Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (09:37): I want to, first of all, thank the Labor senators who made a contribution to the debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019, because it outlined the extraordinary amount of frustration and stress that has been felt by participants and all their carers and families. We heard speaker after speaker talk about the issues around the NDIS, the concerns around the NDIS and the fact that the NDIS is not working as intended.

Under this government's watch, we have seen a litany of failures to deliver for people with disability—the participants of the NDIS. Yesterday, we heard stories about delays in receiving access to the NDIS. We heard stories about delays in receiving services and supports under the NDIS. What is quite stark is this government's inability to actually address these concerns. These are obviously not concerns that have just arisen; there are stories after stories of families that have been told to senators and members across this parliament. Each senator in this chamber, I'm sure, would have received representations from participants and their families. They would have received letters, emails and phone calls, all seeking help to resolve longstanding issues.

Just last week I had a family that have a 2½-year-old son who has been trying to get access to a planning meeting for a year. This is a child who is 2½. When they saw the light at the end of the tunnel—they finally got an appointment with the planner—they then got a phone call, a message left on the answering machine, to say they'd have to cancel. Three days out from the actual planning date they had to cancel that meeting. You can imagine what that family felt like. A year has passed and they're trying to seek supports and services for the child. They reached out to my office. We spoke to the NDIA and there was another meeting scheduled, but that shouldn't be happening.

These lengthy delays should not be happening. There are delays that we hear about in terms of equipment for people. Sometimes that equipment arrives too late and the person has passed away. This is not what the NDIS is about. The NDIS is a scheme that was meant to enable participants to live a normal life, to be able to participate in the community and the workforce just as everyone else would be able to. That is not what is happening. We have family after family ringing in tears because they can't get the services or, even worse, they've heard that their child is not disabled enough. These are the comments that are coming from planners to families. Of course, we all know that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal workload in terms of NDIS appeals has skyrocketed. This shouldn't be happening.

I want to demonstrate to the minister and the government exactly what is happening in my home state of Tasmania. Satisfaction with the NDIS has dramatically dropped. It has fallen by 30 per cent. I say this to Senator Patrick in particular: satisfaction with the NDIS in Tasmania has fallen 30 per cent in 12 months. These figures from the NDIS website—these are not figures I just plucked from the air—show that, in June 2018, 97 per cent of participants described their satisfaction with the agency planning process as good or very good. Twelve months later, in June 2019, that satisfaction rate collapsed by 30 per cent to 67 per cent. Extraordinary! What is occurring in Tasmania, where you have such a dramatic collapse in satisfaction? Even government senators should be able to acknowledge that this is an extraordinary collapse in satisfaction.

At the same time that we saw this collapse of satisfaction in Tasmania, Tasmania was merged with Victoria—in July 2018. So it's no wonder satisfaction has plummeted. As I understand it, Tasmania no longer has a dedicated NDIS general manager but is managed from Victoria. Problems with the merger were even outlined by the Tasmanian Liberal government submission. What they had to say was: 'The Tasmanian government has observed differences in Tasmania's capacity to resolve issues quickly at a local operational level since the NDIA restructure merging Tasmania and Victoria in July 2018. This restructure saw the loss of the regional manager position in Tasmania.' Why was management for Tasmania merged with Victoria? Why has Tasmania been downgraded? These are the answers that we are seeking.

We have Mr Shorten, the shadow minister, who has reported and spoken about the issues that he has seen as he has travelled around Australia hearing the horror stories about this vital scheme being suffocated as a result of the neglect of this government. In Tasmania, there are widespread issues relating to disability transport funding and to the availability of NDIS approved allied health professionals. We have a collapse in support in Tasmania. We even have, as I've said, the Tasmanian government talking about the differences that they have observed since the restructure and the merging of Tasmania with Victoria in July 2018. So there are a number of questions that I would like the minister to respond to, because Tasmanians would like to know the answers to these questions. Why has this happened? Certainly, it sounds to me like the Tasmanian Liberal government are not happy about it either. Could the minister respond to those questions, because yesterday the minister's summing up was quite quick. In fact, I think I blinked and missed it. It was a shame because there were so many stories and questions that this side of the chamber put forward that were not responded to. You just cannot dismiss these stories; you cannot dismiss participants and families and carers of participants by just doing a one-minute summing up and then sitting down. You just can't treat people like that.

Let's move to some of the issues that were raised about the bill itself. Universally, the disability advocates are seeking to have this bill delayed. That's what they've asked for, and, of course, not unsurprisingly, this government ignored that call. I want to go to a couple of the submissions that were put forward to the inquiry that was held by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee in September. People with Disability Australia, PWDA, for those people listening, is a leading disability rights advocacy and representative organisation of and for all people with disability. They are a national cross-disability organisation which represents the interests of people with all kinds of disability. They are a non-profit, non-government organisation and they do tremendous work, which I'm sure the minister would agree. Their recommendation in their submission to this bill was that they believe:

… the disability sector would benefit from more time to consider any the Bill and any unintended consequences.

They noted:

… that the Explanatory Memorandum or the Second Reading Speech provide limited analysis of the possible impacts—

that they've referred to in their submission.

They go on to:

… recommend that the proposed changes in this Bill are deferred and considered within the upcoming Tune Review of the NDIS Act.

