essential. When I first introduced the Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill in 2016 the company that wanted to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight was BP. It then moved on to Chevron, and now it is Equinor, formerly known as Statoil, the Norwegian company that wants to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight and put at risk our wonderful, unique and precious marine ecosystem, and our tourism and fishing industries in South Australia. If there were a spill, it would not just have a devastating effect on my home state of South Australia; it would devastate coastlines and beaches right up to Port Macquarie, including Bondi Beach, and as far west as Albany in Western Australia.

The local communities and the fishing and tourism industries that rely on a healthy and pristine Great Australian Bight are very concerned that this could happen to our precious marine ecosystem. The debate around the risk of drilling in the Great Australian Bight is reaching fever point. The reason that I'm bringing forward this bill for debate today in this place is that Equinor, the latest big foreign company that wants to drill for oil, wants to do so as early as next year. Hot on its heels are a number of other companies. NOPSEMA, the agency responsible for ticking off on these types of operations, might give the tick of approval for seismic testing as early as a fortnight's time, meaning seismic testing would start as early as March next year some 90 kilometre off Kangaroo Island. That is why the debate today on this issue is so important. It's important for South Australia—it's absolutely essential for our tourism and fishing industries—but it's also important for the rest of the country.

Let me outline a number of the key reasons that make the Great Australian Bight so special. The bight includes the calving sanctuary for the southern right whales. During the months of July through to October we have dozens and dozens of southern right whales calving and feeding their young calves right at the head of the bight. It's a special place. It's such a special place that from the mainland, from standing on the shoreline, you can see dozens of whales and their calves in that pristine and protected area. After the calving season, those whales swim south, right down to the bottom of the Southern Ocean. It is a whale sanctuary for a reason. It is one of the unique places in the world where this activity happens and where these whales swim, raise their babies and look after them ready for the trip south. We know that it is a feeding ground for threatened sea lions, sharks, tuna and migratory sperm whales. In fact, 85 per cent of the species in the bight are found nowhere else in the world. That is how unique the Great Australian Bight is in terms of being a marine sanctuary, a special place for many species that live nowhere else in the world.

Why we would put that at risk is beyond me. We need to be protecting these areas, not putting them at further risk of either extinction or damage. The idea of throwing away what we have in terms of having a unique and special place, just because a foreign company wants to come in and drill for oil, is simply madness. It is, of course, part of the most iconic aspects of Australia's coastline. It is part of our identity. In South Australia, Kangaroo Island is resting right there in the Great Australian Bight. Kangaroo Island is the jewel in our tourism crown. For those who haven't visited Kangaroo Island, you're missing out. It is one of the most special places on earth. It is lucky to have gorgeous coastlines, beautiful beaches and a unique tourism industry. You can catch the ferry over to Kangaroo Island and stay for a night or two, or even longer if you like. You can see the kangaroos and the koalas. You can see the sea lions right there on the beach. You can witness nature as it's meant to be. There are not many places in the world that remain as untouched as the Great Australian Bight, the coastline and our beaches in Kangaroo Island.

The primary industries in regional South Australia, fishing and tourism, are very concerned at what drilling in the bight would mean for them. They are worried about the impacts of seismic testing, which is the first threat before drilling occurs. They are absolutely terrified that, if the government agency and the federal government allow drilling to continue and to take hold in the bight, if there were a spill that entire area would be decimated. Our industries would never recover. The wild coastline in the Great Australian Bight, particularly along the head of the bight and throughout the beautiful little islands that sit offshore and Kangaroo Island, are so hard to reach that it would never be properly cleaned up. No matter how much money was spent, no matter how many hundreds and hundreds of hours the workers spent out there trying to clean it up, there are places that would never be reached. So they would remain full of sludge. The fish, the birds and the marine life would simply suffocate and die. No wonder there is no social licence in my home state, in South Australia, to allow drilling to occur.

We know that traditional owners don't support drilling in the bight; in fact, they are horrified that their special place is under threat. We know that the environmental experts and scientists have been warning for quite some time that this is a risk we should not take. Rather than putting at risk the Great Australian Bight, rather than impacting on the migratory path of the southern right whales, sperm whales or New Zealand fur seals, we should in fact be protecting this special place properly, giving it World Heritage protection and celebrating that it is a most unique marine wonderland. But this government, sadly backed by the Labor opposition to date, is willing to put all of that at risk for the sake of letting a handful of multinational oil and gas companies come in and drill.

There is no social licence for this activity in my home state, in South Australia. Thirteen local councils have all voted in opposition to allowing this to happen. Kangaroo Island was the first local council to formally express their opposition, and since then many more councils have joined them. Even people in the more metro areas in Adelaide, our metro beaches—Glenelg, Semaphore, Brighton, Grange, Kingston—are extremely concerned about what it would mean for them if they had oil lapping up onto the sands in their communities.

We know that this risk is real. Both BP and Equinor, the companies asking to be allowed to do this, have been forced to release their own modelling. They had to do a risk assessment of what their activities would mean for the area. Both of those models from the companies themselves show that the risk of an oil spill is just too great to take. They show that the worst-case scenario, which would be the worst in history, is that it would never recover. But, even less than that, below the worst-case scenario, South Australia's coastline would be decimated and oil would wash up right past Victoria to Tasmania, Bondi Beach and Port Macquarie. This is an issue that affects Australians across the board. Any Australian who relies on our healthy coastline and beaches and any Australian who enjoys visiting and spending time at our coast should be very, very concerned about what will happen if these big multinational companies get the tick from the government, allowing them to drill for oil in the coming year.

We know already that our fishing and tourism industries would be decimated. And many of them would just never recover. In the worst-case scenario, half of the oil and all of the natural gas from the deepwater release would remain in the water column. It would literally suffocate and kill the animals living in that ocean. The official modelling from these companies indicates that a spill would impact many matters of national environmental significance, including up to 177 marine species, 47 species classified as vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered, and 50 coastal wetlands. Thirty-eight marine reserves would be covered in sludge. This would result in the mortality of hundreds of thousands of seabirds, thousands of marine animals, including endangered southern right whales, blue whales, killer whales, dolphins, endemic and endangered Australian sea lions and New Zealand fur seals. Hundreds of sea turtles would be dead. Hundreds—potentially thousands—of kilometres of shoreline would be covered in oil, causing extreme harm to both the birds that live on the coast and those that visit nearby. The significant injury is expected to be exceptionally diverse and unique, and, as I've said previously, cleaning this mess up would be virtually impossible.

This is not a risk worth taking. We don't need a multinational or foreign company to come and drill for oil in our Great Australian Bight only to send that oil offshore, along with their profits, with very little benefit to the local economy and, indeed, Australia. We know some of the oil from the bight will not be burnt in Australia—in fact, most of it won't be. That is why it makes Minister Canavan's statement—and I see he's sitting in the chamber today—that we need this oil drilling to occur in order to lower petrol prices in Australia simply ludicrous. Even if they started to drill for oil next year, if the Labor and the Liberal parties allowed Equinor to go ahead with this, it wouldn't be at a commercially viable point for at least a decade. And, even then, that oil would be shipped offshore. The profits would be shipped offshore. Australians would see none of those.

In terms of local jobs: well, there aren't any—the companies have said that themselves. Maybe, there would be five or six—very, very few jobs. The companies have said themselves that they will be flying in the skilled workers that they need. Why would we risk the jobs in our tourism and fishing industries to let a foreign company drill for oil when all the money is simply going offshore?

If this weren't bad enough, let me just draw your attention to the impact that this oil will have on climate change. We are living in an era of global warming as we speak. There is no future on a dead planet. And, if we were to allow this extraction of oil to occur at the volumes being proposed, we would never arrest climate change—not here in Australia and not around the rest of the world. Just a fraction of the oil reserves in the Great Australian Bight would amount to three gigatonnes of CO2. This is almost equivalent to one-third of our entire carbon budget between now and 2050.

If we are to keep temperature rise at two degrees—and we've been told by scientists that we have to do more than that—the IPCC report says we have to phase out fossil fuels. We can't keep playing games with our environment and the climate. It is time to get serious about what needs to be done. We have to reduce our carbon emissions and we have to stop the further extraction of fossil fuels that are only going to make climate change worse and more dangerous. If we are to do what the scientists say is required—and that is to keep temperature rise to 1.5 degrees or below—there is absolutely no way we can allow the extraction of fossil fuels from the Great Australian Bight.

I am of the generation which has already seen the effects of climate change. Many of us in this chamber are collectively responsible for this. We can see the effects of climate change already. But we are also the last generation of policymakers and decision-makers who can do anything about it. It is up to us to make the hard decisions to reduce dangerous global warming. And the more we twiddle our thumbs and the more we deny this, the harder and harder it becomes—and near impossible.

I want to protect the Great Australian Bight because I know that the marine life there is precious and that it is not worth putting at risk our local industries in South Australia. As a South Australian, I am proud and very protective of our beautiful Kangaroo Island. But, as a mother, I have a responsibility to do everything I can to help stop dangerous global warming. And that means standing up to these big fossil-fuel companies and their spruikers and puppets—some of whom are here in the chamber today—from blindly dragging Australia into a climate emergency that we won't be able to reverse out of. If we are to tackle climate change, we can have no drilling for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight. We may as well tell the international community that Australia is prepared to fry. Our oceans will be decimated, our animals killed and our planet will die unless we do something about it, and the time to do something about it is now. If we continue to wait, if we continue to delay, not only will the whales lose but the whole planet will start to choke. We have to stand up strongly and say no—no drilling in the Great Australian Bight.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (11:55): I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak on a very important issue in the Australian oil and gas industry and what it contributes to our country, and why it deserves a commonsense approach to its regulation and oversight. The government will not be supporting this bill from the Australian Greens, the Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2016, primarily because this bill is an anti-science bill. It is a bill that does not want to look at the evidence. It is a bill that does not want to adopt a commonsense approach to the development of the natural resources in this country, because it doesn't want to engage in any kind of evidence; it simply wants to prohibit, to ban, an activity that is safely carried out in this country and has been done so for decades—more than 50 years, in fact, and I'll go through that.

