Senator STOKER (Queensland) (10:47): It's a pleasure to rise to continue my address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech to the Senate. I was talking about the importance of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 at the time we paused our consideration of this matter last. Tackling union lawlessness and holding unions to account is vital to business confidence and profitability. Profit seems to be a dirty word, but, when businesses are profitable, employees are the ones who benefit. It allows for investment and expansion, and the creation of more jobs with the chance to move into new and more challenging roles and to be remunerated for that additional responsibility. And so profit should be, in fact, a virtue. It's quite funny that in the political sphere it isn't treated that way.

This bill is about doing something important for the members of unions, recognising their needs and wants. For example, I think of the needs of teachers, of nurses and our many trades. These three sectors still have really high union membership numbers compared with unions in other sectors such food service, arts or recreation, mainly because of the importance of accessing insurance and representative services rather than necessarily to gain a political affiliation. And so often, I get reports that these groups don't trust the quality of the union representation that they're getting in the bargaining process, because, too often, unions have arranged kickbacks for themselves at members' expense, forgetting or selling out the needs of the workers they were established to work for. We need to be better at communicating the benefits to both the worker and the economy of getting these bills over the line. Ensuring there is integrity in our union sector is vital for the economic performance of this country, and that flows into the opportunities for the families of all Australians, and it flows into the pockets and the aspirations of households nationwide.

I might turn, then, to say a few things about this government's plan for the increasing number of jobs that we need to see in the economy throughout this country. We know that the best way to help Australians get ahead is to ensure that every Australian who can work is able to get a decent job, something that reflects their skill set and provides an opportunity to get ahead in the future. That's why we target our efforts at growing the economy—that's how we get more Australians into work, it's how we tighten the labour market, and it's how we increase incomes for all right across the country.

Since coming to office, 1.4 million jobs have been created by the private sector under the conditions that have been established by this government. More than 400,000 people who had never had a job have now been employed. This is a really significant achievement and one that this government is committed to continuing into this term. Not only does 400,000 people who'd never had a job getting a job mean that those people have more money in their pockets but it means the rest of the Australian taxpayers carry less of the burden of the social security support that's needed for those who can't or aren't working. It also gives each and every one of those individuals and the households that depend on them the dignity and hope that comes with being able to plan for a future, and they're setting an example to their families and children, which is so very important in making sure that we are building generations of diligent, capable and aspiring workers in this country. It's pretty exciting stuff.

That's not to say there are no challenges to the economy in this country. Of course there are. There is low inflation. There is relatively low, by our long-term standards, wages growth—although it does exceed inflation and it exceeds the performance of most of the OECD—and that's something of concern to Australians and something that will require the continued diligence of this government. There are challenges posed by the trade war that is evolving internationally, and, in many ways, we don't have as much control over that as we do with what happens within our own shores. It's up to us as a government, and importantly here in this chamber, to do what we can to ensure that we are stimulating in every way possible jobs growth and to bear in mind that every individual should have the right to a job.

Workers aged 45 and over, for instance, have so much to offer in the workforce. Last year, my Senate colleague Minister Cash announced a wonderful trial program: the Career Transition Assistance Scheme. This scheme is for people aged 45 and older and has been designed to help them get job-ready. We hear so often that people who have been engaged in a career for a long time can face challenges at this point in their life, and the need to retrain or reskill or shift their skill sets for this next phase of their lives is something that can be really difficult and confronting to people who face that situation. But it comes down to confidence. That word keeps permeating this address. Confidence in older workers is vital to them believing they can find a great job, and this scheme helps to identify the transferable skills they have and how those skills can be adopted to new industries or how they can be retrained slightly so they can apply their skills to a new trade. This scheme helps transition a person's already great contribution into the next phase of their life. It also helps to develop their confidence in the use of technology, including the ubiquitous smartphone, apps and social media technology, which are so familiar to young people and many of the people in this room, but which, at times, have been avoided by the older generations—and that's a difficult thing if you want to go for new job opportunities at that point in your life. This scheme is just one small way that this government is determined to do all it can to ensure the creation of 1.25 million jobs over the next five years, including 80,000 new apprenticeships.

In Queensland, the current unemployment rate is six per cent. That compares to the national rate of 5.1 per cent. In her budget speech last month, Queensland Treasurer Ms Trad said that 199,000 jobs had been created in Queensland since 2015. But, as quickly as jobs were created in Queensland, the state government, through their mismanagement and lack of action, lost just as many. According to the Queensland Government Statistician's Office, 42,400 jobs were created in Queensland in the year from May 2018 to May 2019, but 33,000 were lost. They were mostly in the regions, and mostly in Mackay, in fact, which lost 11,300 jobs over the past 12 months.

These are all just numbers to Queenslanders in the regions, who have watched in horror as jobs have seeped out of their local economies because Labor will not allow major projects in their region to get off the ground. The six per cent unemployment rate across Queensland is—sadly and horrifically—nothing compared to the Queensland outback region where, in May, unemployment was recorded at 14.5 per cent and youth unemployment, shockingly, hit 24.1 per cent. But what would you expect when farmers are decimated by drought for years and then lose their remaining cattle to floods? Many have now faced fires in the last week or two. Vegetation management laws don't allow farmers to feed their starving cattle mulga without being slapped with fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it's likely the transport subsidy for water, fodder and other necessities will be scrapped by the Palaszczuk government.

There is no work out there in the regions and no policy help from the Queensland government to help farmers continue until the rain comes again. That means the efforts of this federal government across the board have never been more important than they are right now. Families across regional Queensland—and, indeed, right across urban and rural and regional Queensland—depend upon this government's economic performance in additional measure to the other states because the Queensland Labor government is just letting us down so badly back home on the environmental front, on the major projects front, and on the budget management and debt front. There is so much riding on there being jobs available for people throughout Queensland.

The futures, the aspirations and the very human potential of the people of our state cannot withstand year after year of incompetent Labor administration in Queensland. But Queenslanders should know that we are doing all we can to make up the difference, as we always do on the Liberal-National side.

Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales) (10:57): A typically erudite and feisty contribution from Senator Stoker, standing up for the people of Queensland! It's good to see.

In this address-in-reply speech, I will address some of the items in the Governor-General's speech. What I found interesting was that it was a very wide-ranging speech. I was very impressed with the breadth of it. It was a reminder, and perhaps a rebuke, to those people who believe that the coalition is back in government with a limited agenda. In fact, the Governor-General laid out a very broad agenda. I particularly took to heart what he said towards the end:

And with those words it is my duty and my very great pleasure to declare the 46th Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia open.

To me, that was a reminder that this parliament and the democracy that underpins it is the pinnacle of the Australian achievement. It's here where the great national issues are fought out, debated, discussed and decided. Now, with the election over, our job as a government is to get on with serving the needs of the Australian people in the terms in which they gave us that remit at the election.

We are back to pass laws that will improve the condition of our fellow Australians. That is the bottom line of what this government must be about—what any government must be about. The bedrock of that is the economy, and I quote from the Governor-General's speech where he said:

My government believes a strong economy is the foundation of the compact between Australians and their government.

The foundation of the compact with the Australian people—the mutual obligation that exists—is that we expect our fellow Australians to work hard, play hard and live hard. But, in return, we expect our government to provide the conditions in which Australians can thrive and prosper. This is the mutual obligation at the heart of the compact between government and the Australian people. To me, there is nothing more important in that regard than what we do about our rate of productivity growth. Our productivity is not about working harder or working longer. It's about working smarter. It's about investing smarter. It's about all the ways in which we provide for new products and services, new ways of doing things and new processes.

Going forward, it's important for us to have doubling the rate of productivity growth as our challenge so that we can maintain the growth in living standards we've become used to over the last few decades. Over the last few decades, income growth has been strong in this country. But for that income growth to continue, we need to double our rate of productivity growth, and that is the challenge that the Treasurer laid out in a recent speech where he talked about the importance of productivity. My colleagues in the Treasury and elsewhere, people like Ken Henry and others, often talk about the three Ps: productivity, population and participation. I believe strongly in population growth. I believe in a strong, well-managed immigration program as the bedrock of Australian development. That creates challenges, but we can meet those challenges. I think strong population growth is important for economic reasons, social reasons, cultural reasons and for our capacity to project our strength in the world.

I strongly believe that participation is important. The greatest area of participation today where we can continue to make inroads is female participation in the workforce. While that has been rising, there are still challenges around that, and these challenges need to be addressed, whether it's in the way in which our tax and transfer system operates or the impact of effective marginal tax rates on people. It is often secondary income earners and women taking time out of the workforce to have a family who bear the burden of doing that and also contributing to government finances. It's important for us to promote measures that promote participation in the workforce. It also means, within the workforce, making the best use of all the talents available.

People sometimes say, 'Why should we worry about diversity and inclusion?' Not only is diversity and inclusion a right in its own regard in how we treat our fellow human beings, it's also important in making the most efficient use of all the people we have in this country. I noticed the other day, for example, Gareth Evans talking about a bamboo ceiling when it comes to Asian Australians. We want to make sure that we make the best use of all our talents at all levels in Australia and that we break the ceilings, whether they are glass ceilings or bamboo ceilings. As the distinguished American economist Paul Krugman once noted, the bedrock is productivity growth. In the end, it's about productivity growth. So it's important, as I said before, to focus on how we can double the rate of productivity growth to maintain that growth in living standards as we go forward.

This is a long-term agenda. It's not going to happen overnight. The fruits of productivity growth do not appear overnight. The results can take years to come through, so there's no time to waste. We always have to be ready to do things. As my former employer John Howard used to say: 'With reform, the finishing line is ever receding. Just when you think, "I've done enough; I can rest on my laurels," there's always more to do if you're going to continue to raise incomes and living standards.' This is about not only incomes for people in work but also providing us with a capacity to support the living standards of people who are retired or of people who, for reasons of disability or whatever, cannot support themselves.

Productivity growth is for everybody. Everybody has a stake in productivity growth, and for us in Australia there is plenty to do. We have many firms in Australia which are not as good as the top firm in their own sector when it comes to levels of productivity or productivity growth. Also, when we look at our best firms versus the best in the world, there's a gap in the productivity frontier that we can potentially meet. There are sectors where we are world leading when it comes to productivity and efficiency—there's no doubt about it. Agriculture and areas of mining come to mind. The important thing is that there's a gap there that we can exploit which gives us a capacity to raise our incomes going forward.

As a government, we have major commitments to jobs growth, public debt, smaller family businesses and exporters. For example, it's our aim to create 1.25 million new jobs over the next five years, including jobs for 250,000 young Australians. These jobs will build on the additional 1.4 million jobs created over the past 5½ years. We aim to pay down debt in a consistent and responsible way so that we can eliminate our net debt by 2030. Eliminating our net debt will make us stronger. It'll give us fuel in the tank. We had that fuel in the tank when we had the global financial crisis in 2008. Because we'd paid down our debt as a nation and we actually had net financial assets, we were better able to spend money to cushion the impact of the global financial crisis on this economy. You need that cushion. You need that budget cushion, those shock absorbers, so that when you're dealing with global slowdowns you have a capacity to shield the population. It's always the most vulnerable who are most impacted by economic slowdowns. Our job is to shield them, in particular, from the impact of those sorts of external shocks.

Our aims also include to have another 250,000 small and family businesses open their doors during the next five years and to see 10,000 more Australian companies exporting to the world by 2022, with these exporters benefitting from existing and new trade deals which, by the end of this term, will cover around 90 per cent of our trade. So, by the end of this term, we will have trade deals that cover 90 per cent of our trade. Just think about that: we have trade deals with China, with the Republic of Korea, with Japan. We have free-trade deals with the US. We've negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which covers 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific. We're negotiating the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which covers many of those countries and China. We have these free-trade agreements that are flowing through, creating new opportunities for us or protecting our existing markets. It's very important for us to continue with those agreements. I commend Senator Birmingham for the job he's doing as minister for international trade and investment.

We've already delivered on a major commitment that we made at the time of the election: the tax cuts. The tax cuts have been enacted. They are starting to flow through. As the Treasurer said, they haven't fully flowed through yet. We haven't seen the full impact of those tax cuts. A lot of that will come through in the September quarter and later. Those tax cuts are important. They're important in putting fuel in the tank where the economy is concerned.

Some people are concerned that not all these tax cuts will immediately go into consumption, into spending on goods and services, directly into the economy. But, when people pay down their debt, when they pay down their mortgages, when they pay that to the bank and the bank gets that money back, that money then potentially circulates as new funding, new debt, in the economy—new mortgages in the economy, new lending in the economy. So even when people are paying down it potentially then still sees its way back in the economy. It's important.

Along with the tax cuts, we've seen interest rates coming off, and the dollar has come off. We've got a major infrastructure investment program that's ramping up, something like $100 billion over the next few years. It's very important in terms of constructing new roads, new rail, new ports—everything that goes into creating the infrastructure for productive opportunity and activity. If you invest in the future through infrastructure, the payoffs are higher incomes and living standards in the future. It helps us with productivity growth. It's very important that that continue.

This government has also made a major commitment to cutting red tape. There's a lot of red tape everywhere. The reality is in this building, even when we're cutting back red tape, we're adding to it in all sorts of other ways, as many people will attest in the business sector and taxpayers more generally. So, for us, red tape reform is not just about the laws on the statute books. It's not just about the paperwork. It's also about regulations which impede our competitive forces in the economy—our mobility, our flexibility—things that stop us from being able to get things done and get them done quickly.

There's been a lot of debate around environmental approvals, and there have certainly been efforts by this government from when we first came into power to streamline those approvals to create, if you like, more capacity to combine Commonwealth and state approvals so that people don't feel like they're just going through parallel processes, so they feel there is one seamless process. We need to continue that activity.

We need to continue to fund strongly the ACCC and its work in promoting competition in the economy. I also commend the work that the Treasury portfolio are doing on data rights, on open banking so that you can shift your banking more easily between providers, and providers can use your data to come up with new products to meet your needs.

And now we're seeing the rise of the fintechs, which are financial organisations that are using high technology, new technology to create new products and services in the financial space. This is a big game-changer in financial services; it's undermining the existing competitive structures. It's creating new structures, and that's a good thing, because, ultimately, that will create a more competitive landscape, which will be of benefit to bank consumers. We're also seeing the rise of what's called regtech, which is the use of technology to promote better regulation, more efficient regulation, and that's got to be a good thing.

We need good regulation. When you do regulation properly—for example, when we regulate our agricultural goods and services properly, that's a big elephant stamp that they can use when they're marketing internationally, to say, 'These are Australian products, regulated to high standards, so you can have confidence if you consume these products because of Australia's reputation of being clean and green.' My point being that there is this technology disruption underway. We have to face into it. We have to embrace it. We have to adapt to change. If you don't adapt to change, it will walk all over you, it will roll over you. We don't want that. We want to adapt to change and empower people to deal with change.

As part of that we embrace the development of new industries, whether it's in the energy space, where we're seeing the development of renewables, we're seeing a parliamentary inquiry into what will happen about nuclear energy. It's a reminder that Australia has the capacity to be the Saudi Arabia of alternative energy. We're seeing new industry development in space. We now have the Space Agency. I was the minister when we did the preparatory work for that. It was announced in September 2017 that we would have a space agency. That's now underway. That's going to facilitate our capacity to develop industry in that sector.