It is odd that this bill is coming here today and has been introduced by the government when we have the Tune review currently looking into the NDIS Act.

We also have a submission, again by an organisation, Young People in Nursing Homes National Alliance. The alliance, people will know, is a national peak organisation dedicated to resolving the issue of younger people with disability living in residential aged-care facilities and those at risk of aged-care placement. If I have time in a separate contribution, I will outline a number of the issues that they've raised in their submission. But they too have asked that the bill not proceed at this time, so why is the government refusing to listen to advocates? Why are they refusing to listen to the advocacy disability organisations and proceeding with this bill? I'd like to know that as a start from the minister, if she could respond. (Time expired)

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (09:52): by leave—I move amendments 1 and 2 on sheet TK154 together and, in doing so, I also table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendments to be moved to this bill:

Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Main amendments".

Page 16 (after line 19), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Other amendments

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

1 At the end of section 66

      Add:

      (4) If:

      (a) the CEO or an Agency officer is served with a summons or notice, or is otherwise subject to a requirement, under the Royal Commissions Act 1902; and

      (b) in order to comply with the summons, notice or requirement, the CEO or Agency officer would be required to disclose information that is protected Agency information;

   then, despite sections 62 and 67G of this Act, the CEO or Agency officer must, subject to the Royal Commissions Act 1902, disclose that information. The information is taken to have been disclosed for the purposes of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and of the Royal Commission concerned.

2 At the end of section 67E

      Add:

      (4) If:

      (a) the Commissioner or a Commission officer is served with a summons or notice, or is otherwise subject to a requirement, under the Royal Commissions Act 1902; and

      (b) in order to comply with the summons, notice or requirement, the Commissioner or Commission officer would be required to disclose information that is protected Commission information;

   then, despite sections 67B and 67G of this Act, the Commissioner or Commission officer must, subject to the Royal Commissions Act 1902, disclose that information. The information is taken to have been disclosed for the purposes of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and of the Royal Commission concerned.

3 Section 67G

After "except for the purposes of this Act", insert "or the Royal Commissions Act 1902".

4 Application provision

The amendments of sections 66 and 67E of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 No. 27—14 November 2019 839 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a summons or notice served, or a requirement made, on or after the commencement of this item (whether the protected Agency information or protected Commission information came into existence before, on or after that commencement).

Senator Carol Brown: Is the minister going to respond to my—

Senator RUSTON: I'm intending to say something after I move the amendments.

The CHAIR: The amendments have been moved. Senator Steele-John is seeking the call, and you've stood up.

Senator Carol Brown: I'll let Senator Steele-John speak first.

The CHAIR: I will go to Senator Steele-John, he may have a relevant question, and I'll come back to you.

Senator Ruston: I was intending to make a contribution to my amendments, which I prefer to do first, but is there something else you wanted to do?

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (09:54): I wish to clarify a point with the chair, if that's okay? Forgive me, Chair. I have a number of questions to put to the minister in relation to both the amendment and the bill in its totality. I'm seeking your guidance as to when best to make the contributions, both to this amendment but also to the bill generally, for I, like Senator Brown, would like to get a bit more detail on the government's legislation here.

The CHAIR: What the minister has done is move the government's amendments. There are still other amendments there, and the debate hasn't been closed down. No-one wanted the call, so I'm obligated to put the motion that the minister has moved. That's where we are: the minister has moved that first amendment, but it doesn't shut down debate, because we're still in committee of the whole.

Senator STEELE-JOHN: Thank you, Chair. I do apologise, but when Senator Brown finished I did attempt to get the call. I might have missed your line of sight.

The CHAIR: My apologies. As you all know, the minister is not required to answer questions. It's entirely up to the minister as to what statements or questions she answers. The minister wants to make some explanatory remarks now around the amendment that she has moved, so we'll go to the minister and then to you, Senator Steele-John.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (09:56): Just in clarification, Senator Steele-John, of course I stand prepared to respond to all the questions that I'm sure you're going to ask more generally. I just sought to move this along by moving these amendments and then, of course, I'll be very pleased to enter into a debate.

The amendments that I have just moved are particularly specific. They relate to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, on the basis that it is highly likely that the royal commission will request a range of data and information, including information that may well be protected. We believe that both the NDIA CEO and the NDIS commissioner need to be in a position where they are able to provide, if they're required to provide, the royal commission with access to the information it needs to fully inform itself in relation to any information that is put before it.

Currently, the confidentiality provisions that are provided in the NDIS Act allow for the sharing of information, including protected information, but it is actually subject to the agreement of the head of the agency. We believe, given the importance of the royal commission in terms of its findings and ensuring that it has the capacity to undertake its deliberations and investigations uninhibited, that it is appropriate that the NDIA CEO and the NDIS commissioner be required to provide that protected information in response to a summons or a notice issued under the Royal Commission Act rather than it being subject to a decision.

So, the proposed amendment to the NDIS Act clarifies those requirements for these agency heads to produce documents and information that include protected information, despite those provisions which currently exist within the act. We believe that this approach will increase confidence in the operation of the royal commission by ensuring that it has all the information that it requires to do its job.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (09:58): Before commenting on the nature of the amendment put forward by the government, I have a series of questions to put to the minister about the bill in its generality. In doing that, I think it may benefit the chamber to contextualise my line of inquiry generally.