It is typical of an agenda that is often run by the Australian Greens that they don't want to engage in the detailed investigation of individual and specific projects in this country. Instead, they want to put blanket bans on any kind of activity right around the country, because they know that if they had to get to the guts of the evidence, of the data on what has actually occurred in the past, they would lose that debate. So, instead of engaging in the hard work of looking at specific projects and what their specific impact on the local environment would be—and what the impact of not doing the developments would be—they simply propose bills that seek to prohibit activity over wide swathes of Australia and deny particularly local communities the opportunity to benefit from the development of their resources. The reason they don't want to engage in that science—and I think we can all agree that science is basically about looking at evidence, particularly looking at past experience and making reasoned judgements on that experience and on that evidence; it is evidence based—is that the evidence would show their arguments to be the bunkum that they are; they would show the arguments that Senator Hanson-Young has just put in this chamber to be absolute bunkum.

This bill would, for the first time, establish a complete ban of oil and gas activities over an area of Australia—not based on any evidence, not based on any investigation or consultation with those local communities, but based instead on an unelected, unrepresentative fiat from the Australian Greens, who represent perhaps 10 per cent of Australia's population. Instead, we should be evaluating things on a case-by-case basis. I would like to spend a bit of time in my contribution discussing the example and the evidence of the production of oil and gas in Australia in the past 50 years or more. Over the past 50 years, thousands of wells have been drilled in offshore areas across Australia with no major incident whatsoever. They've been drilled safely, because we have a very strict and robust regulatory regime to do that. In fact, it is an independent regime. It's a regime that's not controlled by the minister or the government; it is controlled by an organisation called NOPSEMA, who take their job very seriously—and I'll have more to say about NOPSEMA later in my contribution.

Also really important to this debate is that a lot of that drilling, around 1,000 drills, has occurred in the Bass Strait—just south of Melbourne, just south of a major city in Australia, and also a very important environment—and nothing serious has occurred over 50 years, because there's a well-regulated process, and it's based on science. Australian workers who are involved in this industry take their job very seriously. I think it's a great denigration by the Australian Greens of our great Australian workforce who work in these industries and, day by day, deal with the risks and natural environments in a way that is safe to the environment and also incredibly productive for our country.

Specifically in the Great Australian Bight area, nowhere did Senator Hanson-Young mention the fact that wells have been drilled in the Great Australian Bight before. If the Australian Greens and Senator Hanson-Young were going to take an evidence based, scientific approach to this debate, they would engage with that evidence and explain why, given that we have safely drilled in the Great Australian Bight before, it needs to be banned today when it wasn't banned, obviously for the past 40-odd years. I think the first well was drilled there in 1972. In fact, 13 wells have been drilled in the Great Australian Bight, all without incident and under the proper and independent regulatory system that we have in this country.

One of the great contributions that have been made by our oil and gas industry, the Australian oil and gas industry, is its contribution to our national security and to our domestic security over oil and gas. It's something that I think, unfortunately, is not commented on enough, perhaps because we've taken it for granted too much in the past. But in fact, for most of the last 50-odd years, we have had quite secure supplies of oil and gas in Australia, principally because of the productive fields of the Bass Strait, which began to be developed in the 1960s. After the 1960s, of course, we had the 1970s—that usually is the way it follows—and in the 1970s we had an oil crisis around the world where a lot of countries did not have access to oil because of the creation of OPEC, which is still, obviously, in existence today. But Australia was somewhat insulated from that process thanks to the oil and gas production we had in the Bass Strait. We had sufficient supplies of oil here in Australia. We did not have the petrol rationing that had to occur in the United States, and, of course, we benefited from the terms of trade changes that occurred when oil prices went up.

The problem for us is that we no longer have the oil security we had in the past. We should no longer be taking it for granted, because in the past 20 years our demand for oil has continued to grow as our economy has grown, and economic activities continue to demand the use of oil for certain activities, particularly transport. However, our production of oil has fallen rapidly. Indeed, over the last 20 years, our demand for petroleum products has increased by 35 per cent but our production has fallen by 65 per cent, principally because the Bass Strait is no longer producing much petroleum or oil at all.

To put this in stark relief here, on the eve of September 11, now 17 years ago, Australia produced enough petroleum to meet 95 per cent of our domestic needs, so 95 per cent of our domestic needs could have been met from domestic production. Of course, some of that production was exported, and we imported petroleum and refined oil products from other parts of the world, but back then, if the worst had happened and our supplies of oil or hydrocarbons from the rest of the world had been cut, we would have had enough domestically to survive. It's a different story now. Now we only produce enough oil and gas for 48 per cent of our domestic petroleum needs, so we've gone from 95 per cent on the eve of September 11 to 48 per cent. Less than half now is produced through domestic production.

That should be a wake-up call for our country. We are an island nation. We sit at the bottom of the world, where, fortunately, we have access to largely free and open trade routes, but we should not and cannot always take that for granted. There is always, of course, the risk of things going wrong, and the old saying is correct that we should hope for the best but prepare for the worst. The worst for our country in this regard would be the cutting of those supply chains, which would immediately, overnight, cause us to have to reduce our oil and gas consumption by more than half—possibly more given that we don't refine a lot of the product here either.

I'll get to the Great Australian Bight in more detail in a second, but when the Australian Greens bring to the parliament a bill that says, 'Let's just ban any opportunity for us to develop one of the most prospective areas for oil and gas production in the world or to have it as an insurance policy against the worst happening,' you'd think they would engage in that argument when we say, 'Why are you proposing something which would make us potentially more vulnerable if trade and access to oil and gas from overseas were cut, which would mean we would fail to have sufficient oil to run not only our military needs—the submarines that we're building in South Australia, our fighter planes and our tanks—but also basic transport needs in a crisis?'

But the Greens do not even engage in this debate. They have no response to this issue: what would your alternative be if we're not going to develop our own domestic supplies of oil and gas and become more reliant over time? The strategy of the Australian Greens is that they want to continue to cut oil and gas production right across Australia. They don't support it anywhere in Australia. If that's going to be their end game, how are we going to make that up if the worst happens? There is no response on that issue from the Australian Greens. That argument alone should be reason enough for the Senate to say no to this bill, because there is not much more an important issue than making sure that we can defend our nation and protect Australians from the worst outcomes that might occur around the world.

If we were to develop a new oil and gas basin, it would be a major economic boost to our country as well, which is also an important reason to back the development of our natural resources. We are an incredibly prosperous nation, thanks almost primarily to the fact that we have an ability to turn our natural resources into wealth-demanding products—products that people demand around the world—whether it's our iron ore, our coal, our soils or our agricultural industry. Our tourism assets are also natural resources but do need economic development to attract people to them and, likewise, in this case our oil and gas assets. It's very important for our country to responsibly develop these assets.

I noted while I was sitting here that Senator Hanson-Young originally claimed there wouldn't be any local jobs at all created from the development of the Great Australian Bight. That's on the record. I think Senator Hanson-Young may have picked herself up and thought that might be a bit too extreme, so she might have given the oil and gas industry five or six jobs—half a dozen jobs. This is demonstrably ridiculous and absurd because we have an oil and gas industry right now. We can see the jobs it provides. This is another example of the Greens not listening to the evidence and just deciding to pass legislation based on a motion, not any evidence, facts or figures.

Right now, our oil and gas industry employs thousands of people around the country. You can go to Traralgon, Gippsland and Melbourne and see the thousands of people who work in the Bass Strait in that industry. Mr Acting Deputy President Dean Smith, one can go to your part of the country, the great state of Western Australia, to Karratha and Port Hedland, and see the thousands of people who are employed in our oil and gas industry there. Indeed, they're right around the country, including in my electorate. I'm always surprised how many people in my electorate, in Central Queensland, travel over to Western Australia every fortnight or every month or so to work in the iron ore industry but also in the oil and gas industry. It is an employer, right around the country, of thousands of people. So to come to this place and say that, if we were to develop a major oil and gas basin which could produce two to six billion barrels of oil on the current evidence we have, it would somehow only employ half a dozen people locally is demonstrably absurd. Again, if Senator Hanson-Young were to engage in the evidence, she would have seen—and probably has seen—reports showing that ACIL Allen, a respectable economic analysis agency, has recently estimated how many jobs could be created by the development of the Great Australian Bight. They found that more than 2,000 jobs would be created in construction alone from the development of the Great Australian Bight. It would add $3 billion to $12 billion to the national economy, which would be a huge boost, particularly for South Australia, which is of great importance.

I think that we need to balance the issues here. Of course, we do need to have an incredibly robust system to protect the environment—I'll come to what we're doing, if I have time, in a second—but we also need to recognise the local communities that do want those jobs, that economic opportunity and a future for their children and grandchildren in their local towns, doing something which is of great importance to the world. It's obviously of great importance: people pay a lot of money for oil and gas, so they must need it. It must be an essential input to people's lives right across the world, given the price it gets. We can be part of that. We can take pride in supplying an important energy source to the world. As I said before, people have great respect for the workers in this industry, who often spend a long time away from their family in a very tough environment and do a tough job, and it does produce enormous benefits for the world.

Recently—again it's something Senator Hanson-Young failed to mention in her contribution—we had local government elections in South Australia, where this was a live issue. Greenpeace in particular ran a strong campaign trying to elect councillors across the areas who were opposed to the development of the Great Australian Bight, but that was not the result. Senator Hanson-Young mentioned Kangaroo Island. I've been to Kangaroo Island. It's a lovely, lovely place. The new mayor there, Michael Pengilly, has said:

I don't oppose it—

that is, he doesn't oppose the development of the Great Australian Bight. He said:

… my view is very strongly that the environmental lobby have successfully run a great fear campaign against it. Everybody is environmentally conscious these days but you need to have some clarity and common sense. Our economy revolves around the oil industry, we have to have energy.