And there's a lot of commercialisation of Australian innovation and inventions to come. We need to keep promoting collaboration between industry, researchers and academia. That's one of the areas in which Australia still has more to do. We're great at inventing things. We're great inventors; we punch above our weight. We're great at doing blue-sky research, but we need to increase the linkages between that research and commercial outcomes—particularly outcomes that we develop and exploit here in Australia, because our aim should be to create homegrown firms that have their headquarters in Australia and make their decisions according to Australia's needs, and not be branch offices of overseas companies. It's very important for us to do that. We have world-beaters like Atlassian showing us how to do that.

It's important for us to continue the government initiatives that are facilitating start-ups through venture capital and our procurement strategies, so we can increase the rate of business growth. The rate of business growth has been falling off since the global financial crisis. We need to take measures to keep creating more and more businesses and companies in Australia. That's why the government has made a commitment to numerical targets in that regard.

Complementing all of this is what we do around industrial relations. Here, the Prime Minister has made it clear that what we do in industrial relations will have to meet a number of tests. It will have to be mutually beneficial for employers and employees, it must not undermine existing conditions and it must provide broader benefits to the economy. It's very important to take people with us. It can't be reform for its own sake; it's got to be reform that addresses real issues. So business and others who want change in this area have to argue the public interest case, whether it's on unfair dismissal laws, greenfield agreements, the content of enterprise agreements or other changes that they need or that they see as important in promoting a more effective, resilient industrial relations system. Importantly, we have to have a system that can adapt to new ways of working, new collaborative workplaces with strong digital frameworks—that's the workplace of the future. How does our industrial relations system facilitate all of that? How does our industrial relations system facilitate the gig economy without throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to worker protection?

Linked with all of this, of course, is skills acquisition and lifelong learning, because, as I said before, disruption is a constant; we have to adapt. That means that people may find during their working lives that they have various occupations. They need to be able to adapt; they need to be able to undertake the training or retraining needed for those new occupations. We have artificial intelligence, which is impacting on the composition of work. We have Industry 4.0, which is about how we wire up workplaces using technology. All of these things are creating challenges for our workforce going forward, so we need a flexible and responsive system that can respond quickly to changing circumstances and to many changes of job over a lifetime, which means the use of modular learning—so you don't have to go back to school every time you need to undertake skills training to do something different. There's also got to be a clear differentiation between general skills you may pick up in school, university or TAFE and specific skills you pick up in a workplace or by doing those specific modular courses I mentioned.

I commend Australian companies like Faethm, which is a fast-growing company that helps companies and governments to assess the impact of emerging technologies on the jobs market, to reskill employees for the future, and to guide the implementation of appropriate investment strategies and policies to maximise the benefits of digital transformation. What Faethm do is essentially take an existing set of jobs and work out how those jobs will look in the future—what will be left, what will be new—and, therefore, what the workforce needs of the future are. These are tools that a lot of companies are picking up. They're used in parts of government. I encourage the government to pick up and use Faethm for workforce planning to get an economy-wide picture of how the workforce will change. Then we can talk to people about what the challenges are and how we can give them the tools through our skill packages and other things. We're investing major new resources into the skills space, setting up a national skills commission and a national careers institute. The budget contained a $585 million commitment to improve skills and training. (Time expired)

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:17): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech—a speech that was devoid of a vision for this country. It embodied measures that are heartless, cruel and punitive and based on an ideological approach. Part of the speech, in the fifth or sixth paragraph, says:

Our prosperity enables us to deliver one of the world's most reliable social safety nets, providing income support, universal health care, disabilities support, aged care—

That is so far from what is actually happening it's not funny. We have a safety net in this country that has so many holes in it that people are falling right through it. We have a narrative that the Prime Minister is about compassionate conservatism. Well, it's not really in the dictionary, but what that means is 'heartless'. They don't care; they don't give a damn. In fact, it's how we can push as many people off income support as possible. If the Prime Minister is looking to the US, which is where that phrase started, that's exactly what they're doing, and that's exactly their aim.

It's ironic that the measures the government are proposing under their so-called 'world's most reliable social safety net' are devoid of evidence; they are ideological—but then the government fall back on the so-called data to support their positions, and they manipulate it at will and then don't provide it. For example, who saw the figures the government released on Friday on the targeted compliance framework? Those figures are not available on the website when you look for them. They're not there. I've been trying to get them. I've put questions on notice. They haven't been released. Then, all of a sudden, we got the government's version released to—who? Oh, yes, News Corp. Then you can't get them; you can't interrogate them.

But, if you look at some of the data on ParentsNext, which I got at the end of the last week through questions on notice, you'll see that nearly 80 per cent of those that have had their payments suspended are parents. It's called ParentsNext because it is about parents, most of whom are single parents, most of them single mothers. Eighty per cent of those suspensions are through no fault of the participants—80 per cent. You might say this, and I've heard the government say this: 'But they don't necessarily lose their payments.' Even the threat of losing payments—and I've heard this directly from mothers—curtails people's ability to spend. This is somebody's lived experience. They got told on Friday that they hadn't reported, but they had tried to. The phones were busy, and all those sorts of things happen. So, over the whole weekend, that mother basically could not spend any money because she did not know whether she was going to get paid on Monday, because she'd been told that her payment would be suspended. That is as good as cutting a payment when you're living from payment to payment, which is what parents do. That is not compassionate. That is not caring. That is not 'one of the world's most reliable safety nets'. If that mother did not know whether she was going to get paid on the Monday after that weekend, that is cruel; that is mean.

I'll come back to some of the other massive holes in our social safety net, but I wanted to go to First Nations peoples, who got a mention in the Governor-General's speech, and talk about issues that strongly affect our First Nations community. One is that the government is shouting loud and proud about constitutional recognition, which has been on the agenda for quite a long time, and support for elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. They don't talk so much about treaty and they don't talk so much about truth-telling, which are two key areas of the Statement from the Heart. They do talk about First Nations voice to parliament and about constitutional recognition. But, for those who have read and taken on board the Statement from the Heart, what that calls for is constitutional recognition via enshrinement of the voice in the Constitution. But the government, within weeks of being re-elected, have ruled out putting the voice in the Constitution. The very thing that the Statement from the Heart calls for, which has so much support in Australia, is that that should be enshrined in the Constitution. So we're going to a co-designed process. But the very thing that First Nations peoples are calling for is not included in that consultation process, so the government are undermining the very definition of a co-designed process. It is not what First Nations peoples are calling for.

The government committed to the Closing the Gap targets in the Governor-General's speech. I understand that the process, finally, is on track, and there is a genuine co-design process, with the head of NACCHO and the minister now co-chairing that process. That should be replicated in everything that is done to our First Nations peoples. There needs to be genuine co-design, and government needs to genuinely embody the practice of ensuring that programs funded for First Nations peoples are developed, delivered and led by First Nations peoples. That includes delivery of services. That includes discussions on constitutional recognition. That includes issues around child care.

I was just at the SNAICC conference. The Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care does brilliant work around First Nations children in particular. The key issue that came up at that conference that got reported on the last day—I was only able to attend the last day, unfortunately—was the impact that the changes to child care have had on child care for First Nations peoples, to the point where First Nations providers are on the verge of having to close down. It has undermined the very thing that the Governor-General talks about in this speech in terms of making sure those services are there for First Nations peoples.

I'm also going to touch on things this speech doesn't mention, and one of those is the Aboriginal flag. Last week we had people in this place talking about the fact that the Aboriginal flag is under copyright and that First Nations sporting organisations are no longer able to use the flag on their uniforms without paying a massive amount of money. Apparently it's not called a copyright fee; it's 'admin services' and things like that. This government needs to show leadership and start negotiations to make sure that First Nations peoples can use that flag. In the nineties it was proclaimed as a flag; does that mean nothing in this country? That needs to be upheld by this government. People cannot be left in limbo, as is happening right now. I strongly support the Closing the Gap campaign. This issue needs to be dealt with.

I want to go to another area that is not mentioned in the Governor-General's speech, and that is around justice, and, in particular, juvenile justice and the calls around the world to increase the age—Raise the Age, as the campaign is called—to 14 or above. That issue needs to be addressed urgently. The Northern Territory royal commission made hundreds of excellent recommendations, many of which involve the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth are not progressing this at the speed they need to. There needs to be action. For example, if you look at the recommendation around the provision of 'payment of Medicare benefits for medical services provided to children and young people in detention in the Northern Territory', the Commonwealth say they don't support that recommendation. That is something the Commonwealth has control over and needs to be addressing urgently, along with all the other recommendations, so that we see this issue around youth justice addressed. We need to be taking a diversionary approach to youth justice. Where's that commitment in here? In fact, where's the commitment and the heading around young people? It's not in here. Isn't that what this should be focused on?

Where is the commitment to young people? Where is the commitment to properly address issues around climate change, for which we are bequeathing to young people all of the problems. I hope everybody in this place is attending the strike on Friday to show their support for the young people of Australia who are prepared to take up this issue. They're taking it into their own hands because they know it's their future and their environment that are at risk. They are not trusting this government, half of whom are in denial about climate change. It's not an issue of whether you believe in it. It's not a choice between believing in science and not believing in science; it's a thing. This government is in denial around taking action. Those are the issues that should be here. Those are the issues that the government should be looking at.

They keep talking about, 'Oh, we've generated jobs.' That's a heading in here. Underemployment has increased, and it's young people who are feeling the effects of that, who are having to work two or three jobs and are trying to rely on our so-called 'reliable' safety net. The National Party, who are part of the government, now want to put young people—under the age of 35, I think it is—on the cashless debit card. They want to roll out the cashless debit card nationally. Again, it's devoid of evidence. Not only is there no evidence to support the cashless debit card; if you listen to the people that have been studying this and talk to people about it, it actually makes their lives worse. It makes it harder to budget, harder to go to the supermarket. It is demonising and stigmatising, and people talk about depression. That's what the National Party want to set on our young people. They want them to be demonised, stressed, depressed and angry at that approach. They're saying it's their fault that they can't find work; it's their fault that there's underemployment and they have to rely on our unreliable social safety net, which has people living in poverty.

That takes me to the fact that the issue around Newstart was not mentioned in the speech—Newstart, which has not been raised for 25 years and keeps people living in poverty. In here we'll give tax cuts to the already well-off but we won't raise Newstart. One of the ways to boost the budget would be by raising Newstart. It would inject $4 billion into our economy and generate 12,000 jobs. That's not in this speech, because you wouldn't want a reliable social safety net! You want to demonise people! That is why the government rolls out the targeted compliance framework's so-called failures and the number of people who have been suspended or got demerit points, without, of course, actually providing the evidence for it: it's to demonise the people on income support. It is why the government has dragged out the drug trial issue again: 'Let's divert attention away from people, including older Australians, who need an increase in Newstart.'

This document does talk about older Australians, but it doesn't seem to focus on the older Australians who are trying to survive on Newstart. We saw in the media on the weekend the lady whose CV had been wiped out. She's in her late 50s. She became unemployed, through absolutely no fault of her own. She is not getting adequate support from the jobactive system and is trying to survive on Newstart. What happens to her? To get onto Newstart in the first place you have to use up most of your savings, so you've got very little, or nothing, to fall back on. If you can't find work, by the time you get to the age of—what is it now?—66½, going up progressively to 67, you are wearing out your savings. Your assets are running down. You can't afford to replace your car, so you've probably got an older car, if you're lucky enough to have maintained it. You've used up all your savings. You are living in poverty. We know that living in poverty—living on Newstart—will most likely have impacted your mental health, because we know that people on Newstart are six times more likely to have health episodes and poorer health. We know they report 48.9 times more mental or behavioural issues. So we know that it is going to have an impact on older people's mental health yet we are prepared to see them continue to live in poverty on the very low Newstart and age in poverty into retirement. That's not a reliable social safety net. It's not a reliable social safety net to make your life harder by putting you on the cashless debit card or by drug testing you. Again we note that this is an evidence-free zone, that the approach to this is ideological. Every single drug expert that I have spoken to says the process won't work, yet here we have a government that's pursuing it regardless of the evidence. That's not reliable.

Of course, we have a system that is trying to claw back money from those who are on income support, once again demonising those people and traumatising them. As I said, the Governor-General's speech talks about older Australians. It doesn't talk about those older Australians living in poverty, as I've just articulated. It doesn't talk adequately enough about how we are supporting people as they age into aged care and the system here that stinks, in many cases, to high heaven.

We've got a government that's brought in some changes to the use of restraints in aged-care facilities, for example. It's one that we are seeking to disallow because it doesn't adequately address issues around chemical restraints. We have an aged-care system that is underfunded in this country and that does not supply the four hours, 18 minutes that research shows you need to provide adequate care to older Australians. We don't employ enough staff in our aged-care facilities, and then the government is surprised when they start having incidents in aged care that actually have now led to the royal commission. But the government can't wait until the royal commission reports to start acting on some of these grievous issues. These are issues that need urgent attention, and you would have thought that there would have been a much clearer vision in the Governor-General's speech for that.

The Governor-General's speech talks about the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and anybody trying to access that scheme knows about the problems with that scheme. But I particularly want to focus on psychosocial issues because one of the issues that has been very poorly addressed in the NDIS is mental health. It's damning of the government who claims—and have moved to address mental health—that they can oversee a system that is so poorly addressing mental health and psychosocial disability. We have a massive problem in this country. If you're coming into the system with poor mental health and you haven't already got a package, you haven't managed to access NDIS or you haven't had previous support, where are the supports in this country? There is a massive gap here in the way that we are supporting people with poor mental health in this country if they are unable to access the NDIS. That's because the states and territories have put all of their funding into NDIS and there's now not enough funding for proper community mental health services.

We are heading for a train wreck here. It's not mentioned in the Governor-General's speech. There's no acknowledgement of these issues in that speech. This government is cruel to the most vulnerable members of our community. If you're doing okay in this country, you're okay. But, if you're not, you're falling through massive gaps in our social security system.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (11:37): Eighteen May was a wake-up call to the Canberra bubble dwellers and the self-appointed elites, for on that day millions of Australians spoke quietly yet decisively through their ballot papers, rejecting big taxes, big government, the climate change emergency mantra and political correctness. Instead, they embraced lower taxes, smaller government, balanced environmental approaches and the virtues and values which have held us in good stead—in short: commonsense policies. The Prime Minister has since referred to these voters as 'the quiet Australians'. Before him, Sir Robert Menzies referred to them as 'the forgotten people'. They've been dubbed as 'Howard's battlers' and 'Tony's tradies', and now we have 'Prime Minister Morrison's quiet Australians'.