As the minister would be aware, the NDIS is rightly described, if you like, as a significant social services reform. It is often likened to the most significant reform to our social services system since Medicare. One of the critical elements of the reform is a shift in the responsibility in relation to disability policy from what was previously described, in the 2010 Productivity Commission report, as a kind of state based postcode lottery to a policy which is intended to be marked by a broad national system which enables a continuity of services and supports, regardless of where an individual lives in Australia.

It has not been a seamless transition between state and federal responsibility in this space, and one of the particular challenges has been the sharing of data between state and federal governments. Another challenge has been cultural, which is to say that states finding themselves under the NDIS framework have taken different responses in terms of what role they subsequently play in the funding of disability supports, particularly around disability advocacy services, resulting in many instances in gaps between funding cycles but also in what has been termed legislative or procedural or administrative gaps, through which certain disabled individuals, particularly those journeying with psychosocial disability, have fallen. It's resulted in a lot of distress and, often, a lot of harm to individuals, and it has been characterised by both state and federal government confusion and at times—particularly in Victoria—by a multilayered confusion, culturally, in relation to local government, where some services are provided through different local government frameworks.

In some areas, progress has been made after continued and very diligent advocacy on behalf of disabled people, their families, their supporters and their funded organisations, which sometimes perform their roles in a context where they are also losing funding. We've seen some successes around the alignment of the health system in different state and territory jurisdictions with what the NDIS will provide, so that, for instance, disabled people entering the health system don't end up in the middle of a bureaucratic stand-off between state, territory and federal governments, who haven't in the past been able to make up their mind as to who should most rightly and fittingly cover individual participants at different times.

I'm aware that these are issues that have been raised with the minister and with previous social services ministers, and they have no doubt made their way into the briefing pack that the minister was handed when he took up his position. What strikes me—and what has struck many other advocacy organisations that I've worked with on this issue—is that, when it comes to the question of public service function and Commonwealth, state or local government responsibility as defined by various pieces of state and territory legislation, process is important but culture is often king. To set culture there is a need for a clear view, on behalf of the Commonwealth, as to the end point we are seeking to achieve. Before you can change the culture of an organisation you've got to understand where you are and where you want to be, and I must say that it isn't a totally one-sided argument.

I think, since the inception of the NDIS, there has been confusion on behalf of state and territory and federal government levels as to who was now going to take leadership in a certain areas. And those questions—some of them created by unfortunate vagaries within the relevant NDIS implementing legislation—have not been helped by a desire, on behalf of those levels of government, to make sure that they don't end up footing the bill. It speaks to, I think, the unfortunate reality that, when we think about disability in Australia, when we think about the potential roles that we all collectively play in removing the barriers that disabled people face, we often bring it back to questions of dollars and cents and a desperate urge, on behalf of all levels of government, not to be left with what they see as an expensive impost on themselves.

There are examples where this has been overcome at the state level. I think in some ways states like Victoria have done a better job than others in managing that cultural shift and have recognised pretty early on that, although the Commonwealth now takes responsibility for certain aspects of disability funding for disability support services, there is still a vital role to play at their level of government in making sure that they do what they can to break those barriers down.

On the other side of that ledger, we have seen that New South Wales has a lot of challenges. I have worked a lot with Senator Brown on the question of disability advocacy funding in New South Wales, which has been a disaster under the Liberal government, with different ministers wishing to push it all off onto the Commonwealth without understanding the types of advocacy that the states and territories and federal government are now obliged and, in fact, eligible to fund.

In Tasmania we've also seen a similar kind of 'get out as quick as we can' mentality: 'It's the Commonwealth's job now, folks. We can finally get these very expensive disabled people off our ledger.' Of course, that's completely the wrong way to think about it, because, when we make modifications to our society in relation to making it more accessible for disabled people, making it more inclusive to disabled people, we, of course, increase accessibility and inclusion for all of our society. And that's clear when we talk about funding disability advocacy, which often a disabled person might be eligible for at the same time as they are also a person of colour or somebody journeying with issues of poverty, and so supporting advocacy for a disabled person is also helping somebody who's financially struggling make it through their tough time that they're in.

So, I would like to ask the minister to outline for me how the minister and the relevant minister, Mr Robert view this question of responsibility. How does the government go about articulating the role that is played by local, state and federal governments in relation to the funding of disability services and supports, as covered by the NDIS, and advocacy funding and supports that are also, in other ways, funded by the NDIS? Just to be really clear, I'm asking: what kind of cultural leadership role does the Commonwealth play in talking about the issues of co-responsibility, or does the government take a view that the Commonwealth should be solely responsible for these areas? I would be very grateful if the minister could outline the government's position on this first question.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:10): Thank you very much, Senator Steele-John. Can I acknowledge upfront that this is a very, very major reform and, like all things that are as major and complex as this one, there are always challenges in the introduction and challenges built on the fact that it's a multijurisdictional reform. You raised the question in relation to those different jurisdictions. In relation to participants in the NDIS and those people who are eligible under the NDIS, the act itself and regulations obviously prescribe how they interface with the NDIA and all of the activities. But you do raise a very good point in relation to the many people in our community who live with disability and who do not come under the NDIS but equally require assistance in their lives to ensure that they have the capacity to live the best possible life they can through the provision of various supports.