And Michael does speak common sense. The new Mayor of the City of Port Lincoln, Brad Flaherty, also said:

These sorts of things aren't going to be a real priority for us. The priority for us is making sure the council is efficient and effective in its actions towards looking after the ratepayer base … ensuring that the city is sustainable and viable going forward into the future.

Mr Flaherty says that he is pro employment and pro business and wants to see those opportunities for his area.

I too want to see local towns be able to take those opportunities. I want to see them take those opportunities, as I say, under a robust and strong environmental protection environment. That is why, as the minister for resources, I've made decisions to strengthen the oversight of NOPSEMA on the oil and gas industry, to make sure we continue to improve our environmental protection, because we can always do that and do things better. For example, in November last year, I announced that all environmental plans on oil and gas developments will now be made fully public—there will be full transparency of those. We have already drafted amendments to the offshore oil and gas regulations in that regard. They're out for consultation at the moment.

I am thankful for the fact that Equinor, the company that are proposing to drill in the Great Australian Bight, have already committed to release their environmental plans in full, despite it not being a statutory requirement yet. They're pre-empting the changes, and that is a good thing. They will release all their modelling, all their evidence, for public consultation. It will be all out there.

We are also making sure that we fund further research into the impact, potentially, of seismic testing on our seafood industries in particular and more broadly on the natural environment. Recently there's been a comprehensive review by Geoscience Australia of the existing evidence, and the CSIRO has just completed a study on the impact of seismic testing on zooplankton. We've now provided extra funding to the Australian Institute of Marine Science to look at how seismic testing might impact fish and pearl oysters as well. That research is being conducted at the moment. Again, we will be guided—and NOPSEMA I know are guided—by the science, by the evidence. They will not approve anything that has a materially detrimental impact on the environment.

I recognise that the reason we have these stringent regulations, and the reason I have made decisions to strengthen those and strengthen that oversight, is that there are risks associated with the development of oil and gas. There are risks associated with pretty much everything we do in life, whether it's construction in a city or it's farming, mining or building a factory. All of these things have risks associated with them. The proper approach to those risks, though, is to properly manage, mitigate and assess them and also to balance them, of course, with the risks of not doing anything.

That's something that, unfortunately, the Australian Greens simply have not engaged in in this debate: the risks of not doing anything. If we do not develop our oil and gas resources, what does that mean for the national security of this country? If we do not develop our oil and gas industries, what does that mean for the accessibility and affordability of petrol for Australians? It's a demonstrable fact that those countries that produce petrol have cheaper petrol because they don't have to transport it, and they refine it close to where they are. It is cheaper for them because of that. I think those risks of not developing are serious. They are serious risks that go to the heart of our national security and go to the heart of the cost of living of millions of Australian households, and they need to be properly assessed and weighed up against the risks on the other side of this debate.

We have successfully managed those risks under an independent regulatory regime for the past 50 years. I'm confident that we'll continue to strengthen that regime to improve on the outcomes for the oil and gas sector, and we'll do so in a way which also helps to support thousands of Australians to have a good, high-wage job in an industry that is an amazing development in our modern economy. Some of the smartest people in the world work in this industry. Some people say that the deep-sea drilling that occurs across the world, including in Australia, is the scientific equivalent of taking a man to the moon. It is that complex, that detailed, and I'm proud of the fact that we have an industry in this country—such a scientifically demanding industry—which leads the world. It leads the world in offering high-paying jobs for Australians who just want to work hard and provide for their families, and it leads the world in making sure that we protect the environment while also supporting a strong economy for millions of Australians.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:14): Labor shares the concerns of the community regarding the protection of the Great Australian Bight, it's wonderful adjacent coastal environment and, indeed, it's endemic marine diversity. It has a wonderful role as a nursery and migration zone for whales and other important marine animals and it's important in the life cycle of the oceans both for sardine and other small pelagic fish breeding. There's no doubt about the importance of the Great Australian Bight as a marine ecosystem and as a wilderness, but so too for many other parts of Australia where both industry and the marine environment exist side by side.

Labor wants to support an offshore oil and gas industry which is well operated and regulated. Indeed, I have very much seen this to be true in the case of my own home state of Western Australia. It is possible because of the strict and stringent oversight and approvals, which are world-leading best practice. It is absolutely the job of regulators to ensure that there are no unacceptable risks to the marine and coastal environment of the Great Australian Bight off South Australia or, frankly, any other part of our marine ecosystems where there are proposals for oil and gas exploration or mining.

I have to say, from the way that Senator Hanson-Young spoke about the prospect of oil drilling in South Australia, you would have thought that, because of the scale of industry that exists in Western Australia, we have beaches and marine ecosystems swamped with oil and sludge as if it was some kind of inevitable consequence of allowing industry anywhere in Australia. As a Western Australian, I feel this very strongly. I recognise the Great Australian Bight as unique and important geoscientifically. It's deep and it has got very particular marine protection attributes in terms of the species there, but so does Western Australia. It is absolutely ridiculous that the Greens think that they can single out addressing climate change and environmental protection in our nation by refusing to engage in the substantive policy debates about how we regulate these industries and, frankly, also about how we manage emissions, which will still continue to take place at the North West Shelf and in many other parts of Australia's oil and gas industry. It's simply an act of putting your head in the sand.

We are committed to the sustainable management of Australia's marine resources and, indeed, we want to be strong defenders and managers of our oceans and those who use them. I note, in relation to what Senator Hanson-Young proposes in this legislation, that it prohibits mining operations in the Great Australian Bight marine area and that the object of the bill, they argue, is to protect regional industries which rely on its waters from damage resulting from mining activities. Surely that is something that should and must be assessed for every industry and every proposed mining project in Australia. It is the job of NOPSEMA to do this on behalf of our environment and these industries nationwide, for the Great Australian Bight, for the North West Shelf—for all of our offshore oil and gas developments.

I've seen, with my own eyes, that there are real risks that can be associated with these industries when industry oversight—

Debate interrupted.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (12:20): I appreciate the opportunity to outline Labor's position on the government's Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. Labor supports these bills. However, in saying that, I will raise a number of concerns. But, firstly, I would like to thank the minister for facilitating a briefing to Labor on this bill. We are grateful that he extended that invitation. These bills are a consequence of the Carnell-Paterson review that was handed to the government in October last year. The Carnell-Paterson review recommended bringing together the functions of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. This was one of 10 recommendations included in the Carnell-Paterson review.

The purpose of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 is to establish a new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission from 1 January 2019. The new commission will be tasked to help restore the confidence of aged-care consumers in the delivery of aged-care services given the context of recent public concern. The new commission will provide a single point of contact for aged-care consumers and providers of aged care in relation to quality of care and regulation. It will be responsible for accreditation, assessment and monitoring, and complaints handling of aged-care services and Commonwealth funded aged-care services. These aged-care services include all four areas of aged-care services—residential aged care, home care, flexible care services, the Commonwealth Home Support Program and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.

The new commission will be led by a statutorily appointed Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, who will be advised by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. The commissioner will be appointed for a term of five years. The bill also establishes that the commissioner may seek and consider clinical advice. This would take the form of an expert clinical panel that would support the work of the commission. I also acknowledge that funding of $16 million will be allocated to the new commission.

The second bill, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, provides for the administrative matters required to transfer the functions and operations of the existing authorities to the commission. This bill also provides for the continuation of the appointments of the members of the existing Aged Care Quality Advisory Council for the remainder of their current term as new members of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council.

I mentioned that Labor has a number of concerns regarding these bills. Firstly, we on this side are concerned about the length of time it's taken the government to introduce legislation into the parliament. The Carnell-Paterson review was handed to the government almost a year ago. This is unacceptable. It is now November, and this new commission is set to be operational in around eight weeks. Why has there been a hold-up? Labor has not at any stage impeded the passage of this legislation being introduced into the House. We know that the bills are important in restoring the confidence of older Australians, their families and carers.

As already mentioned by the shadow minister in the other place, these bills are also a missed opportunity for the government to give the new commission stronger arbitrary powers given the level of public concern in relation to service providers. What the public don't want to see is another toothless tiger. Labor believes it is a shortfall of the government that it didn't consider giving the new commission greater arbitrary powers.

Since the introduction of these bills into the parliament, the government has announced it will establish a royal commission into aged care. Labor supports the royal commission, but the Liberals can't wait for the royal commission to finish before they start genuine reform to fix the aged-care crisis made under their watch. I also want to take this opportunity to raise the terms of reference for the royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister wrote to the Prime Minister back in September to request the broadening of the terms of reference. We are pleased that the Prime Minister listened to Labor and adopted a number of the suggestions we put forward, including long-term sustainability of the sector, funding and the aged-care workforce. Of some disappointment was the Prime Minister not supporting the inclusion of retirement village living as part of the terms of reference. We know that older Australians living in retirement villages are increasingly receiving home care services. We are also pleased that there is an opportunity for the royal commission to examine the impact of the Liberals' years of cuts. You don't fix aged care by cutting it.

Labor has been saying for a long time that the aged-care system is in a state of national crisis. When the Leader of the Opposition said this in the parliament in May, the government likened it to committing elder abuse. We are glad that they are now listening and have changed their minds. There have been more than a dozen inquiries, reports and reviews into the aged-care sector which the government hasn't acted on, many of which have been sitting on the desk in front of the minister. There have been three ministers in five years. They have known about the problems. They have known that this sector has been progressing towards a crisis but have done little, if anything, to act. With three ministers in five years and billions cut, the government has ignored dozens of its own reports and reviews on what is needed to fix the problems we know about with aged care. We already know what the problems are. These reviews and reports have been allowed to collect dust instead of being acted on. Instead of the minister acting on reform and responding to the plethora of reviews, reports and inquiries, we now have an aged-care crisis and a royal commission. This royal commission is an admission by this government that it hasn't done enough and hasn't driven the reform it should have. This is totally unacceptable. We can't call ourselves a fair and generous country until we give elderly Australians the love, care and respect that they deserve. Whilst the chaotic and divided Liberals have fought amongst themselves, the care of older Australians has been neglected.