The fact they voted to not only renew but also increase the government's mandate took many by surprise. Our fellow Australians rightly rejected the politics of envy, jealousy, division and class warfare which were oozing from Labor's policy platform—a platform that would have even embarrassed Gough Whitlam. The Australian people rejected the alternative Prime Minister, who threatened to run the country like a trade union. Instead, the quiet Australians voted for sound, sensible, stable policy positions, the first of which has already been delivered: namely, tax relief for all Australians to help with the genuine real-life issue of the cost of living. The quiet Australians rejected the extreme climate change mantra and the Labor-Green job-destroying, household-budget destroying, economy destroying and environmentally damaging Renewable Energy Target. Despite this election being variously dubbed in anticipation of a left-wing victory as the 'climate change election' and the 'climate emergency election' by Labor, the Greens, GetUp! and fellow travellers in elements of the media, the quiet Australians opted for the sensible, balanced approach of the Liberal-National coalition, based, as it was, on wise environmental and economic stewardship.

Australians are environmentally and economically astute. They listen to the arguments and ultimately ask the question: if Australia adopts the harsh Labor-Green prescription to reduce CO2 emissions, what will be the actual environmental gain for the economic pain? When our fellow Australians realised that the gain-to-pain ratio was zero environmental gain to massive economic pain, they sensibly adopted the coalition policy. When it becomes known that there are 400-plus coal-fired power stations being planned and built around the world, it becomes obvious that not even considering building an extra one in Australia to guarantee our own energy needs won't destroy the Great Barrier Reef, let alone the world.

As an agnostic on this issue myself, I note the middle-of-the-road approach taken by Australians was, again, level-headed. Yet anyone questioning the extreme Green approach was immediately belittled and besmirched as deniers. Thankfully, the unseemly bullying and hectoring did not prevail. In that context, I can't help but reflect on the drawling vilification by the aforementioned self-appointed elites against those who established the Monash Forum. It may be recalled that the Monash Forum was established to ensure coal, as an energy source, was not foolishly demonised to the detriment of the wellbeing of our people. The forum and its members were belittled and besmirched in the absence of alternative robust arguments and evidence by a chorus of loud detractors who claimed coal mining would be a decisive issue at the ballot box. The detractors were right. Coal would play an important decisive role in the 2019 election campaign—a very important role. It just wasn't as they had predicted. In fact, it was the exact opposite. Support for the Adani coal mine was one of the decisive factors in the coalition's win. Its significance reverberated all the way to my home state of Tasmania, where the use of resources is a determinate for swinging voters, and swing they did. Labor's disingenuous attempt to walk both sides of the street was seen for what it was: fork-tongued politics trying to placate the extreme Greens while selling out hardworking Australians. Australians saw through that deception. They are not fools.

Senator McKim: You're vote went down in Tasmania.

Senator ABETZ: I note, Senator McKim interjecting. Can I simply remind the honourable senator that it was Bob Brown, Leader of the Greens in 1983, who said he did not want renewable hydro energy because he favoured coal-fired energy? Fast forward 30 years—where is he now? Condemning coal-fired power and, by the way, wind power. The Australian people see through this foolishness. They see the cant. They see the hypocrisy. That is why the coalition was returned. Try as the Monash Forum might, no-one elevated the issue of coal mining more than Bob Brown and his petrol-burning, CO2-emitting, anti-Adani convoy. A convoy of southerners gate crashing Queensland to tell Queenslanders what they can't do wasn't exactly the wisest strategy. But, I hasten to add, most appreciated, lest I be seen as ungrateful. The arrogance, the southern superiority, the lack of empathy all helped to expose and publicise the true agenda of Labor and the Greens—an agenda to deny Australians jobs and hundreds of millions of Indians the opportunity to escape energy poverty.

Their desire to access our coal is because of its quality—high energy, low emissions. It's some of the very best in the world, which, in turn, would substitute the energy source of cow manure and forests. People can contemplate what might be best for the environment. And, when the facts don't suit, what do the left do? They simply belittle and besmirch. Those opposed to Bob Brown's convoy, namely the locals, or quiet Queenslanders, were labelled as Nazis and rednecks—always an endearing and winning tactic!—which, surprisingly, didn't win over the locals or, for that matter, other Australians. Indeed, labelling people as Nazis and rednecks might be considered by some as hate speech, but that's a topic for another day.

But the nastiness stakes were won by GetUp!. Their dishonest—blatantly dishonest—campaigns against leading coalition MPs backfired spectacularly with the excellent member for Boothby enduring all the ugly intimidation of sexism, genuine misogyny, threats and physical attacks on her office. Her electors were so repulsed she was rewarded with an increase in her vote. Well done, Ms Nicolle Flint, for meeting such cowardice and corruption with your determination and courage. Mr Josh Frydenberg, the Treasurer, had a dishonest campaign started against him, which GetUp! was shamed into withdrawing. Something similar happened in the electorate of Warringah. For GetUp! there are no boundaries. One of their operatives assaulted a Liberal campaign volunteer. But, when you're on the left and so self-righteous, the end always justifies the means. Thankfully, the public is now awake and has definitely repudiated GetUp! and its tactics. There were similar campaigns in Dickson against Mr Dutton, and, of course, he had a swing in his favour as well. So, it's a close call as to whether the Bob Brown Foundation or GetUp! wins first prize for assisting to raise the ire of the quiet Australians and spur them into determined political action and return the coalition.

When it comes to misreading public sentiment, Rugby Australia's sacking of Israel Folau is up there for the bronze medal, Bob Brown having scored gold just over second placegetter GetUp!. Rugby Australia's ham-fisted, saturated-in-political-correctness attempt to justify the unjustifiable, hot on the heels of the sacking of Professor Ridd of James Cook University, also awakened many quiet Australians into action. For them, enough was enough. Why would you sack Australia's best rugby player because of a paraphrased Bible verse? Are we really to be told that the Bible is hate speech and quoting it is a hate crime? This awoke the sleeping giant of Australians' inherent decency. They didn't take to convoys. They didn't run dishonest campaigns or egg offices or intimidate. They did what decent people do—they let their strong views be known through the ballot box by putting their No. 1 vote next to their local Liberal and National candidates' name. Indeed, these quiet Australians raised over $2 million for the Folau fighting fund within 48 hours, with the average donation less than $100, highlighting the genuine grassroots nature of the campaign. No George Soros funding here. No CFMEU funding and no AWU funding like GetUp! gets—just 22,000 genuine Australians donating less than $100 each on average.

Let there be no mistake: the Prime Minister did a fantastic job in the campaign, as did the federal director, Andrew Hirst, and our candidates and the thousands of supporters right around Australia. They were dedicated, they were focused and they knew what was at stake, so they campaigned right through to 6 pm on 18 May, taking nothing for granted. And they were richly rewarded for their efforts, with the confidence of the Australian people being placed with the coalition. But I cannot help but think that but for Bob Brown, GetUp! and Rugby Australia my colleagues and I may well have been be sitting on the other side of the chamber, in opposition. Given their sterling contribution to the coalition victory, it is only right and proper to thank Bob Brown, GetUp! and Rugby Australia; to fail to thank them may be interpreted as being somewhat ungrateful.

More seriously, I encourage our media and other commentators to reconsider their commentary and reflect: why were they so out of touch with the sentiment of our fellow Australians? Could it be they only wanted to listen to a loud, noisy, unrepresentative group which echoed their own shrill judgements? Those who took very tough decisions with an eye to the Australian people were vilified as wrecking the party, being out of touch, dinosaurs and worse, yet here we are today with an election result which has seen the self-appointed experts pulping their pre-prepared books, changing the titles of their books and rewriting slabs of others, yet not a word of recognition of how wrong they were in belittling and besmirching those who actually helped engineer the foundations of this win for the Australian people—but they never have and, I suspect, they never will.

I remember the scorn applied to the Liberal Party when it elected John Howard to the leadership. 'Back to the future'—they said—'snigger, snigger'. I recall similar scorn when we elected Tony Abbott to the leadership. 'Unelectable'—was their assessment—'snigger, snigger'. I recall similar scorn when we rejected the emissions trading scheme and the carbon tax. 'How out of touch can you get?' was their call—and, again, the snigger, snigger. It has, it seems, ever been thus and is unlikely to change soon. So my thanks goes out to those who stuck with the Liberal Party in the tough times, who helped campaign against all the odds in exposing the folly of Labor, the Greens, GetUp! and the politically correct and who helped empower the forgotten people, the Howard battlers, the Tony tradies and the quiet Australians to achieve a victory for common decency and those virtues and values that continue to make Australia the envy of the world.

We live in the greatest nation on earth, and the Australian people are well and truly onto this. They rejected the constant negative portrayal by the Left of their country, their culture and their values—the negativity in relation to, for example, our excellent refugee policy. The intake of refugees, in numerical terms per head of population, is right up there with the best in the world. What is more, the services we provide to those refugees are second to none in the world. And what do we do with our refugee policy? We seek to ensure that we help those most in need. Yet those of the Left somehow tell us that if you've got a stack of money you can pay criminal people smugglers and never bother setting foot in a refugee camp. They tell us you should be prioritised over those people that I personally visited in western Thailand living in a refugee camp with no sanitation, no air conditioning and no medical services supplied, as we'd provide. These people have been there not only for five years; you can multiply that by three or four—15 to 20 years—not knowing what their future holds and not knowing when they might be given placement in another country. When you've got to make the judgement call: to whom should we give priority? I would prefer to give priority to those people each and every day rather than those who have sought to game the system with their money and their employment of criminals to advance their cause. And the Australian people are awake to these sorts of factors despite the ongoing mantra from the Left, which seems to want to condemn everything that Australia does so exceptionally well. If you go around the world, people will ask why is it that Australia is able to protect its borders and have such a good policy in relation to refugees. It's because of strength, having a moral compass and knowing that supporting those most in need will always be the most appropriate way to move on such issues.

Similarly, there is the Greens' condemnation in the previous speech on drug testing for welfare recipients. This is not about demonising. The best thing you can do for those people who might be afflicted with drugs and unemployment is to say, 'We want to help you, and if you've got an issue, we will seek to help you out of that life, because it's not good for you, not good for your family, not good for society and not good for the economy.' Everybody knows that drugs are often the cause for people not being able to gain employment or maintain their employment. We also know, in relation to employment, that your self-esteem, your mental health, your physical health and your social interactions are all enhanced if you are given the benefit of gainful employment. So why wouldn't we, as a caring, compassionate society, say to people, 'We will seek to assist you, to lift you out of the position you're in, so you can become self-reliant and get the benefits that so many other Australians enjoy'?

Our task as the government is to lead and serve as custodians of the trust placed in us and to proactively deliver for the quiet Australians who want their government to focus on jobs, cost of living, national security, community safety and family, and to resist the folly of the divisive and corrosive political correctness agenda of those that inhabit the Canberra bubble, preaching their agenda of jealousy, envy, identity politics and climate emergencies. Knowing my colleagues as I do, I see us committing ourselves and dedicating ourselves to the continued service of the people of Australia to the very best of our ability during the life of this, the 46th Parliament.

Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (11:57): It is a privilege to respond to the Governor-General's address and to the extensive agenda of the Morrison coalition government. As the Governor-General referenced in his address, at the 2019 election more than 15 million Australians had their say about what they want from their government and their parliament over the next three years. Hardworking Australians made a simple and humble demand that their aspirations for their future be respected and supported by those they elected. That's why hardworking Australians voted for a government that understands them and understands that they are focused on raising their families, running their businesses, working hard, volunteering and caring for their family and friends. That's exactly what the Morrison government promised, and that is exactly what the Morrison government is delivering.

We are firmly committed to a platform to keep the economy strong and to pursue policies that ensure Australians keep more of the money they work so hard to earn, and to give them more freedom and opportunity to make their own choices about their priorities in life. We saw this come to fruition in the very first week of the 46th Parliament. Tax relief for more than 10 million working Australians was delivered. Around $1,000 of their own money has gone straight back into the pockets of these hardworking Australians as they complete this last financial year's tax return. Doing this, putting this commitment into legislation as the first order of business of the 46th Parliament, clearly demonstrates that, as a government, we meant exactly what we said during the election campaign, that Australians who work hard should be rewarded by their government through the lowest possible taxes.

In contrast, we have a Labor opposition that took to the election a high-taxing, high-spending agenda which was resoundingly rejected by the Australian people. Surprisingly, when it came time to debate our tax relief legislation, they still hadn't learnt their lesson and tried their best to prevent the full tax relief plan from passing the parliament. As we stand here today we are still no clearer on whether Labor will retain that high-taxing agenda, as many in their ranks want to do, or listen to the election outcome and the people of Australia.

It is vitally important that the government continues to have a sound fiscal policy that supports a strong economy. That starts with fostering a healthy budget bottom line. I believe the Treasurer has done a magnificent job to put the budget back in the black while also delivering sensible and affordable tax relief to Australians. This responsible fiscal management will support our economy to continue to grow and prosper over the coming decades.

In my own state of Tasmania, the Morrison government is delivering a total investment in infrastructure of over $2.7 billion, including an additional $313 million in transport infrastructure to bust congestion, improve safety and unlock greater productivity through our businesses and exporters. A more efficient transport network equates to lower costs for Tasmanian businesses in getting their product to market, which means more opportunities for businesses to grow and to employ more people.

There is no doubt that job creation is firmly at the centre of the Morrison government's agenda. I welcome the investment by the government in supporting Tasmania's growth industries. As I outlined in my first speech in this place, ensuring there are more opportunities in our state for young Tasmanians, particularly employment opportunities, is front of mind for me as a new senator. That's why I'm so pleased that this government is investing heavily across a range of industries in Tasmania, where there are proven opportunities for growth and job creation. For example, we're investing $100 million for the next tranche of irrigation schemes across our state. That will lead to great new opportunities and enhanced water security for Tasmanian farmers. The benefits of previous investments in irrigation schemes around Tasmania by the federal coalition government and the state Liberal government are very clear. This future investment is eminently sensible and timely in its commitment to ensuring our state can continue to increase our exports of premium agricultural products to the nation and the world. It's not always well understood on mainland Australia that Tasmania is susceptible to drought. Indeed, many of the farmers on the east coast and south-east have done it very tough in recent years because of extremely dry conditions. That's why it has been great to see this government establish the Future Drought Fund, with $100 million available each year to invest in drought preparedness and recovery programs. The fund is a very welcome initiative for rural communities all over Australia. We know how tough it is in so many parts of the country at the moment, and we must as a nation do everything we can to support our farmers, because we know that this won't be our last drought experience.

Further evidence of our government's jobs creation agenda can be seen through our support of the Marinus Link second interconnector as part of Tasmania's Battery of the Nation pumped hydro plans. This exciting new project is very welcome, particularly in the north and north-west of our state, where these projects will create thousands of jobs directly and indirectly. Furthermore, Battery of the Nation and its associated infrastructure will play an integral role in ensuring Australians have access to reliable and renewable energy into the future. We are also supporting the Tasmanian Defence Innovation and Design Precinct at the Australian Maritime College and the blue economy research centre, and investing in tourist infrastructure upgrades at Freycinet National Park and Cradle Mountain. In the south of the state, the government is cementing Tasmania as Australia's Antarctic gateway with $2.8 billion of investment. These policies are just some of a long list of job-creating and supporting investments by this government in Tasmania and across the whole country. They are a stark contrast to the platform that Labor put forward at the election and continue desperately to cling to.