As has always been the case, the states and territories are responsible to ensure that they provide the level of support for people with disability, and, whilst the Commonwealth doesn't have a day-to-day, hands-on approach to that, we certainly take a very keen interest. With the new NDIS activities, it increases our level of desire to have an overarching influence to ensure that nobody falls between the gaps in the rollout of this major reform. To that end, Senator Steele-John, I will be in your home state of Western Australia in a few weeks time. I'll be addressing the Disability Reform Council, which, as you would be aware, is the council of ministers who have responsibility in their various jurisdictions for disability. The number one agenda item that I have for that particular council will relate to the consultation and the process involved in developing the new National Disability Strategy, which takes into account many of the issues that you raised in your contribution previously. I very much look forward to discussing those issues with the council, but, equally, I look forward to discussing the issues with the disability sector and their advocates, as I have done to date in relation to the royal commission. That group was tremendously informative to me and I took a lot of value out of our meeting. I thank you and acknowledge your support and your assistance in setting it up. I acknowledge what you're saying and I agree entirely on the importance of making sure that everybody in Australia who lives with disability gets the appropriate supports that they are entitled to.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (10:13): Following on from the contribution that the minister made, it would be helpful if she could indicate when the National Disability Strategy will be released, since we've had considerable delays around the implementation plan and reports emanating from the National Disability Strategy in the past under this government. I would ask that the minister respond to the questions that I asked in my first contribution—the questions regarding Tasmania and the collapse in satisfaction with the NDIS. I seek a response to those questions. Further, in regard to the Community Connectors program, why did Minister Robert, on ABC AM this morning, describe people from CALD communities as 'linguistically difficult'? Is that the government's position?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:15): I'll take the first part of your question in relation to the National Disability Strategy. We're currently in consultation because, as you're aware, the current strategy is due to be completed next year, so we've started a program of consultation. Part of that consultation, obviously, is the meeting that I'm intending to have in Western Australia in a couple of weeks time.

I didn't hear the media event this morning that you referred to. I'm more than happy to listen to it and respond. However, from your comments, I suggest that the accusation or allegation that you're making is completely misfounded, misinterpreted or mischievous. We take very seriously the unique needs of people in the CALD community with disability, recognising that a language barrier heightens the level of support that these people need in our community not only dealing with disability but more generally. I'm sure that that's what the minister was referring to.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (10:16): I was asking about the comments made by Minister Robert today. I find it difficult to accept the minister's statement. On the one hand, the minister says that she has not had the opportunity to read or listen to the comments, but then she attributes to me something other than seeking an answer on the government's position. It was a question to her.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Sterle ): Minister, are you going to take a point of order?

Senator Ruston: No.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The minister is very keen to answer you, Senator Brown.

Senator CAROL BROWN: And I'm very keen to listen to the minister's response. I again ask if she could respond to the questions I asked about Tasmania.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:17): In relation to the specific questions on Tasmania, I will endeavour to get answers as quickly as possible. I don't have the specific information on Tasmania to hand, but I'll endeavour to get that for you. I take on notice to provide responses to those questions.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:18): I thank the minister for her answer to my question. I'm heartened to hear that she will be visiting WA soon to address the Disability Reform Council. Minister, can you confirm that there will be representatives from every state and territory present at the Disability Reform Council meeting that you intend to address?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:18): I haven't seen the list, but every state and territory is invited, both ministerially and at an officials level, and in the past I have never attended a council meeting where every state and territory hasn't been represented. I will confirm that, but I would say it is almost certain that they will be.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:18): At both the ministerial and the departmental level? Is that your usual experience?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:19): It is absolutely our usual experience that you will have ministerial and official representation.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:19): Fantastic. It's great to hear that everybody, hopefully, will be in the same room. I want to go back to the answer given by the minister to my question. It was detailed, and I do appreciate that. I'm wanting to get clarification on what she said around making sure that we cover the gaps and have those conversations effectively. I'm seeking to get this very clearly from you: when the government talks to states and territories about these issues, do you enter with the hope of achieving a disability system generally, and an NDIS process specifically, where there is maintenance of an acknowledgement that there's a need to co-deliver certain aspects of it and work together to make it work? Or is it the government's aspiration to eventually arrive at a position where it's broadly acknowledged that disability, in terms of the NDIS, is solely a responsibility of the federal government, and making that work and resolving problems around the NDIS isn't something that needs to be top-order priority for states and territories?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:20): Certainly the NDIS is designed as a scheme that has a joint responsibility between the federal government and the states and territories. There are very clear and specific funding arrangements, in terms of responsibility and liability, that sit within the scheme. In a more general sense, in terms of the actual delivery of the services and supports to people on the ground in the various states, when it comes to the NDIS they are quite specific. But I take your point in relation to the interface between the states and the Commonwealth in the broader disability space. It is very clearly our desire to continue to run in parallel the maintenance of the obligations of the states in terms of the delivery of the appropriate services and supports that fit around disability more generally to ensure that people who either choose not to or are not eligible for the NDIS can still get access to the kind of mainstream disability-appropriate services and supports that we all expect that people with disability should be able to have access to.

Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (10:22): Minister, in relation to the last part of that answer, can we go through the case of Tim Rubenach, who died waiting for a specialised tilt bed and a wheelchair from the NDIS provider in Tasmania, given that you've given a commitment to general services for people who might not be able to access the NDIS? This was the case: Mr Rubenach had been approved by the NDIS and had to wait many, many months, both for the tilt bed and for a motorised wheelchair. He died before he received those. I note that the other night at the estimates spillover Ms Campbell from the department did apologise. But could we seek some assurance, because Mr Rubenach is certainly not the only person who has had difficulty in accessing services from the NDIS. In fact I know of someone who worked in this building, a former senator, who also had to wait under a care plan for services that were approved, and he died before he could receive the resources that were approved under the care plan. Could we go to Mr Rubenach's specific circumstances and how the NDIS is proposing to ensure that those services are provided? Given that these amendments relate to a royal commission and clarifying that the NDIA is going to be subject to the Royal Commissions Act , I would imagine, that an amendment wouldn't be necessary, because the NDIS will be able to provide the services it itself says it is going to be able to provide and indeed approves.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:24): I'm not sure I actually know what you've just asked me.

Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (10:25): I'll clarify. In Mr Rubenach's case, he was approved, under the NDIS in Tasmania, for a tilt bed, and he was also approved to have a motorised wheelchair. He died before those resources could be provided to him. There was unnecessary delay. We know it's not an isolated case, because we know there are others, and I'm sure that these will come to light at other stages in the public eye. But what I want the minister to do is to assure the chamber that Mr Rubenach's very tragic circumstances will not be repeated.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:25): Thank you, Senator Kitching, for your question. Unquestionably, there have been distressing circumstances that we've heard about. The government—I believe in response to some of these circumstances, one of which you have just raised—commissioned a review into these and other issues, the Tune review. Part of that review will be making sure that there is a clear and thorough investigation into delays for assistive technologies that support people with disability.

Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (10:26): The minister just said that Mr Rubenach's case is only one of these. How many more are there?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:26): You yourself made the comment about the fact there have been distressing circumstances. For anybody who wishes to come forward and request assistance, there is an entirely appropriate process through which they can do that. I am unaware of other circumstances. I'm more than happy to take that on notice, but I think it is a very sensitive area and needs to be appropriately handled.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:27): I thank the minister for her response to my question and I just want to clarify one bit before I move on to my next question. When you referenced 'joint responsibilities' in your previous comment, were you speaking directly in relation to those areas which the NDIS is responsible for delivering and the aspects around that, or were you talking more broadly about joint responsibility generally for deliverance of the issues and challenges that are considered by the Disability Reform Council?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:28): Thanks, Senator Steele-John. I was actually referring specifically to the NDIS and the fact that it is a joint venture, I suppose, for the want of a better term, between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. When I referred to the responsibilities that sit outside of the NDIS for the provision of services, I suppose to a large extent I was referring to the kinds of things that I think are expected to be embedded in the behaviours of the states who do the delivery. For example, disability-appropriate education supports and disability-appropriate transport supports and infrastructure are the sorts of things I was referring to in the second part of my response. But certainly, in terms of the joint venture, for want of a better word, I was referring to the NDIS.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:29): Thank you very much for your answer to that, Minister, and I really do hope that, when you're over in Perth, we can find time in the diary to have a chat. I'll just move on now to a line of questioning I have around the board of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The composition of the board and some of the actions of the board have been the subject of significant contributions during the various processes and procedures around the debate on this bill, and, I think, rightly so. There is a great deal of public interest in the board and the background of the particular board members. That is driven more generally by a desire to ensure that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is supported as best it can be by the appointments made by the government to deliver on the promises that are laid out in its founding and most relevant documentation. And indeed, it's not only that but also that it ultimately rises to the challenge of addressing the issues that disabled people face.

There is a bit of history, culturally, to this because disabled people have of course, for many decades, lived with and confronted many significant barriers in society—cultural barriers, physical barriers and financial barriers. And when we have sought to confront those barriers we have often encountered resistance in the form of systems and processes that were created, sustained and administrated by individuals with very little experience in that relevant sector, and often without experience of the critical distinction that needs to be made when we discuss disability. That distinction is between the medical model and the social model of disability.

As disabled people, we feel it's really important that these distinctions be understood. The medical model of disability looks at a disabled person, if I may use this terminology—and I might explain this via myself, because, after all, when it comes to disability I can always refer to myself and say, 'Here's one I prepared earlier!'—and it says: 'This is a man with a brain injury, given the terminology of cerebral palsy. He therefore can't walk and do other things. And while he might be provided with modifications of certain types by the Commonwealth, state or local government services, ultimately there is a responsibility for him to make his way in the 'normal' world, as we might term it, as best he can. As far as normal society deigns to lean backwards and offer some support—well, it's very nice of normal society—but, ultimately, you've got to make your way in the normal world as an abnormal person'. The social model of disability, conversely, understands that, although I may well be a person with a brain injury termed cerebral palsy, and that it gives me the impairment of not being able to walk, due to scarring in my motor neurone cortex—I believe that's the medical term—that the disability and its relevant discriminations are created by the barriers in society maintained and sustained by ableism; the cultural hatred and exclusion of disabled people, or, indeed, the fear of disabled people.