On top of the inaction on the reform, we've seen billions of dollars cut from the aged-care sector. This has not helped a sector in crisis. The Prime Minister has been the architect of cuts that have gutted aged care and put the sector under immense pressure. As Treasurer, in his first budget alone, he was responsible for ripping $1.2 billion from the care of older Australians. You cannot rip almost $2 billion out of the aged-care sector over five years and not have an impact on quality. No wonder the system is in crisis! Those opposite must explain to the Australian people how these continuous cuts to the aged-care budget have contributed to the crisis we now face in aged care. Why did the Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, sign off on a $1.2 billion cut in the 2016 budget? It is deeply concerning that the Liberals responded with cuts, not compassion. Those opposite willingly cut aged-care funding because they don't value older Australians. The Prime Minister must take responsibility for these cuts that are now impacting on the care of older Australians. It's the right thing to do. You only have to look at the budget papers signed off by the Prime Minister when he was Treasurer. His name is on these papers, in black and white. These are the cuts that he is denying. Page 101 of Budget Paper No. 2 of 2016-17 says:

The Government will achieve efficiencies of $1.2 billion over four years …

Older Australians deserve much more than a Prime Minister who cuts funding to aged care and then lies to them about it. Embarrassingly, the Prime Minister continues to crab crawl away from his own cuts. The Prime Minister is pretending he is a recently interested bystander and not one of the key figures in a government that has been responsible for the cuts and for the aged-care crisis that has occurred under the Liberals' watch. The Liberals are too busy fighting amongst themselves to focus on what matters. It's time the Liberals started doing better in this critical area of policy.

I want to spend a bit of time talking about the aged-care reform or, more importantly, the lack of aged-care reform. There is no doubt that there are a lot of things this government needs to do when it comes to aged-care reform. In September this year the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for ageing and I held a round table with around 40 of Australia's leading aged-care experts. This was an opportunity not only for Labor to learn and listen about the issues and challenges but also for us to seek advice about short- and long-term solutions so that we can ensure older Australians are able to access a range of services with dignity and choice. We know from these conversations there is a lot of work to do. Four hours wasn't long enough to talk about all that needs to be done. It is obvious that the government has dragged its feet on reform. It has been slow paced and has mismanaged every part of the reform process.

What we are very concerned about is that the government is going to cease doing anything around aged-care reform and wait for the conclusion of the royal commission. This won't do. It won't do because the government is already five years behind on the reform front. Take, for instance, the Carnell-Paterson report. It's been over a year since the release of the report on the aged-care regulation, and in this time the Liberals have done too little to progress this important body of work. The Liberal government has fully implemented just one—just one!—of the report's 10 recommendations. Labor called for the implementation of the one recommendation the government has introduced—unannounced accreditation audits for residential aged-care facilities—six months before the government adopted it. Legislation to enact another of the review's recommendations—the creation of a new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission—is only being debated in the Senate today. The new commission is meant to begin on 1 January 2019. There's not a lot of time for the government to get their act together. To date, the Liberals have responded to less than half of the recommendations of the Tune review into aged care.

This inaction fits the pattern of the Liberal government, which has sat on more than a dozen reports and reviews into the aged-care sector and done very little. It is crucial to the future of the aged-care sector that families have faith and confidence that their loved ones will be safe and receive high-level care in residential homes. The Prime Minister and the Liberals need to do better—much, much, better.

Then there's the work around the workforce that hasn't even been started. The minister sat on the Aged Care Workforce Strategy Taskforce report A matter of carefor more than two months after the chair, John Pollaers, handed this strategy to him. Ironically, this strategy was only made public after the shadow minister sent out a media release having a go at the minister for sitting on this reform document. Of great concern is that the government has yet to commit any funding to this strategy. How does the government expect to drive reform without providing additional funding? We know there aren't enough aged-care workers. We know aged-care workers aren't given enough pay, respect or support. We also know there needs to be greater focus on training and education. But that report is sitting idle instead of being implemented and made operational. This is deeply concerning.

The aged-care workforce is expected to increase by 300 per cent in the next 30 years, underscoring the challenges and opportunities of getting this right. Labor has called on the government to immediately implement the workforce strategy and thanks the chair of this report, John Pollaers, for his important work. We also believe that the government must work with the unions and the aged-care providers to implement this strategy to meet growing demand. This strategy must consider issues such as the proposal for 24-hour registered-nurse coverage at residential aged-care homes.

In regard to staffing arrangements in residential aged-care homes, the role of nurses and personal-care workers in the care of older Australians is critical and will only become increasingly important. Labor also understands the important role of other health professionals, such as GPs, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and dietitians. All have a very important role overall in the wellbeing of older Australians. We will need to see a tripling of the aged-care workforce in the next 30 years to provide a high standard of living and care for this growing proportion of older Australians. Whether it is from the aged-care providers, workers or consumers, the message has been consistent: this government must take action to ensure we have an adequately skilled and equipped aged-care workforce to care for our rapidly ageing population.

Another area mismanaged by this government is the home care package waiting list. Outside of residential aged care we have the majority of older Australians, who are receiving care in their homes. Under the government's watch, there are now more than 121,000 people on the home care package waiting list—including 96,000 people with high needs, many living with dementia. Around 56,000 of these older Australians waiting have no home care package at all. It's a disgrace. As I've said, the release of the June 2018 data sadly reveals that there are now more than 121,000 older Australians waiting for a home care package. These numbers are shocking. It is now clear that the government and the minister have failed to curb the growing home care package waiting list and are not doing enough.

A bigger concern is that the minister has deliberately delayed releasing the March and June data. The March data was delayed by more than three months. The June data was also delayed. The government continues to cherrypick its way through the figures so as to paint a rosy picture rather than to reveal the reality of the waiting list. This is a sad reflection on the government and on how it prioritises the care of the most vulnerable Australians. It doesn't matter how the government and the minister try to spin their data, the numbers are clear: there are more than 121,000 people still waiting for care. The average wait time, according to the government's data, for a level 3 or level 4 package is still more than 12 months. We know that some older Australians have been waiting more than two years for care. The Department of Health has previously committed to releasing the data two months after the period that the data covers. To delay the data without any reason is intolerable and unacceptable. There is no excuse for continuing to delay the release of any future data. I note that the next round of data should be due any week now.

Labor does support these bills. We also remain committed to working with the government and the aged-care sector to ensure that older Australians can age safely, happily and with dignity, whether that is in residential care homes or in their own home. Labor again puts the government on notice that, even though it has announced a royal commission into aged care, it must continue all of the important reform work it has before it. I would also like to put on record my thanks to Senator Griff for his genuine interest in this area and for the good intentions of his second reading amendment. I give the senator credit for what he is trying to do, but Labor will not be supporting the amendment being put forward. Again, I reiterate: Labor will be supporting these bills, but we put the government on notice: I really don't want to see the next round of data, which is due anytime, released on Christmas Eve.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:39): I too rise to speak on the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018—to be referred to as the commission bill from here in—as well as the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. The Australian Greens broadly support these two bills. However, we consider that some amendments are required in order to strengthen the legislation, provide further protections for aged-care consumers and strengthen the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and its powers. The commission bill establishes the new independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission—to be referred to as the commission for the rest of my contribution—and was announced in the 2018-19 budget following the recommendations of the Carnell-Paterson review. The commission will initially bring together the functions of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. A commissioner is to be appointed by the minister to lead the commission, and the commission bill sets out the various functions of the commissioner, including the consumer engagement function, complaints functions, regulatory functions and education functions.

The establishment of the commission will allow a more holistic approach and better oversight of the aged-care sector as a whole, where information will flow more readily and easily throughout the commission, allowing better identification of where the risks and issues are, and for these to inform decision-making rather than being siloed into various agencies and the Department of Health. This will allow better analysis of the data being collected, assist in working out why there are certain trends, help drive quality improvement and enable innovation to ensure a better quality of life for older Australians and uphold their human rights. Given recent incidents that have played out in the media, it is incredibly important that we get the commission bill right so that older Australians, providers and the public have confidence in the aged-care sector and are clear on the purpose and the role of the commission and so that there are fewer grey areas than currently exist. From 1 January 2020 the aged-care regulatory functions of the Department of Health, including the approval of aged-care providers' compliance and compulsory reporting of assaults, will transition to the commission. A separate bill will be needed to transfer the regulatory functions from the department, and the Australian Greens understand that this bill is anticipated to be introduced and debated some time during 2018.

An overarching concern for us is that the bill does not refer to the human rights of older Australians and instead refers to their consumer rights. At the hearing for the inquiry into these bills, Mr Mitchell of the National Older Persons Legal Services Network—a network of national associations of community legal centres—said:

The national association notes that the bills engage older Australians from the perspective of consumers and build a guarantee of a quality base within the frame of consumer rights. The various incidents, inquiries, reports and reviews that have led us to this point in time have been very clearly about the human rights of older persons. The national association respectfully submits that the framing of rights expectations for older persons within the regulatory framework of aged care should be on the basis of inherent human rights, acknowledging the interdependence and interconnectedness of those rights.

The Australian Greens believe that the human rights of older Australians will be a strong focus of the upcoming royal commission and that there is a need for these rights to be acknowledged in the commission bill. I will be moving an amendment to include reference to human rights in the object of the commission bill.