As the Governor-General's address noted, when you have a strong economy and good budget management you can invest more in the services that Australians need. Indeed, the Morrison government is investing an extra $31 billion in public hospitals over the next five years, providing funding for more emergency department visits, outpatient services, needed scans and surgeries, and treatments of life-threatening illnesses and diseases. We're investing $308 million into reducing the cost of life-changing medicines for Australians, especially those who have chronic conditions that require multiple medications. We're putting almost $740 million into youth mental health and suicide prevention strategies. This is an incredibly important initiative, particularly for regional and rural Australia, where suicide is such a big issue and something that we as a community must do more to address. There is always more to do in the health space, and I know that this government will continue to work with the states to ensure Australians have access to the best possible health services.

In my maiden speech I referenced the importance of education and training to Tasmania, and I'm very pleased with the commitment the government has made to boost educational outcomes and, in particular, skills training to ensure that our young people are job ready. Over the next decade, the government will increase funding for all primary and secondary schools across all sectors by an average of 62 per cent per student. This $310 billion investment is a commitment to deliver the world-class education system that will equip Australia for the decades ahead. We also have $585 million invested in a commitment to training to improve skills, including creating 80,000 new apprenticeships and establishing 10 new industry training hubs in key locations of high youth unemployment in regional Australia. Burnie, in north-west Australia, was one of 10 locations of elevated youth unemployment across Australia that has been selected to host an industry training hub, which will strengthen partnerships between local schools, employers and industries, and ensure that vocational education programs are tailored to meet the local workforce needs and skills demands. I certainly applaud this important initiative being rolled out in my own home state. Under this education program, young people aged between 15 and 24 in training hub areas will be able to apply for a scholarship to undertake an eligible VET approved program of study. Across the nation, 400 scholarships valued at up to $17,500 each will be made available, from certificate III to advanced diploma level.

All of these investments which I've outlined here today are made possible by strong economic management and having the budget back on track. I'd like to conclude by strongly supporting the sentiments at the conclusion of the Governor-General's address, in which he said:

Democracy is a robust undertaking, and disagreement is a fundamental part of that contest of ideas.

As the Prime Minister has often noted, the challenge of modern democracies is not to disagree less but to disagree better. I cannot agree more with these sentiments. We will always have our disagreements and our debates in this place, whether it's here between elected members or in the community between citizens. But in an age where disagreements often seem to be becoming more heated, and arguments more vitriolic and even abusive, it is more important than ever to remember that in our great country, in Australia, we all have a right to voice our opinion and every other person in our country has the right to respond in a responsible and dignified manner. This debate should only be encouraged because it is by this contest of ideas that, I believe, good policy outcomes are reached. To that end, freedom of speech is certainly an essential part of what makes our country so great, and we in this place and across this country must never lose sight of that.

Senator SCARR: It is with great honour that I rise to speak in reply to the Governor-General's address. I think at the outset we should reflect, as the Governor-General did, on this country's very strong foundations. We're in our 28th year of consecutive economic growth. We have a strong social security safety net; universal health care; a strong, comprehensive education system; and, on 18 May earlier this year, all Australians came together peacefully at the ballot box and cast their votes in a democratic election. We are one of the longest ever continuous democracies on the face of the planet, so we should reflect on those strengths in our society as we consider the address.

One of the themes coming through the Governor-General's address is the cohesive plan that this government has for this country's future over the next three years. The government's agenda is predicated on empowering the people of this country, empowering their aspirations, empowering their inherent entrepreneurial spirit and empowering them to make decisions which are in their best interests and the best interests of their families.

I would like to make some responses to some of the previous speakers. Senator Siewert did refer to the government's initiative with respect to the cashless welfare debit card. There is no question that the senator comes to this debate with great passion and great empathy for people who are doing it tough in our society, but I must respectfully say that I disagree with some of the assertions that were made in that speech. As I've referred to in previous debates on this subject—in particular, last week—the member for Hinkler, Mr Keith Pitt, has drawn attention to the fact that he has seen a very positive response to the implementation of the cashless welfare debit card in his seat of Hinkler. Over the course of the last 12 months, we have seen the rate of youth unemployment in the seat of Hinkler, in the wider area of Wide Bay, fall from 27.6 per cent in June 2018 to 18.4 per cent in June 2019—a fall of 9.2 per cent. It is quite an astounding result. When you look at the comparative increases in youth unemployment across Queensland, you see that Wide Bay is a stand-out. So there is some positive evidence with respect to the results of the introduction of the cashless welfare debit card. I would have thought that everyone in this place would simply want to see those young people who currently don't have the opportunity to engage in work and have the benefit of the dignity of work get a chance to break through to the workforce and be everything they possibly can be.

I'd also like to make some comments with respect to Senator Abetz's contribution in this place. I could not agree more that the coalmining industry is an industry integral to my home state of Queensland. At the last federal election, Queenslanders sent an unequivocal message to this place that they understand the importance of that industry to my home state of Queensland. There are thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in royalties and opportunities for small and large businesses across my state presented by the coalmining industry and, more generally, by the resources industry in my home state of Queensland.

I would like to touch on the issue of mental health, in particular, in my response in this debate on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech. It would be 25 or 26 years ago that, as a member of the Queensland Young Liberals, I wrote a policy paper, which was adopted at a Young Liberals national convention, entitled 230,000 lost years: the scourge of youth suicide. Here we are, 25 or 26 years later, still grappling with this extraordinarily difficult issue. It does give me a lot of hope that everyone sitting in this Senate chamber, those on all sides, understand the importance of us, as a federal parliament, addressing this issue. For me, one of the highlights of the federal election campaign was when, in one of the debates between the leaders, the Prime Minister and the opposition leader were asked: 'Can you tell us one thing about the other which you actually admire? How would you compliment the other leader, your opponent, with respect to how they've conducted themselves with respect to their beliefs?' And the then opposition leader complimented the Prime Minister with respect to his passion in addressing the issue of youth suicide. So there certainly is a spirit of bipartisanship, a spirit that extends across all parties, with respect to attempting to address the issue of youth suicide, which is addressed in the Governor-General's speech.

Over the five-year period from 2013 to 2017 the average number of suicide deaths per year in this country was 2,918. Queensland recorded the largest increase in suicide deaths: 804 in 2017 compared with 674 in 2016. The figures from 2017 with respect to youth suicide make for sobering reading indeed. In 2017, there were 16 suicides between the ages of zero and 14, 106 between the ages of 15 and 19, and 195 between the ages of 20 and 24. There were a total of 2,348 male suicides. In relation to female youth, in 2017 there were eight suicides between the ages of zero and 14—it is hard to comprehend that—there were 50 between the ages of 15 and 19, and there were 53 between the ages of 20 and 24. There were a total of 780 female suicides. In 2017, the total number of suicides in this country was 3,128.

It's not just an issue of the young people who took their own lives; it's also an issue of those people who are left behind—parents who are left grieving and considering whether or not they are guilty in some way with respect to what has happened to their children, and friends asking themselves whether they could have taken additional steps to look after their loved ones to try and prevent the tragedy that occurred. So it's extraordinarily important that we have this discussion about suicide generally and youth suicide in particular.

It's also been noted that there is a particular issue with respect to the rates of suicide in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In 2017 the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander suicide was twice that for non-Indigenous people. Suicide accounts for 40 per cent of all deaths of Indigenous children. One life lost to suicide is one too many. Last week, the government announced it is investing $4.5 million in the proud spirit Australia program to deliver a national plan for culturally appropriate care and make suicide prevention services available and accessible to First Australians, no matter where they live. In addition, the government is investing $963,000 to establish the Centre of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Lived Experience Mental Illness and Suicide Network. The Black Dog Institute and the Centre of Best Practice in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention at the University of Western Australia will work together to deliver this initiative. But it's not just about government; I think it's about each and every one of us reflecting upon what we can do as individuals to address the scourge of youth suicide.

William Styron is a well-known author who famously wrote the book Sophie's Choice.After someone who he admired a great deal committed suicide, he went public, in a beautifully written memoir called Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness, where he spoke about his own experiences dealing with depression. I want to read some excerpts from that book today:

… the pain of severe depression is quite unimaginable to those who have not suffered it, and it kills in many instances because its anguish can no longer be borne. The prevention of many suicides will continue to be hindered until there is a general awareness of the nature of this pain.

It's incumbent on each and every one of us to reflect on that, to try and understand, when we have colleagues, friends and family who are battling with depression, the pain they're going through and provide as much support to them as possible. We are still battling a stigma in our society. Talking about his own experience with depression, Styron wrote:

So the decision-making of daily life involves not, as in normal affairs, shifting from one annoying situation to another less annoying—or from discomfort to relative comfort, or from boredom to activity—but moving from pain to pain. One does not abandon, even briefly, one’s bed of nails, but is attached to it wherever one goes. And this results in a striking experience—one which I have called, borrowing military terminology, the situation of the walking wounded. For in virtually any other serious sickness, a patient who felt similar devastation would by lying flat in bed, possibly sedated and hooked up to the tubes and wires of life-support systems, but at the very least in a posture of repose and in an isolated setting. His invalidism would be necessary, unquestioned and honorably attained. However, the sufferer from depression has no such option and therefore finds himself, like a walking casualty of war, thrust into the most intolerable social and family situations. There he must, despite the anguish devouring his brain, present a face approximating the one that is associated with ordinary events and companionship. He must try to utter small talk, and be responsive to questions, and knowingly nod and frown and, God help him, even smile. But it is a fierce trial attempting to speak a few simple words.

That's William Styron recounting his battle with depression, which he bravely wrote about in Darkness Visible:A Memoir of Madness.

It is important that we all consider those words and consider what empathy and understanding we can give to people who are suffering from depression. It's also important that, once people have gone through that journey and are on the road to recovery, once they've overcome that stigma of whether or not they should report their illness to a doctor and once they've gotten that help, we assist them to come back into the general workings of our society, our workplaces, social engagements et cetera and understand that they may well need ongoing treatment in order to minimise the risk that they might add to those suicide statistics that I read out earlier today.

In this regard I would like to quote Andrew Solomon, who wrote a book called The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression—again, a depression sufferer who went public to try and increase understanding of what it is like to suffer from depression. He said:

Since I am writing a book about depression, I am often asked in social situations to describe my own experiences, and I usually end by saying that I am on medication. 'Still?' people ask. 'But you seem fine!' To which I invariably reply that I seem fine because I am fine, and that I am fine in part because of medication.

'So how long do you expect to go on taking this stuff?' people ask. When I say that I will be on medication indefinitely, people who have dealt calmly and sympathetically with the news of suicide attempts, catatonia, missed years of work, significant loss of body weight, and so on stare at me with alarm.

'But it's really bad to be on medicine that way,' they say. 'Surely now you are strong enough to be able to phase out some of these drugs!' If you say to them that this is like phasing the carburettor out of your car or the buttresses out of Notre Dame, they laugh. 'So maybe you'll stay on a really low maintenance dose?' they ask. You explain that the level of medication you take was chosen because it normalizes the systems that can go haywire, and that a low dose of medication would be like removing half of your carburettor.

You add that you have experienced almost no side effects from the medication you are taking, and that there is no evidence of negative effects of long-term medication. You say that you really don't want to get sick again. But wellness is still, in this area, associated not with achieving control of your problem, but with discontinuation of medication. 'Well, I sure hope you get off it sometime soon,' they say.

I think there is a lesson there that there needs to be an understanding that, where people who have, potentially, dealt with suicide attempts have gotten help and are on the road to recovery, that road to recovery may require treatment over a long period of time.

So I'm proud to be part of a government which is building a mental health system that is integrated, simplified, trusted and comprehensive and which is increasing mental health funding to $4.8 billion this year to provide new funding for community mental health and mental health research, assistance to prevent suicide, telehealth access for psychological services in regional areas and support for current and former ADF personnel, as well as funding an additional 30 headspace services by 2020, including in my home state of Queensland, and new specialist residential facilities for eating disorders.

The government's $503.1 million Youth Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan is the largest suicide prevention strategy in Australia's history. It's one we should all be proud of as we seek to introduce measures to address the scourge of youth suicide and suicide more generally. And it is part of an overall plan which is dealt with in the Governor-General's address to this place, including with respect to the economy, trade, education, health, environment and the Pacific step-up plan, which I referred to in my first speech last week. It is all part of a coherent, integrated plan which I consider to be in the best interests of my home state of Queensland. In performing my duties over the course of the next six years, I take very seriously my obligation to deliver that plan for the people of Queensland, because that is what they voted for on 18 May earlier this year.

Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (12:24): I rise today to respond to the Governor-General's address and acknowledge the government's focus on improving and delivering the NDIS. As I said in my maiden speech a few weeks ago, the NDIS is for all of us. The NDIS may not be applicable to some people now. They may not need it. They may not require it. Their family may not need to utilise the supports and services available. But that's not to say at some stage in the future, be it by birth or by accident, that families may need to access the NDIS. Therefore, it is important for all of us, here in this place and in this parliament as well as for the Australian people, to deliver an NDIS that is fit-for-purpose and that focuses with the best intentions to support all Australians should they require it.

I would also like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the government with regards to the focus and attention that they are putting on those with autism and their families. I'd like to acknowledge a lot of the work that is already underway in this area. With the attention and acceptance that's been given, and their willingness to take advice and listen to those who have a lived experience of the condition itself or to a parent and carer, we are working towards significantly improving the conditions for autistic people and their families. I look forward to that improving as we move forward, day by day.

I want to share today some of the feedback that I have been receiving, not only since coming to this place but also previously, from families and from autistic people about things that we can improve upon to help autistic people and their families. One of the things that is consistently raised with me from parents is that guidelines on therapy options at diagnosis are still unavailable and are still ad hoc, depending on who you see at the time of diagnosis. Whilst autism has a high profile—and I'd like to think sometimes I may have had something to do with that—and we talk about it a great deal and there are lots of people who advocate very strongly for it, unfortunately, a lot of these invisible and developmental disabilities are still often poorly resourced at the diagnostic stage.

Improved access to guidelines around therapy options should be made available and worked towards, with directions provided more clearly to parents at a time that is of considerable grief. At the time of diagnosis—being a parent myself—it would be wonderful to hear that things will get better and that this is not the end of the world. It is difficult for a lot parents to come to terms with the diagnosis at that time because their ideal of what their child and what their child's future was going to look like all of a sudden looks very different. So, during that time of confusion and grief, it would be helpful for parents to receive a lot more guidance about the therapy options and choices that they need to make. There are resources available, and I'd like to acknowledge the government's website Raising Children. There are very good resources. Unfortunately, though, parents are not often made aware of them at the time of diagnosis.

I'd also like to see, and a lot of parents and those who've worked in the space for a considerable amount of time would like to see, the focus come back to capacity building rather than being therapy based—looking at how we work with children and focus on their strengths rather than their deficiencies, how we can improve their lives and increase their daily living capabilities and how we can increase the functionality within the parents and families themselves to make sure that children are developing and improving and gaining further independence as quickly as possible and in the best and most productive way as possible with access to services. As we talk about the NDIS, obviously the under-seven cohort is considerable with early childhood, but autism is also playing a really large part when it comes to the numbers of NDIS participants.