Those barriers, having collectively been created by our society, must be removed—taken down—by a collective societal effort. That collectivises the issue of disability as something that we all, particularly non-disabled people, have a responsibility to deal with. Much as we don't turn around to people of colour and say, 'Racism is your issue to deal with,' and we don't turn around to women and say, 'Sexism is something that you've got to deal with,' the social model of disability makes it clear that my good friend and colleague Senator Whish-Wilson has as much responsibility for the removal of barriers as anybody else. Those things are critically important and are something that we have been focusing on in relation to the board, because ultimately the NDIS only works if that is the starting point of the understanding. If you try to deliver the NDIS via a medical model you will end up with the postcode lottery based on a culture of gatekeeping of resources that so disastrously characterised the former state based system rather than a flagging of unmet need.

I'm really heartened to hear that the minister has articulated the NDIS as a joint venture, because that is very much the view that disabled people and our organisations have when it comes to how best to support the NDIS to succeed, so I happily think that on that point at least we find ourselves on the same page. The board is so important to making sure that the whole picture works effectively because, of course, the NDIS has become a real prime mover in the disability space. We've all spoken at length and know in great detail the funds that are invested in the NDIS. As a market based system, as Senator Hughes is so often prone to reminding us all, rightly, it has a lot of weight in shaping the way that disability services are delivered, even beyond traditional disability services, indeed, to infrastructure in the area of supported assisted accommodation, where the NDIS is projected to fund some 20,000 accessible residences in the Australian community. That will be the largest injection of funds in this space in the history of our country. So, the strategic decisions made by the board, which then flow down to the agency and out across our country, and the way that it addresses and conceptualises disability, are incredibly important. It is a significant player in that process and therefore influences greatly the nature of disability conversations in this country, what services look like and what infrastructure looks like. The board is ultimately the engine room of that process because the strategic decisions that are made there end up shaping what the rest of the agency does and what that ultimately looks like.

Again, it is one of these areas where cultural leadership is really important. We've spent a long time going around in circles, in some ways, because nobody has been able to make up their mind about who is responsible for what, where the cheque should go and who needs to be responsible for the ultimate decision-making on cases. So, I want to home in on the government's view of the future role of the states and territories in contributing to the strategic direction of the board and maintaining that sense of cultural buy-in at the heart of something which has been described, rightly, as a kind of joint venture. Could the minister clarify for the chamber the government's vision in relation to future state and territory involvement in the strategic decisions of the board and also in holding to account the board of an agency which has a lot of impact in their jurisdictions?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:40): The board itself, obviously, is the board of the NDIS, and the NDIS exists, as I say, as a collaboration between the states and territories. As part of that process, the input of the states and territories is sought in relation to the rules around the appointment of board members—the selection process and ultimately the determination of who's on the board.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:41): Hang on. I need to go into that a little bit deeper with you. I understand that input is sought, but I'm talking more about vision here. If we're talking about where we're ideally trying get this conversation to go—and we've already talked about the importance of it maintaining itself as a joint venture—do you see a continued role for the states and territories not only in seeking their feedback on appointments? Ultimately, does the Commonwealth seek to maintain a sense of shared co-responsibility—you can't have a joint venture unless there's an understanding that both sides have some kind of responsibility for decision-making—in relation to the composition of the board?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:42): The board of the NDIA reports to the Disability Reform Council, and the Disability Reform Council has the power to assist in setting the strategic direction of the NDIA. That is the process by which it comes back around and gives the ultimate power to the states and territories in conjunction with the Commonwealth.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:42): I do understand that, Minister, and I thank you for clarifying that. I'm more saying that, although there is that feedback loop with the DRC, in terms of maintaining the culture of joint venture does the government hope to continue to build relationships with states and territories through which they feel a sense of buy-in to decisions around appointments and terminations of the board?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:43): Absolutely. One of the fundamental components of this particular initiative is to seek, through the rules process, to always get consensus amongst the states. That is not always possible, as you can probably well imagine, when you're talking about a number of different jurisdictions, and so obviously there needs to be a process by which we can continue the operation of the NDIS without having to get consensus every time. However, it's extremely important that the continuity of decision-making is maintained. But the collaboration and buy-in of the states and territories is a fundamental component of the NDIS, and the board is one part of that.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:44): I apologise, Minister—would you mind, for my recollection, just repeating the last part of your statement there? I was slightly distracted by Senator Cormann.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:44): He has that effect on people.

Senator Steele-John: I just couldn't get away from his eyes!