In our additional comments to the inquiry into these two bills, we outlined that we consider that the commission bill should include reference to the Chief Clinical Adviser and specify that the Chief Clinical Adviser's role should have responsibility for overseeing and monitoring restrictive practices on medication management. We cannot envisage a time when the Chief Clinical Adviser's position will not be needed and are of the view that the requirement for certainty for the position into the future outweighs the need for flexibility that was articulated in the minister's second reading speech on the commission bill. We are pleased to see that the government will be amending the commission bill to reference the role of the Chief Clinical Adviser, establishing that the commissioner will be required to appoint a person for this position to assist them in the performance of their function.

In relation to restrictive practices, the Carnell-Paterson review recommended that the commission have oversight of the use of restrictive practices in residential aged care. While the Carnell-Paterson review also recommended that the Chief Clinical Adviser have responsibility for reviewing the use of antipsychotic medications, the Australian Greens would be satisfied with the Chief Clinical Adviser having oversight and monitoring responsibilities for restrictive practices and medication management in the first instance. This is extremely important. We need to ensure that there is someone responsible for ensuring that restrictive practices are used only as a last resort and in the least restrictive way, as well as someone advocating and pursuing the elimination of their use.

Medication management is also desperately in need of oversight. At the hearing for the inquiry into the bills, Dr Kidd, the chair of the Australian Medical Association Council of General Practice, said:

Many of the cases of abuse and neglect in aged-care settings involve inadequate clinical care. The clinical care accreditation standard was the single highest outcome not met by residential aged-care facilities in 2016-17, followed by the medication management standard.

We have to improve on this. We are pleased to see that the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the commission bill outlines a number of possibilities for the scope of work for the Chief Clinical Adviser, including best practice clinical care, minimising infection-related risks, clinical governance and the use of restraints. While we will not be seeking to amend the commission bill today to specify the scope of the Chief Clinical Adviser's role, we will be keeping a close eye on the development of this position following the commission's establishment and may seek to deal with this during the debate on the next bill in the new year.

In our additional comments to the report on the inquiry into these two bills we outlined our concerns regarding the commission being referred to as 'a single point of contact for older Australians and their families' given the commission will be unable to receive complaints about My Aged Care or the assessment processes. We argued that the government should not be separating the processes of assessment and determination of eligibility from service delivery. We think this is illogical, as they are entwined with one another. The commission's complaints function should be broadened to allow older Australians and their families to lodge complaints with the commission about their experiences with My Aged Care and the assessment teams. I will be asking the government about this during the committee stage. We understand that this issue is somewhat complex; however, the Australian Greens, at a minimum, want to see this issue resolved in the next bill next year.

In relation to the commissioner's consumer engagement and education functions, the Australian Greens raised concerns in our additional comments regarding the lack of reference to representatives of consumers in clause 17 of the commission bill and the lack of reference to the workforce of providers in clause 20. In relation to the first of these concerns, COTA Australia said in its submission:

… many consumers of aged care services (in particular those care recipients in residential aged care) require support to be involved in these functions of the Commissioner, and indeed family and friend carers are a key and absolutely valid consumer constituency.

The government's amendments to clause 17 address our concerns. The amendments will ensure that representatives of aged-care consumers are also consulted in relation to and are the beneficiaries of the commissioner's development of best practice models for the engagement of aged-care providers. In relation to the second of these concerns, we do not want to see the education of the workforce of providers, in the broader sense of the term, disappear once the commission is established. The specification in the supplementary explanatory memorandum that reference to aged-care providers in relation to the commissioner's education function includes their staff addresses this concern.

It became apparent during the hearing for the inquiry into the bill that clause 59, which provides the commissioner with the power to make information about an aged-care service publicly available, did not include the Commonwealth Home Support Program or, for that matter, any Commonwealth funded aged-care services. It is important that, once all Commonwealth funded aged-care services come under the remit of the commission, the commissioner is empowered to release information about them publicly, as they will be able to be an aged-care service. The government's amendment to include clause 59(A) to the commission bill will fix this omission. However, we have an amendment to both clauses 59 and 59(A) specifically to allow the commissioner to make information about the number of staff and the skill mix of staff of an aged-care service providing direct care to aged-care consumers publically available. This is important as we believe the current ratio of aged-care workers to aged-care consumers is too low, and this needs to be addressed. Allowing the commissioner to release such information will encourage public scrutiny of the situation and informed assessments to be made and will hopefully lead to the situation being improved.

We raise concerns in our additional comments regarding the consent provisions in relation to the powers of the authorised complaints officers and regulatory office officials in relation to premises. The Australian Greens believe that only aged-care consumers should be able to withhold consent if the premises are their own home and that only aged-care consumers should be able to withhold consent in residential aged-care facilities if a commission officer is there to see them. We will be asking questions during the committee stage about this issue.

We have also called for a review of the legislation. In our additional comments, we suggested a review after three years. The government's amendment will cause an independent review of the operation of the act and the rules to occur within six months of the fifth anniversary of their operation. The Australian Greens support the addition of a review provision and that the report of the review will be required to be tabled in each house of parliament.

The Australian Greens have concerns regarding residential aged-care facilities refusing access to advocates and other formal representatives of older Australians. At a hearing for the inquiry into the bills, at least two witnesses outlined their experiences of the relevant services being refused entry on a number of occasions. We have a great deal of concern about that. The Australian Greens want to ensure that advocates and other representatives are able to enter residential aged-care facilities as appropriate. I will be asking questions during the committee stage about the issue, as it is critical that aged-care facilities do not block access to advocates and other representatives. After all, these facilities are people's homes.

We are pleased to see that the government will be amending clause 23 of the commission bill to ensure complainants won't be charged fees by the commissioner for making a complaint, nor will the commissioner have the ability to charge fees to consumers and their representatives in relation to their consumer engagement function. Likewise, we are pleased to see the government will be amending clause 41 of the commission bill to ensure that those with the experience and knowledge of issues affecting aged-care consumers be appointed as members of the advisory council.

There is also a need for clarity regarding what will be included in the next bill, due next year, specifically regarding sanctions and the enactment of a serious-incident response scheme and a quality improvement framework. I note that our friends over the ditch in New Zealand have a process for serious-incident reporting which has led, I understand, to a decrease in falls and fewer older people being admitted to hospital with hip fractures and injuries of that nature. The community affairs committee, on its recent trip to New Zealand, heard from the Health Quality and Safety Commission on this issue and on its powers to establish mortality inquiries, which have also helped. That may be something we should consider in the future here in Australia if we don't see improvements in the current situation.

I'd like to thank the government for taking on board the concerns that have been raised following the inquiry into this bill, once again showing the usefulness of the Senate committee process. I'd like to thank them for the amendments they have made. We will be moving amendments to address issues they have not resolved, and, as I articulated in my contribution, we'll be asking a series of questions to clarify the operation of some elements of the commission. We will be supporting this bill. We think it will significantly improve care. We do think there is some way still to go, but we hope that, if done properly, this will make a significant contribution to improving care in this country.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (12:54): Centre Alliance supports this bill, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018, as I'm sure every senator and party in this place does. It puts in place a beefed-up aged-care commission as part of a new regime that we expect will provide much better oversight and regulation of aged care. This bill creates the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, which will be headed by an independent commissioner and will combine the functions of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. Following a second tranche of legislation next year, this new entity is also expected to take on the regulatory functions of the department from 2020. This was a key recommendation of the Carnell-Paterson review of national aged-care quality regulatory processes, which was critical of the fragmented regulatory system we now have. The review itself came in the wake of the appalling treatment of vulnerable residents at Oakden, in my home state. The inexcusable conditions residents endured, the abusive and negligent treatment they suffered and the agony their families still feel are what drive us here today. Every step we take to improve the residential aged-care system is one more step towards making sure that that horror is never repeated. We support this bill and we are relieved that it doesn't end there. There are measures on the horizon for performance ratings and a general embrace of greater transparency.

But, in saying we support the bill, we can also see a few areas where some minor improvements can be made. To start, we intend to amend the government's amendment, which in part provides for the role of a Chief Clinical Adviser—again, as recommended in the Carnell-Paterson review. We absolutely support the creation of this position to provide clinical leadership and assist the commissioner, but we note that the government hasn't stipulated the baseline skills required of the appointee. It is, instead, relying on the job description in the explanatory memorandum to do that. Normally that may not be an issue, but it's not a foolproof system. By way of a similar example, for about 10 months the Acting Chief Medical Officer's role in the home affairs department was filled by a senior department official who was not a doctor—this is despite the obvious description of the role—and yet she was meant to advise the department of the health issues of asylum seekers, refugees and Border Force personnel. So, while everyone fully expects that the Chief Clinical Adviser will, in fact, always be a medical specialist with expertise in aged care, I would feel more comfortable seeing it in black and white so we don't end up, somewhere down the track, with someone like a senior public servant with no medical training sitting in that important role.

We have a second reading amendment that voices our intention that aged-care providers be required to publish on their own websites any noncompliance, notifications or sanctions they have received and to do this in a timely way. We believe this information should be on a provider's website as well as the My Aged Care website to make it easy for families and residents to check the provider's status and be able to act on it if desired. No doubt, this is something most of us agree should happen, and Centre Alliance will continue to push for this to become a reality. A recent search of the My Aged Care website showed there were 55 providers across Australia who had been issued with noncompliance notifications and 19 providers had current sanctions against them, but only one of those 19 referred to their sanction on their own home page. Sanctions can mean there was an immediate or severe risk to the health, safety and wellbeing of residents. It is self-evident that we need to make it easy for families and care recipients to know about them.