One of the positive steps forward that I'm looking forward to are seeing disability-specific planners so that people will be able to see a planner who actually has a previous knowledge of that disability, of that condition, so that a parent is only having to advocate for their child and not having to educate the planner on what the disability means and what the therapy options are that are required. One of the most disturbing things I have had reported to me through my office on a number of occasions was that planners have asked when children grow out of autism. I can assure you, from the very definition of autism being a lifelong disability, that doesn't occur. With the right supports and with the right interventions, children will move up and down the autism spectrum as they go through their lives. We should be encouraging that and making sure that that happens as successfully as possible. We certainly should not be looking to the option that they will grow out of autism, because that doesn't happen.

Another thing that would be a step forward and that a lot of parents would be looking forward to is more access to in-clinic programs, more programs that are run within a centre-like environment, as opposed to the in-home programs that are fundamentally being looked at and funded at the moment. Rather than consortium programs of speech therapy, OT, early intervention and psychology being administered at home, a lot of families would be much better serviced, taxpayers' dollars would be better spent and children would benefit much more from having access to therapy options in a preschool- or kindergarten-type setting. All this can be demonstrated through stronger database reporting, particularly with the younger cohort. Any best practice behavioural program will consist of taking data. That data should be made available and our reporting should be much better. When the NDIS is such a significant investment by the taxpayer and our community, we should be making sure that what we're investing in is actually working and making sure that the children are getting access to the therapy that is making the biggest difference to their lives. That will occur, and I think we'll start to see more market based led interventions as parents start to understand the choice and control side of the NDIS a lot better and also as the market players start to respond much more to a market environment as opposed to the former block-funding model.

I must admit there is one part of block funding that I do miss. One of the unintended consequences of the NDIS—and I have certainly welcomed the Prime Minister's interest in this area—is around siblings and families and carers. Because the NDIS and the plans associated with participants are very much person centred, the idea of respite has been knocked back. I can tell you that, as a parent, I need respite from both my child with a disability and my children without a disability. It's just easier to organise for the children without a disability. We shouldn't be looking at respite as a dirty word, and we should be starting to build that into the plan and functionality of the NDIS so that we are supporting the siblings and parents and carers.

I'd just like to acknowledge Senator Scarr and the comments he made with regard to mental health, depression, and the use of medication. One of the hidden consequences of disability, particularly for parents and carers with young children, is that, as they go through the process of diagnosis and development of therapy programs and beyond, there can be a dip in mental health and extreme stress both in an intellectual capacity and an emotional capacity. A lot of relationship breakdowns occur throughout these processes and times, and depression is quite common within the carer cohort. So the acknowledgement of the use of medication and the importance of therapy and those sorts of things should be much more of a focus. They should be looked upon much more favourably and acknowledged throughout the process of children being diagnosed with autism.

Today I would like to also acknowledge Kate Strohm and Siblings Australia, who do great work talking to families and siblings about how they can best deal with having a brother or sister with a disability. Children who have a brother or sister with a disability quite often miss out. They can suffer from their own forms of depression and other mental health issues due to the fact that so much time, effort and energy of the parents is focused on the child with the disability. As I acknowledged in my speech on the condolence motion for Tim Fischer last week, Dominic Fischer is such a wonderful sibling and brother to Harrison, and Tim and I would quite often speak about the impact that people like Dominic had on Harrison and the impact people like Millie and Rupert Hughes have on their brother, Fred Hughes, in my household. I know how important Clare Fraser is to Jack, and I know of a number of other children who are wonderful carers, wonderful influences and wonderful mentors to their siblings with a disability as well as great supports to their parents.

I would like to acknowledge three wonderful autistic individuals and the contributions that they make to Australian society and community in general. Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge Tim and Judy Sharp. Tim is a brilliant artist and an autistic man with a mother who is just an absolutely dynamo. Tim is the developer of Laser Beak Man. The portrayal of Laser Beak Man in Tim's art has an incredible following, and the character has also been developed into a play, which is currently playing around Australia. The hero, Laser Beak Man, lives in Power City, the most beautiful city in the world, and he uses his laser to turn bad into good.

Senator Farrell: That must be Adelaide!

Senator HUGHES: It's not quite Adelaide; I think it might have been Moree for a while there, but unfortunately it hasn't rained to clear the air. As an old Adelaide girl, though, I will give that to you, Senator Farrell. Being born in Adelaide, it's a pretty good place to start. Tim and Judy Sharp really demonstrate what can be done when you work together as a family and a unit to create a successful business and go on to influence and inspire so many other families.

I acknowledge Sam Best and his parents, James Best and Benison O'Reilly. I mentioned Benison in my first speech; she literally wrote the book on autism, with The Australian Autism Handbook, both volumes one and two. Sam, her son, and James, her husband, travelled to Africa a couple of years ago and wrote a book and made a documentary of their experiences, demonstrating how the neuroplasticity of the brain in teen years can mean experiences and independence can be opened up when challenges are put in front of children who, far too often, parents are told will never achieve much. Sam Best made such a great leap forward in his own development and showed so many parents and other children what advances you can make when you challenge your teenagers; it's not just for younger children.

I'd like to also acknowledge Chris Varney, an autistic adult who set up the I CAN Network, which is so important, offering mentoring to other children on the autism spectrum and providing an autistic body in itself. I think that if those outside of the autistic community could start to really get a better understanding of the contribution that autistic people make, the supports that they require to make those contributions and the supports that they can provide to each other we would make this community and their lives so much better, and so much better for their families, moving forward.

I'd like to finish by paying tribute to the Prime Minister and the government for their focus on the NDIS: their assurance that it will be fit for purpose and that it will focus on ensuring that services and supports are available to all Australians should they require them going forward.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (12:36): It's great to get up and make a contribution on the election and the government's agenda on what is a very important debate. Certainly, I think that the 2019 federal election will go down as a critical election for many people. It was an unexpected election result but an election where I think it's very clear—and I think this was clear in the analysis both before the election and after—that the Australian people were faced with a very clear choice, and perhaps a clearer choice than they had been faced with in many, many years. It was a choice between the strong economic record of the Liberal and National parties in government, strong borders and strong communities, and a return to the deficit and despair offered by those opposite.

The Liberal-National government went to the election saying to the Australian people that if they had a go they would get a fair go. We support hard work, we support aspiration and we support a decent safety net for those who are struggling at various times in their lives to look after themselves, and we absolutely support people getting on and living their lives, making decisions for themselves and their families and being supported to do that in the best way they can. The government wants to say to those quiet Australians who supported us that we want to continue to deliver for them, that we are grateful and that we are humbled and honoured by the opportunity. I want to put on record again my thanks to people here in the ACT who have given me the opportunity and the great honour and privilege to be back in this place, and the government more broadly thanks those who, right around the country, made the decision to support the Liberal and National parties. We want to honour that by continuing to build on what we've been able to deliver in the last six years. We want to continue to go well beyond that. We want to create a further 1.25 million jobs over the next five years, building on the 1.4 million jobs created since we took government in 2013. Having got the budget back in the black, we want to continue our sound and sensible management of the nation's finances so that we can consistently and responsibly pay down Labor's debt.

This year's budget surplus, the first in 12 years, is a starting point for $45 billion in surpluses over the next four years. This is a significant step on the road to being free of net debt by around 2030. Because of our strong budgetary and economic management, we were able to promise much-needed tax relief to hardworking Australians. We're pleased to be delivering this tax relief for people right up and down the income scale—starting, most importantly, with low- and middle-income Australians. We are putting more money in their pockets so they can choose how they spend it: spending it on their families, on the essentials, on those little extras that improve people's lives or on contributing to their local communities, as so many Australians do through generous giving.

Whatever choices they want to make we want to support them, because we don't believe that the government knows best. Governments are very important, but we trust the Australian people to manage their money and, wherever we can, we want to return more of it to them. As I said, there was a really clear choice between that kind of strong budgetary management, strong economic management, strong borders and lower taxes versus what the Labor Party were offering. That would have destroyed our economy, whether it was through their raft of huge additional taxes hitting retirees, hitting superannuation, hitting home owners and renters or hitting income earners. This was a radical tax-and-spend agenda put forward by the Labor Party.

Of course there is much reading of the tea-leaves, soul-searching and all of those things, but the attack on aspiration, I think, was absolutely at the heart of what the Australian people were choosing to reject when it came to what the Labor Party were offering. I was interested in some of the analysis that said that, if you were a family with kids, if you were renting or if you didn't have a six-figure salary, you were more likely to swing towards the Liberal and National parties. I think that is critically important. Wee hear the rhetoric about the top end of town. Those people are not the top end of town; those people are hardworking Australians, often on pretty modest incomes—perhaps aspiring to have significantly higher incomes in years to come. They are saying to government: 'Well, get out of my way. Yes, we want you to deliver on the key services'—which this government is doing—'and we want strong economic management and budgetary management, so you can invest in health, education, defence, roads and other infrastructure—the NDIS, the PBS,' as we are doing. But these quiet Australians don't like being told what to do by government. They are good and decent people who don't like being told what to do and what to think. They're not going to cop the sort of sneering condescension from some people—people like Jane Caro, who said on election night that she was going to stick two rude fingers up at the truculent so-and-so who has voted to turn backwards. They're not going to cop it from people who say they're racist because they believe in controlling our borders. They're not going to cop it from people who say that they're bigots because they believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These are the quiet Australians who have made their voices heard very strongly at this election. And I think they're not going to cop it from greenies and others who fly into town and tell them that their industries should be killed in order to make green activists feel better about themselves, as we saw in Queensland.

I want to talk about one of the issues that I think was very critical in the election. It was critical in the election because the housing and property market is absolutely critical to all of us. It's not important just to the building industry, although there are hundreds of thousands of jobs—millions of jobs—in the property, building and construction industries. It's very important to those industries, but it's not important only to them. It's not important only to investors, although we know there are many Australians, and many low- and middle-income Australians, who invest in property as a way of providing for their families. We absolutely support them, but it's not important just to them. It's important to home owners, of course, as owner-occupiers. As we know, that is the largest asset that most of us will ever own, so an attack on property and on housing is an attack on Australians across the board.

And, finally, it's also important to renters. Analysis has shown that high-renting electorates swung more strongly to the Liberal and National parties than other electorates around Australia. I don't think there are any surprises there, and I think this is one of the things the Labor Party missed. As we were going around the country and talking to people about the consequences of Labor's housing tax, their proposed changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax, we heard that renters actually would have been some of the hardest hit. Yes, you would have been hit if you were in the industry. Yes, you would have been hit if you were an owner-occupier. Yes, you would have been hit if you were an investor. But renters would have copped an absolute whacking. And it's important that people understand that this is a policy that the Labor Party still maintains. This is still their policy, the housing tax.

We can go through the dozens of analysts who said: 'Your house price will go down. Thousands of jobs will be lost in the industry, and it will hit economic activity as a result. And renters will be whacked.' During the election the Labor Party tried to claim—and they would still, no doubt, maintain this—that actually it wouldn't increase rents. But we saw some really detailed analysis from a large number of different groups, who all came to the same conclusion: if you take away what is effectively a rental subsidy, if you have a special or different tax treatment for investment in residential property to what you have for investment in shares and other areas, well, guess who's going to pay for it? It'll be those who are renting, those who are already doing it tough and those who, in many cases, are doing it tougher than the rest of the community. We heard this from the Property Council, the Housing Industry Association, academics at the University of New South Wales, the founder of Binvested, the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, SQM Research and dozens of other organisations; we heard them all coming to this conclusion. And SQM Research, who I think were rated by TheAustralian Financial Review as the most accurate residential property forecaster for about three years running, so come with significant credentials in analysing this, talked about this.

So let's look at what Labor's policy, which they still hold, would do. It would push rents in Perth up $72 a week. It would push rents in Brisbane up $91 a week. It would push rents in Melbourne up $65 a week. It would push rents in Sydney up $50 a week. It would push rents in Adelaide up $56 a week. It would push rents in Canberra up $55 a week. It would push rents in Hobart up $44 a week. It would push rents in Darwin up $15 a week. Overall, on average it would push up rents in the capital cities by $67 a week. That is what Labor's policy would do, and I think that was absolutely critical to the election result.

We saw absolute hubris from the Labor Party on this, and on other issues, and I think that this was the other important message. We heard the stories about the Labor Party bullying people behind the scenes, saying, 'We're going to be in government soon.' We saw the pictures. I've got that lovely picture, the 'We're ready' picture with the then Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and a number of other Labor figures—the then shadow Treasurer—all there, posing, ready the move into The Lodge and deliver their tax and spend policies. They were ready to come in and push everyone's rents up, lower people's house values, hit retirees and put more taxes on hardworking Australians, who are working hard to save for their retirements. That's what they were planning, and the hubris that we saw was extraordinary. I haven't seen anything like it in any election campaign that I've been involved with. We're all aware of the then shadow Treasurer's comment, Mr Bowen's comment where he said, 'If you don't like our policies, well, go ahead and don't vote for us.' That was him effectively saying to retired Australians, who might be hit by his retiree tax, 'Well, we don't need you.' That was the message: 'We're not going to govern for everyone; we're going to govern for the 50 per cent plus one who we anticipate will vote for us as a result of these policies.'

We also saw Andrew Leigh, who is fond of demonstrating how much smarter he is than everyone, even though he's so often shown to be not across policy detail and to get the details completely wrong. He knew exactly how much money the retiree tax would bring in for the Labor Party if they were to have come into government and implemented it. Five times in one interview he was asked how many Australians would be affected by his policy, but he wouldn't answer. He ended up laughing off the question, dismissing it and claiming somehow that it didn't matter, that, because he didn't have his iPad in front of him, it didn't matter that 900,000 Australians would have been affected by that tax grab from the Labor Party. Mr Leigh was very happy to dismiss those concerns, because he thought that they were going to sail into government. There is no doubt that the Australian people responded in part to that. They responded to the higher taxes, to the whack on their home ownership, the whack on renters, the whack on aspiration and the whack on investors. We saw that throughout the campaign and on the night of the election.

We've been getting on with the job. We have re-established the ABCC. We've signed free trade agreements. We've expanded the coverage of our trade agreements from 26 per cent of two-way trade to nearly 70 per cent. We've kickstarted a massive infrastructure program. These are all things we can be very proud of. We're cutting taxes and delivering the budget back into surplus, all while being able to invest in absolutely critical areas—health, defence, roads and infrastructure, disability, the PBS. All of that can be done because we're delivering a strong economy and a strong budget.