Senator RUSTON: I'm going to leave it right there! Senator Steele-John, the fundamental and underlying point that I was making is that in the collaboration between the states and territories and the Commonwealth in the processes around all aspects of the delivery, the administration, the strategic direction of the NDIS, it is absolutely fundamental that that collaboration is absolutely at the centre of this particular initiative.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:45): I recognise the intent of this bill, which is to improve the leadership and the governance of the NDIS and the rule-making, particularly. I also note that the NDIS has been without a CEO for at least 170 days. I'd also like to acknowledge that for people for whom the NDIS is working well, it is a good thing, but for people for whom the NDIS is not working, it is really not working. I'd like to ask a couple of questions of the minister about decision-making within the NDIS. What is the usual method of evaluating functional capacity for clients of the NDIS? Is it through, for example, medical examination and doctors' reports?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:46): I am advised that there are a range of methods by which functional assessment is undertaken.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:46): Could the minister advise the Senate whether the question of whether the previous year's funding was used is one of the issues that are deployed to understand functional capacity? That is, if a client has not used all of their funding, is that a factor in determining whether that person's functional capacity has improved?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:47): I believe not.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:47): I note that the minister said she believes not. I would appreciate it if we could get some clarity and if she could take on notice to confirm that. I want to speak to the case of Rory White, a 23-year-old man from New South Wales with an acquired brain injury. In May this year the NDIS re-evaluated Rory's functional capacity and deemed it improved, based on the fact that he did not use all of his allocated funds. That was the advice given to Rory's mother. Is the minister aware of the case of Rory White?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:48): No, I am not aware of the specific case, and I would also decline to comment on specific cases, but I'm more than happy to take any of your questions on notice and, under the appropriate process, provide that information back to you.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:48): In a more generic sense, could you advise, would an NDIS planner look at the electronic records of a client in seeking to determine their functional capacity, or would they simply look at whether the quantum of funding had been exhausted for the previous plan?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:49): I'm advised that the factor of utilisation is not taken into account in making those assessments.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:49): Just to be clear, you're saying the factor of utilisation of the funds is not a criterion when determining someone's functional capacity? Is that what I'm understanding?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:49): That is what I have advised is my understanding.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:49): In a general sense, I'd like to ask about electronic records. Can the minister advise the chamber how common it is that electronic records for an NDIS client are lost? Can you give us a sense of the scope of that challenge or that problem within the NDIS?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:50): I'll have to take that question on notice.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:50): I understand that the minister will probably take this on notice, but what is the estimated cost to the NDIS to replace lost electronic client records each year?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:50): You're quite right; I will take that on notice.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:50): If an electronic client record is lost, who needs to pay for those records to be replaced? That is, who would pay for the doctors' reports and the new assessments to be done? Would it be the client or would it be the NDIS?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:51): In the interests of accuracy, I'd prefer to take that question on notice.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:51): That's interesting. Do NDIS planners have any training or basic knowledge in medical terminology to allow them to understand the conditions of their clients?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:52): I'm advised that they do.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:52): For example, an NDIS planner should understand the difference between cerebral palsy and an acquired brain injury, in general terms?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:52): I'll take that on notice. I'm not going to speak hypothetically about something where I do not have the information in front of me.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:52): I know the minister said she would take on notice questions relating to Mr Rory White. I advise the minister that Mr Rory White has been known to the NDIS since 2016. He has an acquired brain injury. He has been advised by the NDIS that, because he did not expend all of his funds for the previous year, he was deemed to have improved in his functional capacity. He has been advised by the NDIS that his electronic documents have been lost, and, as of last month, the NDIS planner was insisting that Mr White has cerebral palsy, not an acquired brain injury. Could the minister advise or take on notice how many LAC planners Rory White has had in the past 12 months?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:53): Obviously, I'm more than happy to take on notice any questions that senators in this chamber want to put forward, but I draw to the attention of the chamber the substance of the bill that is before us and the information that I brought to the chamber in relation to that bill. Many of the questions that are being asked are somewhat outside the scope of the bill, and, for that reason, I will be required to take many of those questions on notice.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:54): I note what the minister has just advised the chamber. However, this is a multibillion-dollar scheme that has been without a CEO, and some of the criticism of the governance arrangements include that there have not been enough people with a disability involved in the governance and implementation of this scheme to factor into decision-making and processes the lived experience of people with a disability. Hence the real-world examples of how this scheme is being rolled out are instructive to the community, who may not participate directly in the NDIS, to understand the challenges that people with a disability are facing in accessing services that allow them to live with a measure of independence and self-direction in the community. When a plan is reviewed, what is the usual process to advise the family or the client of the outcome? Is it usually done by letter, email, phone call or face-to-face meeting?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:56): As I've advised previously, I will take these questions on notice.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:56): Does the minister know what an AFO is?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:56): I'll take that on notice.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:56): My understanding is that an AFO is a plastic orthotic leg, or an ankle-foot orthosis. It helps with stabilising. My understanding is that they cost $1,700. How does the NDIS calculate the cost or understand what the cost of a prosthesis such as this is? What would be the usual process for an NDIS planner if they wanted to include that in a plan? How would they seek to determine what that costs?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:57): I will take that on notice.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:57): I understand that Mr Rory White needs an ankle-foot orthosis, that it costs $1,700 and that the NDIS is allocating $400 towards the cost. Does the minister think that this is a fair outcome for Mr White?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:57): Senator, in relation to all of the questions that you're asking specifically about individuals and more generally around individual processes within the NDIS, I have advised I will take them on notice for you.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:58): I would like to place on the record that Mr White's mother, Karen White, has advised Senator O'Neill's office—Senator O'Neill cannot be here this morning; I have also been in contact with Mrs White—that she is at crisis point. She has had to take time off work. The last time she spoke to an NDIS planner regarding Rory was on 9 September. She was advised it would take only three weeks. She has heard nothing since and had to chase it up herself. She advises Senator O'Neill that the NDIS is still insisting that Rory has cerebral palsy, when in fact his disability is an acquired brain injury. I understand and can appreciate that the minister may not be briefed here this morning on the particular details of one particular client, but Mr White's situation has been ongoing now for several months. It has involved several senators in this chamber seeking to get a satisfactory outcome through the NDIS, and still today this situation is yet to be resolved. This has placed significant stress on Mrs White and the White family, and on Rory White, who is attempting to live independently in the community.