I'm pleased to flag that we will also support the Greens amendment that would allow the commission to disclose the number and type of staff employed by aged-care providers. We had planned to circulate a similar amendment to reflect a private member's bill that my colleague Rebekha Sharkie had circulated in the other place. As we know, staffing levels are a critical issue when it comes to delivering good quality aged care, including the number of nurses and allied health professionals who will ensure the ongoing health and medical needs of residents. What we saw at Oakden was the opposite of this, where abuse flourished under a regime where there were nowhere near enough skilled staff to manage the complex needs of its residents. This minor addition to the legislation is all about transparency. When it comes to staffing numbers, disclosure can be a very useful signal of whether the service is providing the level of care that is expected by us all.

There are significant risks to residents from inadequate staffing numbers: increased medical errors, increased risk of bed sores and malnutrition, and higher risk of falls and choking, all leading to preventable deaths. Falls reflect a lack of adequate staffing as it means residents are getting around without sufficient assistance. Choking episodes can also reflect a lack of adequate staffing as it can indicate residents are being fed or are self-feeding without appropriate assistance. Weight loss of more than 20 per cent from admission is also a concern, especially in residents with dementia and, again, it can reflect a lack of adequate staffing as residents with dementia need to be fed because they lack the drive to feed themselves.

This bill is only the start of a long journey towards a better aged-care system. We expect further legislation next year and will no doubt see more reform once the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety delivers its findings in 2020. But we also know that there is more that government can do now without waiting for more reasons or more evidence. For instance, it can do much more to tackle preventable deaths, such as those caused by falls or by choking. How might this happen? Quite simply, at admission all residents should have a falls risk assessment and a plan made for managing this. All residents should also have a swallowing risk assessment and a plan made for managing this. In addition, residents should also have a pressure sore risk assessment and a plan for this. Their weight should be monitored to ensure they are eating enough and are not at risk of malnutrition. Every six months, these plans would be reviewed to ensure they are kept up with the residents' changing health and needs. We should also mandate that aged-care facilities report critical incidents, such as the rate of falls and the rates of choking per 100 residents and that these reports are made publicly available on the My Aged Care website. These are two very simple and effective measures that can move everything forward in a positive way.

As I mentioned before, this is a continuous journey of improvement, so I urge the government to continue on the positive road it's on, but to also take up more stringent monitoring of key welfare outcomes and very much the public reporting of these. Once we get that right, it means neglectful hellholes like Oakden and its ilk will have nowhere left to hide. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate calls on aged care providers to publish on their websites details of any sanctions imposed on the provider and any notices of non-compliance issued against the provider as soon as possible after the sanction is imposed or the notification is made.".

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:02): The Australian population is ageing and senior Australians and their families deserve to have confidence that they and their loved ones are being properly cared for. The Australian government has established a royal commission to look more broadly at the challenges facing the aged-care sector, particularly as Australia's population ages, including the quality of care provided in residential and in-home aged care. The royal commission is in addition to, not instead of, the action the government is already undertaking.

The government remains committed to continuing its reforms to improve safety and quality in aged-care services. This includes the establishment of a new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, announced in the 2018-19 budget. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 are part of the Australian government's fundamental reforms of the aged-care system. The reforms contribute to the promotion of high-quality aged-care services that meet consumer needs and preferences and create a competitive market based system where consumers drive quality.

The new, independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will be a single point of contact for aged-care consumers and providers of aged care in relation to quality of care and regulation. The commission replaces the existing Australian Aged Care Quality Agency and Aged Care Complaints Commissioner and, from 1 January 2019, will be responsible for the accreditation, assessment, monitoring and complaints handling of aged-care providers in Commonwealth funded aged-care services. The commission will also undertake consumer engagement in education of providers, consumers and the general public as part of its functions. The provision of these bills has been reviewed by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. The committee conducted a thorough review of the bills in the time available, and the government thanks the committee for its support of these bills in recommending that they be passed by the Senate.

The government has considered the comments made in the committee's report, and I'm pleased to announce the government's response to the committee's report. The government has developed amendments to address various issues and recommendations raised in the report. These amendments form part of the government's response and will refine and clarify the government's policy intention for the commission from its commencement on 1 January 2019. The government also notes the additional recommendations and comments contained in the committee's report and is committed to considering these issues during the upcoming opportunity to make enhancements to the commission's bills as part of the second stage of reform, as signalled in the objects of the commission bill.

The important work of the commission will also be strengthened through a number of initiatives announced in the 2018-19 budget, which will be delivered progressively over two years. This includes the development of options for a serious incident response scheme and measures to strengthen risk profiling of providers, with the aim of preventing or responding quickly to failures of care. I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate on these bills.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:05): Although I appreciate—and Labor does—Senator Griff's contribution to the debate on the issue—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Senator Polley, sorry, would you resume your seat for a moment. Are you making a contribution to the second reading debate here?

Senator Polley interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, just a point. If we could get to that point, that would be fine.

Senator POLLEY: I just want to put on record that Labor won't be supporting this amendment. We're happy with what the government has done at this point in time, but we do commend the interest that Senator Griff has taken in this debate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will now put the amendment moved by Senator Griff.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:07): I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018. The addendum responds to concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. I also table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018.

I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (9), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

Senator SESELJA: I move:

(1) Clause 17, page 12 (line 3), after "consumers", insert "and their representatives".

(2) Clause 17, page 12 (line 7), after "consumers", insert "and the representatives of those consumers".

(3) Clause 23, page 16 (after line 32), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) However, the Commissioner must not charge:

(a) an aged care consumer, or their representative, fees for services provided by the Commissioner in performing the consumer engagement functions; or

(b) a complainant fees for services provided by the Commissioner in performing the complaints functions.

(4) Page 22 (after line 18), at the end of Part 4, add:

35A Chief Clinical Advisor

The Commissioner must, in writing, appoint a person who is a member of the staff of the Commission, or a consultant engaged under section 35, as the Chief Clinical Advisor to assist the Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's functions.

(5) Clause 41, page 25 (line 21), omit paragraph (3) (c), substitute:

(c) issues affecting aged care consumers or their representatives;

(6) Clause 59, page 36 (line 7), after "places", insert "(if any)".

(7) Clause 59, page 36 (after line 7), after paragraph (1) (b), insert:

(ba) if the service is a home care service—the number of care recipients provided with care through the service;

(8) Page 36 (after line 26), at the end of Division 3, add:

59A Information about Commonwealth - funded aged care service may be made publicly available

(1) The Commissioner may make publicly available the following information about a Commonwealth-funded aged care service:

(a) the name and address of the service;

(b) the number of persons who are recipients of the service;

(c) the services provided by the service;

(d) the facilities and activities available to persons who are recipients of the service;

(e) the name of the service provider of the service;

(f) information about the variety and type of service provided by the service provider;

(g) information about the service provider's performance in relation to the provider's responsibilities under the funding agreement that relates to the service;

(h) any action taken, or intended to be taken, under this Act or the rules to protect the welfare of persons who are recipients of the service, and the reasons for that action;

(i) any other information of a kind specified in the rules for the purposes of this paragraph.

(2) Information disclosed under subsection (1) must not include personal information.

(9) Page 52 (after line 14), after clause 76, insert:

76A Review of operation of this Act and the rules

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of this Act and the rules to be conducted within 6 months after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this Act.

(2) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

The government proposes a number of amendments to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill. The proposed amendments address various issues raised in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into these bills. The government welcomes the committee's recommendation that the bills be passed and that establishing the commission should not be delayed. As the committee noted, there will be a further opportunity to pursue improvements in a second stage of reform, as signalled in the objects of the bill. However, after considering the issues raised in the inquiry with both the committee and stakeholders that appeared before the committee, the government considers that there are some amendments which would be appropriate to be made now, to apply from the commencement of the commission on 1 January 2019.

These amendments will support the new commission in its role as the single point of contact for aged-care consumers and providers of aged care in relation to quality of care and regulation. These changes refine or clarify the government's policy intent to deliver more integrated and responsive regulatory oversight of the sector and contribute to the bill's objects and focus for consumers. In summary, these changes will broaden the scope of the commissioner's consumer engagement functions to include the representatives of aged-care consumers; remove the ability of the commissioner to charge fees for services to complainants and consumers for certain functions; provide for the commissioner to be supported in the performance of their functions by a chief clinical adviser appointed by the commissioner; extend eligibility for appointing members of the advisory council to include persons with experience or knowledge of issues affecting aged-care consumers or their representatives, such as informal carers; extend the commissioner's power to publish information about aged-care services to include other Commonwealth-grant-funded services; and provide for a statutory review of the operation of the act to occur in early 2024, which will be five years after the commencement of this bill and four years after the second stage of reforms foreshadowed in this bill. I commend these amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Bernardi ): Senator Siewert, you have an amendment?