I started by thanking those Australians who have supported our agenda and saying to them that we want to build on that so that we can continue to deliver good policies and that we don't take for granted their support. I would like to thank some people who did some outstanding work in the last term to highlight some of these policy issues. I would like to acknowledge a number of people in the industry who spoke out against Labor's housing tax. I was involved in holding forums around the country where we put the facts on the table in relation to what it would have done. It's difficult when you're told that one side of politics is definitely going to be in government. Some people won't want to argue against that side's policies, lest they be punished should that side come in. These people showed great integrity and the courage to say, 'This is what we believe. This is the evidence we see. We're going to make that argument, whether it's good for us personally or not.' They are people like Dave Bailey and Mark Hewitt at AFG, who really put out the messages in relation to mortgage brokers and their impacts and the impact of the housing tax; people like Mark Haron, Michael Williams, Doron Peleg, Emma Dupont-Brown, Ben Kingsley, Jock Kreitals from the Real Institute of Australia, Marissa Schulze from Rise High Financial Solutions; and people like Louis Christopher from SQM, who really put out some outstanding research that blew the whistle on what some of these policies would have done and that showed the policies would have hit a cross-section of the community. They would have not just hit jobs in the construction industry, investors and owner-occupiers but also and most particularly hit people who were renting. I think people did start to hear that message.

Finally, all of us in the Senate and the House of Representatives know that it's a great, privileged position and that we can't do it without all of the people who support us in our offices and our party organisations. I'd like to pay tribute to some of the staff who assisted me during the 45th Parliament. I had some absolutely outstanding staff who worked extraordinary hours and who are very talented, very hardworking, very loyal and very bright. They bring so much, including strong values, to the way they deliver—not just for me but more particularly for the people of the ACT and the people of Australia—in the various roles that we have. I wanted to particularly pay tribute to Angela Inglis, Teaghan George, Cassandra Choake, Ben Dennehy, Veronica Hosking, Janet Parnwell, Elizabeth Storer, Matt Mitchell, Sarah Duffy, Andrew McIndoe, Zac Lombardo and Josh Goldsbrough, as well as some of our fantastic DLOs: Nicolle Sullivan, Samuel Burns, Daniel Craig, Morgan Ryan, and some of those who filled in here and there where needed.

I'd like to now also take a moment to pay tribute to a staff member of mine who has moved on, who was with me for a long, long time—a very loyal and faithful staffer who after six years has left my office. When I was first elected in 2013, Sam Mullins joined my office as an electoral officer, and over the years he has been an extraordinarily effective and capable adviser. As well as being a capable adviser, he and his lovely wife, Anna, are good friends with me and my wife, Ros, and our family. Sam has relocated to Sydney with his wife, who has taken up a role at Westmead Children's Hospital. I wanted to take the opportunity to wish them well for the future, but I also wanted to take the opportunity to specially pay tribute to Sam for his outstanding and loyal service and very much wish him all the best for the next stage of his journey.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: I rise to speak on the address-in-reply, in response to the speech by the Governor-General, His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley, in the Senate on 2 July. His Excellency set out the parameters of our economic strength and prosperity, including in our regions. I would like to take the opportunity to offer some remarks on various points in the speech.

His Excellency noted:

On 18 May 2019, more than 15 million Australians had their say about the future of our country and what they expect from the government and parliament … for the next three years.

The coalition won the election. Scott Morrison ran an excellent campaign. But he was able to do so because of Labor's dud policies: negative gearing changes, which would have affected around 1.3 million Australians, especially mum-and-dad investors; franking credits, which hit hardworking retirees; the assault on the coal industry, which saw large swings in areas like Newcastle and in Queensland; and concerns about religious freedom, which manifested itself with the Israel Folau sacking. This was the sleeper issue of the election. Quiet Australians, the silent majority, rejected Labor's dud policies and returned the coalition to power. They voted to keep Labor and their fiscal vandalism away from the treasury bench. It is fair to say that the prospect of a Labor win, as the polls were predicting, had a negative impact on business and economic sentiment. Business owners speaking to coalition candidates expressed concerns about the effect of Labor policies on the economy. Labor was hiding what the impact of their high taxes would be on the economy, jobs, property values and the cost of rent. They were not to be trusted, and the electorate understood this.

I now return to His Excellency's speech. On the issue of trade, of course the US and China are important trade partners, but there are trade tensions between the two countries. It is now evident that the US believes that the rules based trading system in its current form is not capable of dealing with Beijing's economic structure and policy practices. Let us not forget that China is not a democracy; it is a Communist regime. Its values and beliefs are different to ours. The freedoms and practices that we take for granted are not the same under the Communist Party of China. The US has legitimate concerns. Forced technology transfers and unfair intellectual property theft cannot be justified, and industrial subsidies are promoting overproduction. The United States has acted responsibly, respecting the independence and sovereignty of other nation-states.

The level of global interconnectedness means that the need to maintain peace and stability that ultimately underpin our prosperity and prosperity of other countries has never been more has never been truer than today. As a rising power China now has additional responsibilities; therefore, it is important that these trade tensions are resolved within the broader context of international world order, under the WTO consistent rules that don't undermine the interests of parties like Australia.

It's important that our relationship with the United States has never been stronger, and it's important to note that. Ours is a resolute and mutually beneficial alliance and partnership, when neither party has the need to prove anything to the other. It is the bedrock of our security. Australia is a stronger regional power because of our alliance. As the US ambassador said earlier this year, Australia is the United States's most important economic partner, with two-way investment totalling A$1.6 trillion and a US$3 billion investment in Australia. We will work with like-minded countries to reform international institutions, including the WTO, to ensure that they are fit for purpose and serve members' interests.

Australia has the most liberal foreign investment regime in our region. It is not possible for Australians to invest in China in the same way that Chinese investments are made here. This is unlikely to change and therefore our policies need to be framed in the national interest. We must retain our sovereignty over these investments, especially in relation to strategic and national security considerations. Whilst Beijing is our top two-way trading partner, I would like to stress the importance of diversification. On the issue of trade it should be 'fair trade' rather than 'free trade'. I believe that bilateral trade is preferable because multilateral trade can, and does, undermine fair trade. It begs the question: 'Free trade for whom?'—that is, free trade should not be a vehicle for wealth redistribution.

On the issue of infrastructure, I would like to highlight that the advent of the airport in south-western Sydney and the development of those areas have made access to coastal areas—and, most particularly, Port Kembla port—more vital, and hence the development of the Maldon-Dombarton rail line.

On the issue of congestion in cities, especially in Western Sydney, it is important that we look to alternative areas for settlement. Since World War II we have welcomed over 7.5 million migrants to Australia, including about 850,000 under our humanitarian program. We have amongst the best settlement services in the world; however, with our humanitarian entrants there is a practice of locating new arrivals close to other people from their country of origin. With growing numbers in Western Sydney, the continuation of this practice will only compound existing congestion issues that need to be addressed.

On defence, our decision to contribute to a naval presence in the Strait of Hormuz is a necessary one. Iran is not a good international citizen and does not commit to a rules based global culture. It is also time to scale down Garden Island and build a naval base at Port Kembla, with our new submarines as phase 1. Since this idea was first raised in 2006, the changing security environment and the planned commissioning of a variety of new warships in the coming years have increased pressure on existing facilities, necessitating the Navy's requirement for a new basing arrangement on the east coast. I and other stakeholders have been working together—and I thank the Labor Party and Labor members in the Illawarra for working in conjunction with stakeholders—to prepare necessary reports, which have been submitted to both state and federal governments.

Our foreign policy white paper professes to be a projection of our values. It is important to stand by those values and not be clouded by commercial interests. This is what the Australian public expect. We support the international rules based order. We should vigorously support it and be engaged in promoting it. Stability, security and prosperity are Australia's primary objectives. Indeed, the stability and security of our region is second only to the defence of Australia. Beijing has denied reports of plans for a base in the region. We can only take this on face value. It would be of grave concern if any external power sought to establish a military base in the Pacific. Following on from my honest and forthright comments early in 2016, I have strongly advocated for Australia to shift its overseas development assistance footprint to the Pacific. During my time as Minister for International Development and the Pacific we had a record spend of $1.3 billion in the Pacific, and I strongly believe that we should spend a higher proportion of our ODA in the region. This is our neighbourhood, and our allies expect us to look after this part of the world. We need to stand up for our values and call out conduct that is not becoming of good international citizenry.

In relation to the South China Sea, Beijing simply ignores the fact that it has no right under international law to any claim in the South China Sea. The unanimous ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 against China was that there was no legal basis to claim historic rights within sea areas falling within the nine-dash line. Beijing has failed the test of being a good international citizen in the South China Sea and should be held to account. We should be calling out Beijing, utilising our Navy and working with other countries to exercise right of innocent passage through international waters. Appeasement should never be an option, hence my comments about the inappropriateness of the visit by the amphibious assault group of three Chinese warships on the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square.

It is important to recognise that over one million people of Chinese heritage live in Australia. Many have strong family and commercial ties to China; therefore, it is important to distinguish the actions of the communist regime in Beijing from the hardworking and industrious Chinese Australian community, who appreciate living in a democracy. Let us not forget that many of them fled oppression from the Communist Party of China.

As US Vice President Pence stated in the Hudson Institute speech on 4 October last year:

After the fall of the Soviet Union, we assumed that a free China was inevitable. Heady with optimism at the turn of the 21st Century, America agreed to give Beijing open access to our economy, and we brought China into the World Trade Organization.

Previous administrations made this choice in the hope that freedom in China would expand in all of its forms — not just economically, but politically, with a newfound respect for classical liberal principles, private property, personal liberty, religious freedom — the entire family of human rights. But that hope has gone unfulfilled.

The dream of freedom remains distant for the Chinese people. And while Beijing still pays lip service to "reform and opening," Deng Xiaoping's famous policy now rings hollow.

One only has to look at what is happening in Hong Kong today.

I was unfairly hung out to dry in January 2016, especially by the then foreign minister and defence minister, when I made comments about debt levels in the Pacific. My comments have been fully vindicated, and 'debt-trapped diplomacy' has now entered international parlance and the lexicon. Every time this issue is raised, it vindicates the stance that I took. I was pleased to have been the tip of the spear on this issue.

I was also pleased that I pushed for a much greater focus on the Pacific to ensure it was one of the five priorities of our foreign policy. Beijing is increasingly asserting its influence in the Pacific through its Belt and Road Initiative and its leveraging of debts of Pacific countries. About $1.5 billion of the about $5.5 billion debt owed by Pacific islands countries is owed to China, hence saddling our neighbours with more debt is not in the long-term interests of the Pacific.

I would have preferred to see our $3 billion assistance spent in two ways: weatherproofing critical infrastructure like schools, community halls and hospitals through capitalisation of an independent Pacific resilience fund, mobilising private sector investment in larger infrastructure projects through our Efic initiative; and Australia's support being an innovative combination of grants and private sector support. I fear that utilising $2.5 billion of that amount in loans is only going to exacerbate an already heavy debt burden on our Pacific neighbours.

At the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in 2016 it was agreed that there would be a framework for resilient development in the Pacific, and therefore I strongly support the establishment of the Pacific Resilience Fund. As minister, I put in train a lot of the work being now rolled out as the Pacific Step-up. Given 35 trips, I saw for myself firsthand what was happening in the Pacific and the impact of debt distress. My honest and forthright comments last year stimulated an international debate and focused on debt not just in the Pacific—hence, I am concerned about policies that would increase debt.

On climate issues, our strategic policy should reflect the need for clean air, clean water and a clean food chain. CO2 is not a pollutant but a clean, odourless and colourless gas vital for the health of our planet through the generation of oxygen by the process of photosynthesis and the role of phytoplankton. This is not, however, what is being taught in our schools today.

I saw firsthand the disgraceful behaviour of climate activists in the Stegall campaign in Warringah, including by GetUp!. It was hypocritical when people pulled up in their gas-guzzling SUVs and proceeded to take the Stegall and GetUp! how-to-vote cards. They were working in tandem on that campaign. What really concerned me about that campaign was the anxiety of a young girl who was in tears; she thought the world was going to end if there was no action on climate change. It brought home to me the false and misleading narrative used by GetUp! and the climate change lobby. As one voter said to me, 'This is a form of brainwashing and is tantamount to child abuse.'

Ecoterrorists are very active in our communities to further their antisocial and dangerous agenda. It should be called out for what it is, and those who support and conduct such dangerous activities should be held accountable. The recent fires in Queensland, New South Wales and elsewhere have, I fear, a disturbing element of potential ecoterrorism. Those under-aged offenders need to be asked to determine any link between their dangerous actions and those who might influence their behaviour. We, as a government and as a society, owe it to our communities who have lost everything.

In an ageing and culturally diverse Australia, I am concerned that there needs to be major reform of the aged-care sector. I envisage that this will have to occur after the royal commission delivers its findings. As someone who became a founding board member of an aged-care facility at age 23, I am concerned at the lack of progress that we have made. My father passed away three years ago after a long battle with dementia and my mother is in care. I have seen the interaction of the aged-care and health systems firsthand, and there is the need for a lot of improvement. It is complicated and challenging, especially for older Australians whose knowledge of English is limited and deteriorates with age.

I support a federal integrity commission. Integrity in government is vital, especially as faith in the political class diminishes in the public's mind. Whilst we need to learn from the mistakes of the New South Wales ICAC processes, nevertheless, revelations in my home state have shown the importance of accountability of the political class. Regrettably, I suspect a federal body will have its fair share of work to do.

I would like to conclude with some comments on religious freedom. During the election campaign, a consequence of the advent of the Israel Folau issue was that it only deepened the concerns of Australians of family and faith. At the kitchen table, Australians of family and faith were concerned. They asked, 'If I say something about my religion, will I find myself in trouble?' When freedom of speech, thought, conscience and belief are framed only as exemptions to other rights they are read down against positive rights, rendering them subordinate to those other rights. During the election campaign it was very clear that there was a strong perception that Scott Morrison, our first Pentecostal Prime Minister, rather than Bill Shorten, would protect religious freedom, and many of those quiet Australians who voted for the coalition, especially in religiously and culturally diverse communities in Labor's heartland seats in Western Sydney, did so in the expectation that their religious freedoms would be protected. A regime of positive rights in the form of religious freedom legislation would give greater effect to the right to manifest one's freedom of thought, conscience and belief as outlined in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Many Australians voted yes for same-sex marriage on the understanding that religious freedoms would be protected. At a speech at the National Press Club in 2015, I foreshadowed that culturally and religiously diverse areas in Australia would vote strongly against same-sex marriage. Indeed, this was the case. Of the 17 electorates that voted no, 12 were in New South Wales, with the majority falling in Western Sydney. Eight of the top 10 no votes were in Labor seats. Consequently, as I predicted, we are now attempting to unscramble the egg. The results from the 18 May election showed strong swings against Labor of up to seven per cent, especially in its electoral heartland of Western Sydney. What is even more remarkable about these swings—which went to Liberal candidates who had only been in the field for a short period of time—is that, most especially, these were the same seats that strongly voted no in the same-sex marriage postal survey in 2017. There is now, I have to say, greater pressure on us as a government to deliver to retain that electoral support. The test of whether those expectations have been fully met will depend on what religious leaders advise their congregations. Their views will be paramount in influencing the views of their flocks in the lead-up to the next election. In short: at the kitchen table, Australian families of faith have to know that if they quote their bible they will not be in trouble. This is now the test, and any doubt in their minds will have political ramifications. I conclude by saying that at the last election we ran a very good campaign capitalising on Labor's dud policies. It may not always be the case.

Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (13:16): As I commence my contribution to respond to the Governor-General's speech, I would firstly like to acknowledge the successful return of the Morrison coalition government at the election held earlier this year and to acknowledge all involved, especially those from my home state, Tasmania. As my colleagues on this side of the chamber would appreciate, the Liberal-National coalition is the government for all Australians. On our benches we have doctors, farmers, soldiers, lawyers, mothers, fathers, police officers, nurses and the list goes on. We're the government for all Australians, and at this election the people of Australia had a clear choice, and once again they put their trust in us. They believe that the coalition government will deliver lower taxes, will lower their power bills, will support the nation's small businesses and will lower the cost of life-saving medicines. Aspirational Australians want to have the opportunity to achieve their goals, and they believe and understand that we will support them. We will and are delivering on our commitments.

Turning to Tasmania, I would like to congratulate my good friend and now parliamentary colleague Bridget Archer on being elected as the member for Bass. I observed firsthand her dedication and commitment during the campaign and believe she will be an outstanding advocate and champion for the people of Northern Tasmania. The seat of Braddon was also returned to the Liberal Party, with Gavin Pearce being elected as the member for Braddon. A former soldier with over 20 years of military service both at home in Australia and leading troops overseas on operations, he too will serve his electorate well. I would like to congratulate them both on their success and thank their campaign committees, volunteers and the Liberal Party members across the state for their wonderful support throughout the campaign. My Tasmanian Liberal Senate colleagues also deserve acknowledgement. I acknowledge Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck on his re-election to the Senate and his appointment as Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport. Congratulations and a warm welcome to Senator Claire Chandler, who joined us in the Senate in July and has certainly hit the ground running. Following the election, Senator the Hon. Jonathon Duniam was appointed as Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries, Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate. I have no doubt that Senator Duniam will continue his strong advocacy for regional Tasmania and regional Australia in these roles. Thanks also to Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz, who worked alongside the campaign both in Tasmania and across Australia to help secure the coalition victory.

Over the past five years, the Tasmanian economy has made a remarkable recovery. It is no coincidence that this recovery occurred under state Liberal and federal coalition governments. Under re-elected state Liberal and federal coalition governments, the rebuilding of the Tasmanian economy will continue. Economic indicators in categories such as GDP, exports, employment and retail spending fluctuate over time and will continue to do so. They are subject to outside influences, and there is no doubt that there will be economic challenges ahead for our nation and Tasmania, but both Tasmanian and federal economies are now in a much better position to weather any economic headwinds that may come our way.

Despite the doom and gloom we often hear from Labor and the Greens, the economic data shows that the Tasmanian economy is now in very good shape. However, that was not the case in 2013, when the coalition came to power in Canberra. Back then, the Tasmanian economy was a basket case. It had the lowest gross state product per capita in Australia, the nation's highest unemployment rate and the lowest population growth. It had the highest proportion of Australians without superannuation and the lowest proportion of adults in the nation who had finished year 12, and it had one of the lowest retention rates to year 12. In 2013 Tasmania lagged behind the nation on almost every economic indicator. Between 2010 and 2014 about 11,000 full-time jobs were lost in Tasmania under the Labor-Green governments of David Bartlett and Lara Giddings. Traditional industries like forestry were being destroyed by the Labor-Green government, with no plan to replace the economic hit. Approximately half the state was locked up while every year Australia was importing $2 billion in forestry products. At that time, Tasmania was in desperate need of policy coherence between the state and federal governments to respond to the many challenges it was facing.

The coalition's economic growth plan for Tasmania was launched in 2013. It provided the architecture to help turn Tasmania's economic fortunes around and encourage long-term, sustainable growth. With the support of the coalition economic growth plan, Tasmanian Liberal leader Will Hodgman took his blueprint for a modern economy to the 2014 state election. The Hodgman blueprint was based on Tasmania's competitive strengths. It was designed to create jobs, fix the Labor-Green budget mess, encourage investment, rebuild essential services and cut red and green tape. It was a plan that was resoundingly endorsed by Tasmanians at the 2014 state election, and it was a plan that worked, and continues to work, despite revenue downgrades due to smaller GST distributions, decreased stamp duty receipts, unprecedented demand for public health services and the devastating summer bushfires.

Like the Morrison government, the Tasmanian Liberal government has got its budget back in order, eliminating deficits and building surpluses for the future. Last financial year Tasmania's economic growth was better than the national average and, per capita, Tasmania is growing at its fastest rate in a decade—nearly double the national average. Premier Will Hodgman said in his 2019 State of the State address that Tasmania is growing like never before. He said that respected economists have reported that, for the first time in 27 years, economic growth in Tasmania is now based broadly across all industry sectors. It is a wonderful achievement and is allowing the Tasmanian government, in partnership with the Morrison government, to build important social infrastructure. That means better schools, hospitals, housing and roads—all of those things that are improving the liveability and the productivity of Tasmania.

A number of expert sources concur on the great improvement in the Tasmanian economy. In July, Moody's Investor Service credit opinion of the Tasmanian government's finances noted that 'despite softer economic conditions throughout the nation, the Tasmanian economy was resilient and diverse and continued to perform above its long-term trend'. Moody's identified the tourism industry as a driver of employment growth and private investment. Tourism Tasmania figures for the year to March 2019 show visitor numbers grew by three per cent to 1.32 million, with visitor spending reaching a record $2.49 billion—an increase of five per cent over the previous year.

People are coming to Tasmania from interstate and overseas for a variety of reasons. They are coming to experience the state's wild places, to visit the Museum of Old and New Art in Hobart and other cultural attractions, and to ride on the growing number of mountain bike trails in Tasmania. Since 2013, federal coalition governments have provided $2.5 million for mountain bike developments in north-eastern Tasmania, including the now famous Blue Derby Mountain Bike Trails. Mountain bike trails are helping to rebuild the economies of towns like Scottsdale and Derby in Tasmania's north-east, local economies hard-hit by the Labor-Green policies on forestry. The federal government is supporting similar developments in other parts of the state, such as the Wild Mersey Mountain Bike Trails between Sheffield and Railton, and the St Helens Mountain Bike Trails due to be opened in the next few weeks. Visitor numbers are also being boosted by business events. More than 36,000 delegates attended business events and conferences in Tasmania last year, injecting almost $150 million into the economy.

CommSec is another source reflecting the vastly improved conditions of the Tasmanian economy in 2019 compared to 2013, when the state was on the bottom of just about every economic indicator. CommSec's State of the states report earlier this year ranked Tasmania's economy the equal third strongest in the nation. Tasmania was ranked first on population growth and business investment, and second on housing finance. The report noted that higher population growth had the spin-off effect of driving new home purchases and business growth. Last year interstate migration to Tasmania reached its highest level in nearly 15 years. Mainlanders are looking to Tasmania for a cooler, more relaxed lifestyle—as I mentioned in my first speech, a 'Tassie change'.

Housing affordability is a huge issue at the moment right across Australia, but, despite rising property values, Tasmanian real estate remains eminently affordable compared to many mainland centres. According to the Real Estate Institute of Tasmania, in March this year the median price for a house was $483,750 in greater Hobart, $342,500 in Launceston and $275,000 on the north-west coast. And I can tell you that those figures will get you a great home in a wonderful environment, with all the necessary facilities close by, along with beaches, mountains and beautiful, unspoiled countryside a short distance away. Have I sold you?

We all know that there is a lot more to do in relation to housing affordability and homelessness, and the Morrison government is committed to continuing to focus on the supply of more social housing in Tasmania. This was evidenced recently when Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Sukkar MP, agreed to waive Tasmania's housing related debt to the Commonwealth, in recognition of the unique challenges with housing affordability and homelessness in the state. Continued improvement in this area is only possible with a strong economy at both a state and federal level—in Tasmania's case, an economy increasingly bolstered by exports.

According to ABS data released earlier this month, the estimated nominal value of overseas merchandise exports from Tasmania increased to $3.71 billion. Mainland China was the largest importer of Tasmanian goods in the year to July 2019, accounting for 31.7 per cent of the state's total nominal value of exports. Hong Kong and China together were estimated to have accounted for 35 per cent of total Tasmanian exports in the year to July 2019, but it's not just China that is increasingly taking Tasmanian minerals and agricultural goods. Exports to the USA were up $31 million, or 16 per cent, mainly due to increases in non-ferrous metals and ores. Exports to Indonesia were up $29 million, or over 15 per cent. Exports to Thailand were up $13 million, or 6.7 per cent.

Seafood, dairy and horticultural products are among the other Tasmanian goods winning overseas markets. The latest data from the Tasmanian Department of State Growth shows that seafood products, predominantly Atlantic salmon and abalone, are now worth more than wood and paper products to the Tasmanian economy. And the dairy industry is growing in importance. Over the past five years, the export of dairy products was up $43 million, or 43.7 per cent. Overseas food exports from Tasmania are increasing, up almost eight per cent to a record $740 million in the financial year 2017-18, with Asia increasing in importance to the Tasmanian economy. In the year to May 2019, China, including Hong Kong, accounted for 31 per cent of Tasmania's agricultural and seafood exports. Around 20 per cent of Tasmania's agricultural goods and seafood were exported to Japan.

In some sectors the increase in export value has been spectacular. Fruit production, for example, has increased by 212 per cent since 2013-14, to $197 million in 2017-18. The Korea, China and Japan free trade agreements negotiated by the coalition government in 2014 and 2015 are clearly delivering benefits to the Tasmanian economy. The coalition's support of irrigation schemes in Tasmania is also of great importance to ensuring supply for these Tasmanian exports. Since 2013 we've invested $300 million in Tasmanian irrigation schemes. With farmers and the state government we are helping secure and improving existing agricultural activities and making possible the development of exciting new rural enterprises.

Tasmania is a regional and rural economy, and the Prime Minister spoke recently of the importance of regional Australia to our national economy. He noted that, with a population that has shifted massively to the larger cities over the past 50 years, we tend to forget the contribution of our regional based industries. In Tasmania, that became particularly evident, with many national businesses centralising their administrations in Melbourne or Sydney, with senior and higher paid staff lost to the state. But, as the Prime Minister pointed out, one key aspect of economic resilience in regional areas is the creation of a diversified economy. The coalition government is helping Tasmania to achieve that goal with practical support for sectors such as higher education, horticulture and tourism. The Morrison government also recognises that small to medium businesses are key drivers in regional economies.

As the Prime Minister has said, what is in the interest of rural and regional Australians is in the national interest. This commitment to regional economies like Tasmania's will be supported by the Morrison government's plan to keep our economy strong, to keep Australians safe and to keep Australians together. Tasmanian exporters will be among those benefiting from existing and new trade deals, which by the end of this term will cover around 90 per cent of Australian trade. This government will be returning the budget to surplus—the first surplus in 12 years—and will deliver surpluses over the forward estimates. That's a predicted $45 billion in surpluses over the next four years. And, despite the unconscionable opposition of Labor and the Greens, the government's first legislative act was to provide tax relief for hardworking Australians earning up to $126,000 a year, and lifting the tax threshold over the next five years. Our plan for tax relief also includes small, medium and family businesses. A stronger economy means more Australians getting into better paid jobs, and there will be a focus on regional areas of the country, like Tasmania.

Our job creation plan comes with a $585 million commitment to improving skills and training, creating 80,000 new apprenticeships and establishing 10 new industry training hubs in key locations of high youth unemployment in regional Australia. The apprentice wage subsidy trial will be doubled to help 3,200 young Australians in regional and rural areas get the jobs and the qualifications they need. Australians who want to return to the workforce will be assisted by the government's new program called Mid-Career Checkpoint. Nationally, this program will support up to 40,000 people, particularly women, to return to the workforce.

A strong economy allows us to invest in education. Every Australian, from early childhood to university, should have access to a quality education. In Tasmania, education, along with tourism and horticulture, is one of those sectors that are helping to diversify the local economy. When opening this parliament, His Excellency the Hon. David Hurley AC, DSC noted that a strong economy creates a stronger society. A strong economy allows more spending on schools and hospitals and allows the government to subsidise more medicines, fund better roads, and provide more support to Australia's rural and regional communities. And, just as importantly, a strong economy makes us more resilient in uncertain economic times.

In my home state, the Tasmanian economy today is a far cry from the mess left by the Labor-Greens government back in 2014. It is an economy that has been rebuilt by a coalition government in Canberra and a Liberal government in Tasmania. It is an outstanding example of policy coherence between state and federal governments to respond to the many economic challenges we face.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:33): As a servant of the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to discuss some of the core concepts behind the Governor-General's speech. The Governor-General spoke about the need for government to provide the environment in which people can produce and thrive. What I will do today is present basic facts and let the people decide themselves, let the people make their verdict. I want to focus, in particular, on our country's productive capacity. That is what will keep us going in the future, unless we continue to destroy it, which has been the case for the last 20 years.

There are three issues that I really focus on. The first is cost of living, and included in that are energy costs. We went from having the lowest electricity prices in the world to the world's highest. The second aspect of cost of living is taxation, and the third aspect is economic mismanagement, which is paid for by every person in this country. My second topic is security, and in relation to that I want to talk about immigration. The third point I want to talk about is future-building: the productive capacity of the future of our country that our children and grandchildren will inherit.

In addition to cost of living, security and future-building, there is a fundamental need to address governance—to restore governance in this country and to restore sovereignty. I will quote from a former, well-regarded Liberal premier on that. And underneath it all I want to discuss freedom and rights.

First, I will make some basic comments. Listening to the government, one would think they did well at the last election. They didn't do well; Bill Shorten did poorly. The Senate is elected directly, and therefore there is no House of Representatives mandate standing over us. There is an arrogance in the government, which think they have a mandate. They have a mandate in the House of Representatives, but this is the house of review and this house is known for standing up for the people. We represent the people of our states. Every one of us in here should be representing the people of our states. And yet, the people of the states do not trust Liberal or Labor.

Let's have a look at the last election. In Queensland, the Liberal Party got 38.9 per cent of the vote in the Senate and 43.7 per cent in the House of Representatives. Across Australia, the Liberal Party got 41.4 per cent. It was actually one per cent lower than the election result in 2016, under Malcolm Turnbull's leadership. People don't know that: the Liberal Party went backwards in terms of total vote across the country. The Labor Party—and this is where some real shocks are coming—got 22.6 per cent in the Senate for Queensland, 26.7 per cent in the House of Representatives in Queensland; and 33 per cent across Australia. One Nation got 10.3 per cent in the Senate, or almost half what Labor got, 8.9 per cent in the House of Representatives, and 3.1 per cent across Australia. The United Australia Party, despite spending tens of millions of dollars, managed 3.4 per cent.

Liberal and Labor combined won 61.5 per cent of the vote in the Senate for Queensland. That's under two-thirds of the vote. They won 70.4 per cent in the House of Representatives. Across Australia, 74.7 per cent voted for the Liberal or Labor parties: one-quarter didn't. But in the Senate, almost 40 per cent of voters in Queensland voted for someone other than the Liberal-Labor duopoly, and almost one in three voted for someone other than the Liberal-Labor duopoly in the House of Representatives. And here's why: it's because the productive capacity of our country is being decimated by the Liberal-Labor duopoly. The government, under the Liberal and Labor parties, has inflicted disasters in energy policies and in agriculture. That is directly affecting the cost of living. And I'm talking about both state and federal Labor and Liberal, not just federal. Are people aware of this? Yes, they are. Are people in this parliament aware of this? I don't think so.