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:10): Yes, I do. I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8577:

(1) Amendment (8), after paragraph 59A(1) (d), insert:

(da) the number of staff, and the skill mix of staff, providing direct care to persons who are recipients of the service;

Temporary Chair, could I seek your guidance. I have a series of questions to clarify the operation of the commission. I am wondering whether I should start asking those questions. Now that I have moved that amendment, should I do it now?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Siewert, it would probably be advantageous for us to deal with your amendment and seek a response from the government. The government amendments have been moved. After the failure or passage of those amendments—whichever it may be—we will come back to your general question.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:11): I want to put on record that the Labor Party will be supporting the government's amendments.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:12): I thank the opposition for their support of our amendments. We thank Senator Siewert for her proposed amendment to the government amendments. The government doesn't support the proposed amendment to clause 59A of the bill for the same reasons it does not support the proposed amendments to clause 59. The government does not support the proposed amendment to include a reference to the number of staff, and the skill mix of staff, providing direct care to care recipients. There is a risk that publishing the wrong information, or information in the wrong context, will mislead consumers about what it means and adversely affect the business of providers. Additionally, appropriate arrangements must also be implemented to facilitate the commissioner receiving, analysing and reporting this information from providers and regulating its integrity. Making such an amendment before there has been an opportunity to consider and implement arrangements to support this proposal is likely to raise expectations which will not be fulfilled.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:13): I want to ask some questions specifically around this particular amendment and in response to what the minister has just said. Is the government proposing, as we noted in our contributions and as you yourself earlier noted, that there will be further amendments to this commission process? Is the government thinking that you will be dealing with the skill mix a bit later on? This is a really serious issue and it is going to keep coming up again and again. It is better to have a proper process in place rather than what we have now. For example, we don't even have a guarantee that we will have a nurse on 24/7, which some of us think is the absolute minimum that would be required. Recent studies have shown that the amount of contact and care hours that are required is four hours and 18 minutes, and we are nowhere near that in Australia. Those are the sorts of things the public wants to know, consumers want to know and, importantly, the families of residents in aged care particularly want to know as well.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:14): Thank you, Senator Siewert. To the first part of the question, the answer is yes—that there are further reforms that have been flagged. But, in terms of the skills mix that you're specifically pointing to, the government's view is that this isn't the right act for that to be considered in and that, in fact, the Aged Care Act is where skills issues should be considered. So, in terms of the government's thinking, obviously the government will make announcements in due course, but we believe that the right place to look at those issues is in the Aged Care Act.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:15): Labor understands the intent of the Greens amendment. The government is currently sitting on the Aged Care Workforce Strategy. For some months, Labor has been calling on the government to address the A matter of care workforce strategy, as this should have been done immediately. Aged-care workforce development is not an optional policy area. The aged-care workforce is diverse, and we acknowledge the work that is being carried out by nurses, carers and allied health professionals. We hope that the government act on the workforce strategy that is before them. It's all there laid out for them; they just need to take some action. Labor will not be supporting the Greens amendment. We think it can be done in the future in a different piece of legislation.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:15): I will note that this is about releasing the information. While I accept that there are other pieces of legislation that regulate the aged-care sector, this would enable people to at least get access to information about what's going on. As I said, we do appreciate the fact that there's a lot of work to do and that other acts would be required to specifically start regulating the process if the government were so minded. We think this would improve the operation of the commission and certainly enable the community to get better access to and understanding of what's happening in the provision of aged care.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Bernardi ): The question is that the Australian Greens amendment to government amendment (8) be agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that government amendments (1) to (9) on sheet GN154 be agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:24): I was wondering whether I could ask my questions before we go to the vote on this series of amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: If they're related to these amendments, then of course.

Senator SIEWERT: Hopefully they are. The government's amendments are quite wide ranging. As I articulated in my second reading contribution, we will be supporting those amendments. We're really pleased that the government responded to the Community Affairs Committee's points, raised in the inquiry, particularly a number of the points I raised in my additional comments on this report. Again, I'll just make the point that it does show the benefit of the committee inquiry process. But there are a few outstanding issues that I want to clarify. During the committee's inquiry into the bills, COTA Australia and other consumer organisations called for the proposed commission to incorporate My Aged Care and the assessment processes within the complaints purview of the commission. The government is not going to do this. Can the minister confirm that he will direct the commissioner to adopt a no-wrong-door policy and ensure that staff connect consumers with the appropriate complaint mechanism?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:25): It's my understanding that that is the intention, but, in terms of an ability to direct, I'd need to clarify. I don't believe there is that ability, but that is certainly the intention of the government.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:26): Thank you. That will go some way to addressing the concerns we have with the process. Will the government also ask the commissioner to include in their annual report the number of calls received in relation to My Aged Care and in relation to assessments by RAS and ACAT staff?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:26): Unfortunately I'll have to take that one on notice. Certainly the government would be willing to discuss it with the new commissioner, but, for that level of detail, I'll have to take that on notice. I'm sure we can get you some more information on that out of session.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:26): Thank you. That would be appreciated. It's one of the issues that we're keen to have better articulated, and I know consumers and their advocates want that too—a better understanding of the number of complaints and the issues in relation to My Aged Care, RAS and ACAT. What additional steps is the government taking to investigate including My Aged Care and the assessment processes within the complaints purview through the next bill? Is this being considered? If you can't answer that one, is the government prepared to consider including that in the next bill?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:27): My advice is that it's not within the purview of this bill.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:27): I know it's not in the purview of this bill. That's why I'm asking: is the government looking at potentially including it in the next bill so that the whole process, as I articulated in my speech on the second reading, is covered?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:28): No.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:28): All right, I'll keep working on that one! During the committee's hearings on the bills, we heard that OPAN—the Older Persons Advocacy Network—has been refused entry into residential aged-care facilities by approved providers. COTA Australia raised concerns that the new legislation did not incorporate the existing section 10(3) of the accountability principles, which states:

The approved provider must not unreasonably withhold consent if access to the premises of the service is required in circumstances where the CEO of the Quality Agency … reasonably believes that there is a serious risk to the safety, health or wellbeing of a person who is being provided with care through the service.

How will the minister ensure that the new staff of the commission will not be refused entry in these circumstances?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:29): Entry and search can only occur when the occupant of the premises has given consent for the authorised complaints officer or regulatory official to do so. Where entry is sought to a consumer's own home, the consumer's consent must be received before entry. Approved providers have an obligation under the Aged Care Act to cooperate and facilitate access to their premises for authorised complaints officers and regulatory officers of the commission, and failure to comply with responsibility can result in a sanction being imposed on an approved provider. Certain procedures must be followed if sanctions are to be imposed.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:29): Thank you for that. I want to move on, then, to advocates and other representatives and ensuring that they are able to enter residential aged-care facilities.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:30): You're just looking for a general response in relation to that? I'm advised there are existing provisions under the Aged Care Act which secure access to aged-care homes for advocates and OPAN workers. Approved providers are required to allow access as part of their responsibilities to recognise the user rights of consumers, and this includes access to advocates. These responsibilities are set out in the User Rights Principles 2014, and the department can take regulatory action if providers fail to comply.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:30): Has the department had complaints about advocates and consumer representatives not being able to access premises? We certainly heard some during the inquiry. I'm just asking whether they've had any.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:31): In terms of those complaints, I'll take it on notice, but I understand there have been discussions with OPAN, who have raised that issue with the government.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:31): Is the government intending to ensure that there is an introduction between OPAN and the commission to ensure there's a smooth transition from the current process to the commission, with OPAN?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:31): Yes, they have already met, I think, to that effect.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:31): Thank you. Is the government satisfied that the legislation makes it clear that only consumers will be able to withhold consent under proposed sections 66 and 69 of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill if the premises are their own home, or if the premises are a residential aged-care facility when the commission officer is there to see them specifically?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:32): If it's their own home, the answer is yes, because they are the occupier of those premises.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:32): Can I just check. The scenario that's been raised with us is where, for example, a service provider is there at the time, answers the door, denies consent and doesn't necessarily tell the resident, or the resident doesn't get the opportunity to answer. So it is to be assured that it's the resident that is saying yes or no.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:32): In those cases, the approved provider would not be complying with their obligations, and there would potentially be sanctions against them.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:32): You said that for their own home you were clear. Does that mean you're not quite clear for the residential aged-care facility?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:33): Yes. In that case, it's the approved provider who is the occupant.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:33): That then brings in this conflict where it's actually a person's home—their residence. So you're not confident, in fact, that it's clear that only the consumer can deny or withhold consent?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:34): In those cases, there's the obligation of the approved provider to cooperate with the regulator.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:34): Thank you. When will the expert clinical panel be established, and how many individuals do you envisage being on the panel?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:34): By 1 January 2020, and the number and the expertise on the panel are matters for the commissioner.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:34): I suspect I may get the same answer, then, to this next question, but I'm going to try: what are the expected qualifications of those on the panel?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:34): I refer to my previous answer.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:35): Can the government confirm that the sanctions, specifically those under part 4.4 of the Aged Care Act 1997, will be transferred to the commission in the next bill? Is that what the government plans, or have you not yet made up your mind?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:35): That's the intent.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:35): One of the recommendations of the Carnell-Paterson review was for the enactment of a serious incident response scheme, which I touched on in my second reading contribution. Could you indicate where the government is up to with regard to this scheme. Has there been a decision as to whether this will be included in the next bill or whether it would sit within the Aged Care Act 1997?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:36): I'm advised that the department is currently working up options for the consideration of government.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:36): Does that mean that could be dealt with prior to the changes in the next bill for the further amendments of the commission or a future time frame?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:36): It would be for a future time frame.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:36): You'll be pleased to learn that this is potentially my last question, depending on the answer. Is the government considering undertaking work on a quality-improvement framework to ensure that near misses are being reported and that work is being done to continuously improve care for older Australians?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:36): That's a matter for consideration under the Serious Incident Response Scheme.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:37): Could I just clarify then: there's a group of things around quality improvement and the Serious Incident Response Framework, and they're being worked on together? I saw nodding heads, for the Hansard. Can I ask then about the time frame. We didn't really get to the full final point in terms of when that is being considered—if it's the next bill or the Aged Care Act. Is there a time frame for making the decision on where that will go, if that makes sense?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:37): The answer is no, because that consultation is happening right now.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:38): Is there an end date for the consultation process?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:38): There's no fixed time line. Obviously, we always try and do these as thoroughly and expeditiously as possible.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:38): Hopefully this is my last question, and you might need to take it on notice. It is possible to provide the Senate with an outline of the consultation process and who's been consulted?

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (13:38): I will take that on notice, Senator Siewert.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:38): I ask that amendment (4) on government sheet GN154 be put separately.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): The question before the chair therefore is that government amendments (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) on sheet GN154 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question before the chair now is that government amendment (4) on sheet GN154 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:40): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8522 together:

(1) Clause 5, page 2 (line 21), after "enhance the", insert "human rights,".

(2) Clause 59, page 36 (after line 10), after paragraph (1) (d), insert:

(da) the number of staff, and the skill mix of staff, providing direct care to care recipients receiving care through the service;

These amendments relate to the comments that I made during my second reading contribution and relate to the human rights element for older Australians. I found very convincing evidence from Mr Mitchell, which I articulated in my second reading contribution, around the human rights of older Australians. He articulated that very well and, in fact, it was just after the Four Corners reports. What we saw there were the human rights of older Australians being violated, in many people's opinion, including my own. We think it would benefit the commission if the objects of the commission included reference to older Australians' human rights. There are also very strong opinions among many people that, in fact, there needs to be an international convention on the rights of older peoples around the world. It's something that I also find very attractive and will continue to pursue. In the meantime, we think a valuable improvement to the bill and to the role of the commission would be to amend the objects to include reference to older Australians' human rights.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:42): In relation to these amendments, we commend the Greens in their effort to restore trust and confidence in a regulatory system that is failing to protect older Australians, particularly in relation to the airing of the Four Corners program. But, while we understand the Greens' intent of these amendments, the ad hoc drafting is not sufficient and there needs to be more consultation. The government has indicated it will need to rewrite the Aged Care Act. It is best, we believe, that any amendments be done at that time, after proper consideration and after the act has been reviewed. In relation to the royal commission and the interest that the public have in the sector, we feel that it is best done, as I said, after the act has been reviewed, and therefore we won't be able to support the Greens amendments.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:43): The government thanks Senator Siewert for her proposed amendments to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill, but the government doesn't support the proposed amendments to clause 5 and clause 59. The proposed amendment to clause 5, to include a reference to human rights, is not supported as the rights of aged-care consumers are matters dealt with under the Aged Care Act. As Senator Polley has just indicated, this bill sets up the regulatory and administrative arrangements to give effect to the rights and responsibilities under the Aged Care Act but not to create or give rights. The proposed amendment to clause 59, to include a reference to the number of staff and skill mix of staff providing direct care to care recipients, is not supported for the reasons outlined earlier.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): The question before the chair is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8522 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:44): I move amendment (1) on sheet 8590 revised:

(1) Page 22 (after line 18) , at the end of Part 4 , add:

35A Chief Clinical Advisor

(1) The Commissioner must, in writing, appoint a person who is a member of the staff of the Commission, or a consultant engaged under section 35, as the Chief Clinical Advisor to assist the Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's functions.

(2) The Commissioner must not appoint a person under subsection (1) unless the person:

(a) is a geriatrician; or

(b) is a general practitioner experienced in aged care; or

(c) has the appropriate clinical skills and experience to fulfil the person’s duties as the Chief Clinical Advisor.

It will ensure that the Chief Clinical Adviser has appropriate qualifications.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:45): I'd like to thank Senator Griff for his amendment. As I said earlier, I commend his interest in this policy area. Even in the amended form, Labor will not be supporting this amendment.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:45): Again, the government supports Senator Griff for his proposed amendment to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill but does not support the proposed amendment to clause 35A of the bill to specify what professional qualifications the Chief Clinical Adviser must hold. We want to ensure that the commissioner has sufficient flexibility to appoint a Chief Clinical Adviser who will best support them in performing their functions. Having substantial clinical knowledge, skills and experience is inherent within the role of Chief Clinical Adviser, as, without these skills, the person could not provide the support that the commissioner would want to have from their Chief Clinical Adviser on complex clinical issues. Specifying that the role must be performed by a medical practitioner also risks excluding other relevant clinical professionals. In addition, the government has announced that the commissioner and Chief Clinical Adviser will be supported by an expert clinical panel which would be accessed when specific complex issues emerged that required specialist expertise, advice and assessment. It is expected that the expert clinical panel would include members from a range of clinical specialties.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:46): Just a point of clarification: this amendment does not specify a general practitioner. In fact, it states:

(c) has the appropriate clinical skills and experience to fulfil the person's duties as the Chief Clinical Advisor.

That very much sounds like the description that was just presented to us.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 8590 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: So the question is that the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018, as amended, be agreed to, and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 stand as printed. Senator Siewert?

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:48): I just want to clarify one question. I may have misheard or misunderstood the answer when I asked the question about the capacity around consent for access to residential aged-care premises. Do I understand that an approved provider can deny access? I want to be really clear, because that is significantly different to how I understood that the process would operate.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:48): Technically, they can. But an aged-care provider is required to meet its obligatory requirements, and, if it doesn't, sanctions can be applied. So, technically, as to what you are saying: yes. Practically, I think it's probably a different situation. There are sanctions that can be applied if they don't meet their obligatory requirements.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:49): I'm going to try to make this as quick as possible. We've heard previously that, if people are denied access, it may take a while for the sanctions process to go through in the meantime. If somebody's raised a complaint, the timeliness of access could well be an issue. If there is a complaint and the providers deny access, it gives them time to deal with things. In fact, there needs to be more timely access.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:50): Thanks, Senator Siewert. Part of those obligatory requirements is that providers are required to cooperate, and the department does have the power to issue a warrant, which can happen quite quickly.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:50): Thank you for that clarification.

Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018, as amended, agreed to; Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 agreed to.

Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 reported with amendments; Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 reported without amendments; report adopted.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:51): I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (13:52): I wish to speak in support of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2017. There are three areas where schedule 1 to the act is to be amended. These are Kakadu National Park, land within the town of Urapunga, and land within Anthony Lagoon Station, NT Portion 5010.

The Kakadu plan of management is an interesting and important example of where First Nations interests in land, culture and heritage can complement and enhance national park priorities of environmental management and tourism. Each stage of the park includes Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 that is leased to the Director of National Parks or land that is subject to a claim by traditional owners under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Most of the land that was to become part of stage 1 of Kakadu National Park was granted to the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in August 1978. In November 1978, 40 years ago, the lands trust and the director signed a lease agreement for the land to be managed as a national park. That was, I'm pleased to say, welcomed by the Prime Minister of the day, Mr Malcolm Fraser, who declared:

Kakadu National Park owes its existence in its present form to an unprecedented action by the traditional … owners of the area.

Stage 1 of the park, covering the lease land and the land required for the township of Jabiru and some adjoining lands, was also declared on 5 April 1979. These lease arrangements are also important acts of generosity from the traditional owners which must always be respected.

Stage 2 was declared on 28 February 1984, originally as Kakadu (Stage 2) National Park and later incorporated into Kakadu National Park on 20 December 1985. In March 1978, a land claim was lodged under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act for the land included in stage 2 of Kakadu. The land claim was partially successful, and in 1986 three areas of the eastern part of stage 2 were granted to the Jabiluka Aboriginal Lands Trust. A lease between the land trust and the Director of National Parks was signed in March 1991. At the time of preparing this plan the rest of stage 2, except the commercial lease near the South Alligator River, was subject to repeat land claims under the land rights act. The land may become Aboriginal land during the life of this plan and will be leased to the director.

In June 1987, a land claim was lodged for the land in the former Goodparla and Gimbat pastoral leases that were to be included in stage 3 of Kakadu. The other areas to be included in stage 3, the areas known as the Gimbat Resumption and the Waterfall Creek Reserve—formerly known as UDP Falls; UDP standing for Uranium Development Project—were later added to this land claim. Three stages of Kakadu National Park were declared progressively on 12 June 1987, 22 November 1989 and 24 June 1991.

Kakadu National Park has been in Mungguy land, which is of immense cultural and economic importance to its traditional owners. A further long-overdue measure of justice is finally being provided to these owners by this bill. The bill will resolve four land claims: Ngombur; Alligator Rivers Area III—Gimbat and Goodparla; the Kakadu, Jim Jim area; and the Kakadu region repeat claim. Some of these claims date back to 1978. This means that after some 30 years, from when the first stage of Kakadu National Park was declared on 5 April 1979, the whole of the park will finally become Aboriginal land and be jointly managed as originally envisaged. The park is a World Heritage area under the World Heritage Convention, recognised as part of Australia's national heritage, and includes wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention.

On the Anthony Lagoon Station, NT portion 5010, there is an amendment before us to include land on Anthony Lagoon station, and Labor supports this amendment. This settles longstanding claims over stock routes and bore reserves, which are unalienated crown land, by the recognition of an area of Aboriginal land for a community living area within the boundaries of the pastoral lease. It provides secure and certain tenure for traditional owners over a relatively small portion of their traditional country. It is by agreement with the pastoralists of the Northern Territory government. I note the claim was lodged by Michael Dodson, a senior legal advisor to the Northern Land Council at the time—some relation of mine, I think.

The Urapunga township was created in 1885. Historically, lots in the town remained unsold and the town failed to develop. Surrounding areas have been recognised as Aboriginal land. The Yutpundji-Djindiwirritj Aboriginal Lands Trust was granted a title to NT portion 2632 following a report in 1982 by the then Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Justice Toohey. The town was subject to a native title determination, in Ngalakan People v Northern Territory, on 5 June 2001. In the context of an appeal, an ILUA—an agreement—was reached in 2005 with the Northern Territory government to provide land within the town to become Aboriginal land. In exchange, security of tenure was provided to a local business.

This bill will finally bring to fruition the agreement of some 30 years ago. It is a good example of how land rights legislation can be used to provide just and flexible settlements for native title claims. This option is unfortunately not available in my home state of Western Australia.

In this moment of bipartisan respect for the land held by the First Nations people, I would like to join with the minister in congratulating the Mirarr people, who have been fighting to protect their land for years. I pay respect to those who have been in this fight and I recognise them as the owners of their own lands. The decision by Justice John Griffith in the special on-country hearing to recognise the native title rights of the Mirarr people is long awaited and well deserved. I also congratulate the Gundjheimi Aboriginal Corporation on their hard work in leading the fight for recognition and ensuring Jabiru is returned to the rightful owners. The last 38 years of operation of the Ranger Uranium Mine cannot compare to the 65,000 years the Mirarr people have been caring for country—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Dodson, you will be in continuation when debate resumes. It being 2pm, we will move to questions without notice.