Let's have a look at some of the things that have driven farmers to despair—and I do mean despair—from Queensland, through the Murray-Darling Basin and into Victoria, across all the eastern states. Let's have a look at No. 1: property rights. They were stolen under the leadership of the John Howard government in 1996, in a deal done with the Rob Borbidge National Party government to steal farmers' property rights to comply with the United Nations Kyoto protocol. There was no data underpinning that protocol to justify its existence and to justify the Howard government's stealing of private property rights. What's more, those property rights were stolen in direct contravention of the Constitution by going around the Constitution; instead of giving just-terms compensation to farmers, they stole farmers' property rights by getting the state governments to do it. Peter Beattie is on record admitting that. Bob Carr is on record publicly admitting that. The Liberal Party and the Labor Party colluded at the state and federal levels to steal farmers property rights. Right now, up in Charleville, there is a man, Dan McDonald, who is fighting through the courts because he has been branded a criminal for feeding his cattle as a result of legislation that has been enabled by the Liberal-Labor duopoly. That is destroying the productive capacity. We call for restoration of those property rights or for compensation. It is not only Dan McDonald: Sharon Lohse, another farmer, is being decimated by state government extrapolation of that property rights theft. Peter Spencer: who knows about that man who almost died protesting the Liberal Party's stealing of property rights?

The second topic affecting agriculture is water, or, should I say, the lack of water, driven by the UN's Rio declaration, again foreign imposed. It was signed up to by Paul Keating's Labor government on this occasion—again, the UN; again, no data backing it up; again, Liberal and Labor continue to implement the policy, destroying our productive capacity. We know of people such as Louise Burge, Chris Brooks and Graham Pyle in southern New South Wales whose livelihoods have been threatened because of a lack of water that is due to the mismanagement and, dare I say it, corruption that is across the Murray-Darling Basin as a result of policies driven by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

Turning to energy, there is nothing more important to modern society than energy. Since the 1850s we've seen a relentless decrease in the price of energy, thanks to technology, until about 10 or 15 years ago, and now we've seen a doubling of electricity prices. The thing that's given us our material wellbeing, our standard of living and our ever-increasing wealth until recently has been ever-cheaper energy. Now the UN has a deliberate policy of increasing electricity prices, increasing fuel prices and increasing gas prices, and Liberal and Labor are doing it, based on the UN's Kyoto protocol, with no data to justify it. We now have a situation where farmers in Queensland—southern Queensland, central Queensland and Northern Queensland—are not growing fodder in a serious drought, because they can't afford to pump the water, because of electricity prices. I can think of someone up north, Debbie Gibson, who told me of her problems when I was listening to farmers in Townsville just two weeks ago. Then we have the ridiculous situation of carbon farming, of tying up land and making it possible to become the habitat of feral animals and noxious weeds. That means extra costs for neighbouring farmers because of the extra management required because of those feral animals and noxious weeds. Carbon farming is based on the UN's Kyoto protocol and Paris Agreement, but, again, there is no data; again, it is being pushed by the Liberal and Labor parties; and, again, it is destroying the productive capacity of our vital industries. Kate Stewart and others are being hurt by this.

Now in Queensland we are seeing soil and chemical run-off laws that are not based on data but are, again, complying with the UN's Kyoto protocol and Rio de Janeiro declaration. Liberal and Labor have been pushing this. This is a Labor extension of it that is destroying productive capacity. I think of the member for Mirani, Steve Andrew, who has been doing wonderful work with canegrowers to offset this and trying to come up with a far better solution, but no-one in the government is listening. Many canegrowers have recycle pits to catch and re-use the water. It doesn't run off their property. Why would they want it to run off their property when it's so valuable? But the bureaucrats and the Labor Party assume that all land from Cairns to Bundaberg to the Tweed is the same and uses the same quantity of fertiliser. Who's paying for this? The people in the supermarkets are paying for this and the farmers' families are paying for this.

Turning to fishing, the UN's Rio de Janeiro declaration of 1992, signed, as I said, by Paul Keating's government, is backed by no data, but the Liberal and Labor parties are pushing it, destroying productive capacity. We now have the world's largest continental shelf fishing zone, yet we import three-quarters of the seafood our people in Australia consume. I'm thinking of people like Timsey, who have to deal with the bureaucrats, deal with faulty electronics imposed upon them by the government and deal with faulty regulations that are trapping them needlessly and for no benefit to the Barrier Reef.

Then I think about forestry and listening to forestry workers and associated people at Maryborough recently, where they had a big, very well-attended protest. This is all, again, based upon the UN's Rio declaration, based on no data, pushed by the Liberal and Labor parties and destroying our destructive capacity. Think of families like Brett and his wife.

And then I raise the issue of trigger mapping. This is bureaucracy gone mad. Lang Park, a stadium in Brisbane, is now, according to the government's trigger mapping, a site for valuable species threatened with extinction. This is all done to control land. Bruce Wagner has been doing this voluntarily for years. He has gone out and got the government's data and exposed it.

I will quote next from a book called Rebuilding the Federation by former Premier of Western Australia Richard Court, who wrote this book in 1994: 'The driving feature of Commonwealth-state financial relations is the states' heavy reliance on Commonwealth funding to supplement their own source revenue. Currently'—remember, this is 1994—'the states receive approximately 50 per cent of their total revenue from the Commonwealth, and with that funding comes strings, restrictions.' So who is running the states? In many ways, it is now the federal government. Whether it's Liberal or Labor, it doesn't seem to matter in many areas, because there is so little accountability in the federal arena.

We also see Richard Court go on, and this is the point I want to make, 'This is what is destroying our country's productive capacity, and our children and their grandchildren will be paying for this.' Quoting again from Richard Court: 'The Commonwealth is using the external affairs power to govern Australian citizens, often rushing to sign international covenants which trample on their existing rights. These agreements are made primarily by people outside Australia. The terms and conditions are set by officials from other countries. While Australia takes part in the negotiations, it does not exercise a dominant influence. The foreign countries do. We never see them, we never meet them and we cannot question them.' He then goes on to discuss the process.

Let me also quote from Maurice Strong, the founder and the first Secretary-General of the United Nations' Environmental Programme, a corrupt and destructive political force masquerading as an environmental force. He signed off in his introduction, the forward to the Earth Summit's Agenda 21, the United Nations program of action from Rio:

There is much to be done. And I look to the new United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development to be the focal point for the massive effort needed to create the new era of international cooperation, the new global partnership, that will make this shift possible.

In the introduction, Maurice Strong said:

Agenda 21 stands as a comprehensive blueprint for action to be taken globally—from now into the twenty-first century—

that's what 'Agenda 21' stands for—

by Governments, United Nations organizations, development agencies, non-governmental organizations and independent-sector groups, in every area in which human activity impacts on the environment.

The Agenda should be studied in conjunction with both the Rio Declaration—which provides a context for its specific proposals—and the statement of forest principles.

That is the blueprint right there.

Then we've seen Canada evaluate the United Nations Agenda 21. They said:

The reasons for undertaking this analysis of Agenda 21 were threefold. First, because the document is so lengthy, complex, and complicated, there was a need to understand the contents of Agenda 21, the interrelationships between the different themes and sectors, and the types of programs or activities which were advocated and agreed to by the negotiators of Agenda 21 …

What I'm saying to that is that even the Canadians, who drove a lot of it, can see that Agenda 21 is so complex that people don't understand. Many people in this house and many people in the House of Representatives do not even know of Agenda 21, yet are pushing regulations through that are enabling Agenda 21. Maurice Strong said he had two objectives, and they were to deindustrialise Western civilisation and to put in place an unelected socialist global governance.

Let's continue to the topic of energy. I talked a minute ago about the primacy of energy. John Howard's government made three massive changes. First of all, he brought in the Renewable Energy Target at two per cent. It's now at 14 per cent. The Liberal-National party want to take it to 28 per cent. It's already crippling our electricity prices, and they want to double it. The Labor Party want to quadruple it, and the Greens—as Lenin said, 'the useful idiots for the United Nations'—want to make it 100 per cent renewable energy, and it can't be done without subsidies. It's already destroying our electricity prices and making them the highest in the world.

The second thing with regard to electricity prices is that we have the gold-plating of the networks, poles and wires because they've now been turned into corporations, not state government departments. Corporations are there to make profits and provide a return, which is simply a tax on the state government. We have the retailers' guaranteed returns. And what do they do? They just clip the ticket as it goes through so that the public can pay even more for their electricity. Then we have the National Electricity Market, put in place by Liberal and Labor, which is open to gaming and is being gamed, and is open to gouging and is being gouged, or rather the taxpayers are being gouged.

We now have subsidies to some of the world's largest companies for installing solar panels in our country and installing wind turbines in our country—subsidies that we pay in higher electricity prices. So we export our natural gas and export our other energy and coal, and we send it to China and other countries. They send it back as wind turbines and send it back as solar panels, and then we pay Chinese companies—for example, in the case of Goldwind—to install these things and to take up valuable farming land in doing so.

We're destroying our productive capacity. High-productivity agricultural land is being destroyed and turned into a wasteland, and we're now putting in place low energy density solar panels and low energy density wind complexes, and that is raising the price of electricity. It is unavoidable; it will continue to raise the price of electricity. What's more, we're paying the Chinese to do this. I've got nothing against the Chinese for trying to do that; we're the stupid ones doing it. In 1942, the Japanese bombed Darwin. The Prime Minister at the time, John Curtin, did not send a cheque to the Japanese saying, 'Thanks for destroying our productive capacity; let's help you pay for the bombs.' But that is what we're doing to the Chinese companies here destroying our capacity.

What we will do as One Nation is make sure that the public continues to hear about the destruction of our productive capacity under the Liberal-Labor duopoly. We will continue to take the action that's needed to protect that capacity. We will say the things that need to be said and do the things that need to be done. We will speak up and serve Australia because we love our country. We love Australia and we love the people here, and One Nation will work to bring back Australia's productive capacity.

Senator VAN (Victoria) (13:53): I rise to speak on my first address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech. I note it was also the first speech to this chamber of the new Governor-General, His Excellency the Hon. David Hurley. I congratulate him on his appointment. He comes with a distinguished career of military service to his country—namely, as a former chief of defence forces. Of course, he will be familiar to his current role, having been a governor of New South Wales. I wish the Governor-General and his wife, Linda, well.

The coalition are the custodians entrusted by the Australian people to form government. The coalition government tested their tax plan against Labor's tax plan at the last election. The result could not have been starker. It was to tax less versus to tax more. The Australian people saw our plan and they voted for it. They saw our leader, Scott Morrison, and they voted for him. The coalition's consistent and proven ability to manage the economy was, as I see it, a key reason for not only holding onto government but being returned with an increased majority at the last federal election. But, of course, not all is economic. Good economic management is just the first step towards prosperity, and it becomes self-evident that a strong economy is the foundation upon which jobs, wages and social growth can bloom.

We've maintained our AAA credit rating. This means we're saving more as we're paying less to borrow. The benefits are not just for government; it flows on through to a lower cost of borrowing for the corporate sector. We've just recorded a current account surplus for the first time since 1975. We are on track to deliver a surplus this year, the first since Peter Costello's in the financial year 2007-08. History has shown that many, if not most, Australians will be reticent to place preference on reformist agendas at the ballot box if they have faith in the government's ability to keep the cost-of-living expenses down and believe economic security will remain in their daily lives. In this election, they kept that faith.

When people's jobs and finances are secure, it allows governments greater room to put forth policies around important issues of social merit without perceived risk to individuals' own wealth. It also means that we have the budget to ensure our Defence servicemen and women have the kit they require. I'm proud that our government has committed to spending two per cent of GDP on our defence budget. That means we can play our part in enforcing the rules based order that ensures our region is more stable, secure and prosperous. As part of the largest step up of our Australian military in peacetime history, there will be $200 billion of investment over the next decade. I'm pleased that this has translated to more and more Australian small and medium enterprises playing an increasing role in delivering for our Defence Force. They are the workforce behind the Defence Force. By building our sovereign industrial capability, we're using our defence dollar not only to ensure our servicemen and women have the kit they require but also to ensure we are able to create Australian jobs and drive our economy.

In the time left I would like to focus particularly on the issue of the environment. As I said in my maiden speech last week, I believe in the importance of personal responsibility. I'm also conscious that we do not live in a perfect world and therefore sometimes the role of government extends to incentivising, or disincentivising, when it is for the common good. The government is integrated with our standard of living. To this end, the coalition government has a proud record of investing in and improving the environment. There are the iconic issues, such as the Great Barrier Reef, in which the government is investing some $1.2 billion. Or there's the big and complex new issue of recycling waste, a newer problem that ranges from local government level up to federal government level. Single-use plastic is an issue that, if resolved, will help the environment in real time and locally. A pragmatic solution must be found that protects our oceans and waterways and that leads to practical action that will require more than just virtue signalling.

Senator McKim interjecting—

Senator VAN: I'm glad that wasn't lost on you. The Minister for the Environment has said realistic targets have 100 per cent of Australia's packaging reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025. Such a target is absolutely a step in the right direction. But I believe that it should be coupled with the carefully crafted program that both incentivises and pressures industry to adopt cleaner alternatives and better product stewardship by stimulating innovation where cleaner solutions are currently lacking. If products can reasonably be replaced with current alternatives—

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Van; you'll be in continuation upon resumption. Senator Cormann.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:36): by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Griff for 16 to 19 September and 14 to 17 October 2019, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:36): by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Rice from 16 to 19 September 2019, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:37): by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Sterle for today, on account of parliamentary business.

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:37): I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the Senate condemns National Party's opposition to the 450 gigalitres, as negotiated by South Australia.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:38): I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

I also table the statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows —

ANL LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2019 WINTER/SPRING SITTINGS

Purpose of the Bill

The bill repeals the ANL Act 1956 and ANL Guarantee Act 1994 to remove impediments to businesses using protected names and also removes unnecessary and outdated legislation.

Reasons for Urgency

Provisions in the largely defunct ANL Act 1956 relating to protected business names are unintentionally preventing a small number of maritime businesses from registering or re-registering trademarks and websites. Retention of the protected name provisions appears to be a historical oversight.

Several permissions and interim arrangements which have allowed these businesses to operate under the protected names are due to expire from late 2019. A range of pending applications cannot be approved until impediments in the ANL Act 1956 are addressed. Failure to remove these impediments is likely to have substantial negative financial and operational impacts on these businesses.

Repeal of the ANL Act 1956 and the ANL Guarantee Act 1994 is appropriate as the remaining provisions have ceased to have legal or practical effect.

Passage of the bill in 2019 is required to remove protected name provisions impeding businesses as soon as possible, and to implement a permanent solution that will provide ongoing operational certainty and support confidence in investment.

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the Hon Michael McCormack MP)