While I appreciate that this bill is not directly about individual clients, I think it is useful for the chamber and for the community to understand that, when the NDIS is not working, it is really not working for those people who have a disability and who are seeking to live independently in the community. What is disappointing is that we do not see in this legislation any progress or change in the governance arrangements that would facilitate people with a disability's direct participation in the governance and the implementation of this scheme. We are disappointed that this legislation does not do particularly much to allow for people to improve the implementation of the NDIS to assist people like Mr Rory White. So, I thank the minister for her answers today, and I look forward to her answers on notice.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:01): I want to thank the minister for her responses to my subsequent lines of questioning. I must say, as an aside, that I've dealt with a couple of social services ministers in my last two years here and have always found your office to be receptive and for you, personally, to be willing to engage in the substance of the discussions at hand. If you ever want to have a chat about AFOs, I'm your man, because I used to wear them. I can tell you all about them, backwards, sideways and what kind of cartoon prints you can have put on them if you want to.

I want to return firmly to the substance of the bill, and I will inform the chamber as to why. We have, ourselves, had a number of conversations about this issue, Minister. There's a high level of distrust in many ways between disabled people and various levels of government, regardless of who's in office, because we've all at one time or another experienced a bit of systemic failure, discrimination et cetera. So, in relation to the NDIS, and it was the same issue under Labor, there's always a need to clearly communicate one's thinking around a change—a change in policy, a change in direction. Communication is key. Communication has, at times, been not as good as it could have been between the agency and the public, between the government and the public in relation to the agency. That has subsequently led to, again, at times, unnecessary, undue concern in the community, unnecessary and unneeded concern in relation to the public and its aspirations for the NDIS. I'm sure it has resulted in a lot of letters and paperwork and various damage control for all sides of politics.

What I want to seek now to try to do is to clarify some elements around the bill in such a way that will give the Australian public a really solid line of sight, if you like, to the thinking of the government behind the proposition of the bill and, indeed, the various, shall we say, ways in which the central intent that the government is pursuing here is realised in the relevant pieces of legislation and, in so doing, either get to the nub of certain issues or, in fact, to allay certain community concerns. So, I'll start with what I hope is a simple question in relation to the legislation itself, and I note that the Commonwealth has covered this in a little bit of detail in relation to the inquiry into the bill. But for want of a better word, Minister, whose legislative 'baby', if you like, is this bill within the department? Who originally recommended it to Minister Robert, with the government subsequently adopting it as something it wanted to pursue?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:05): My understanding is that all states and territories have had input into the changes that are sought within this piece of legislation and that all jurisdictions supported the various components of the changes in the amendments.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:05): I apologise, Minister, for any lack of clarity. That much was clear from the Commonwealth submission to the inquiry. My question to you is: before it was put to the states and territories as a legislative proposition, who initially authored the bill itself—the recommendations that led to the bill—that were then put to the states and territories for their agreement one way or another?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:06): I will have to take that on notice in terms of the exact detail, but my understanding is that since 2016 there have been a number of issues raised in relation to administration and that many of the aspects in the original part of this bill—not the amendments going to the bill—seek to address anomalies in or the capacity to streamline or deliver this particular initiative better. My understanding is that it has been a bit of an iterative process since 2016.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:06): Thank you for that description of it as an iterative process. Departmentally, who has shepherded this iterative process through to conclusion?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:07): That's the part of it I'm going to have to take on notice. I apologise.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:07): It was my understanding—and I didn't think this would be a difficult question—that Mr Broadhead had a line-of-sight and shepherding role in relation to this piece of legislation. Is that correct? Does that jog anybody's memory?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:07): My officials have just said that that's correct.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:07): I understand that you might have to confer with your officials momentarily, but, again, I do want to emphasise this point. What I'm seeking to do with this particular question is to contextualise this bill so as to allay concern in the community or, in fact, to highlight issues that we might then subsequently discuss. Could you outline for the chamber Mr Broadhead's role within the agency and the previous experience that he has which led him to be the relevant point person on the development of this piece of legislation?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:08): I'm sorry, Senator; I am going to have to take that on notice, but I'll endeavour to get you an answer as quickly as possible.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (11:08): The NDIS is a very worthwhile scheme for a lot of those Australians who require this assistance; I've spoken to many Australians with regard to it. My concern is about the cost to the taxpayer, how it's going to run and if we can afford it as a nation going into the future. Minister, how much is it going to cost the taxpayers of Australia to administer this scheme and to put it in place over a year?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:09): The NDIS scheme is demand driven, so the cost of the scheme will be determined by the demand from individuals seeking support from the NDIS, and obviously that will be largely dictated by the eligibility of the people who seek to access the service.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (11:09): Minister, it has been brought to my attention that it is costing taxpayers $23 billion a year to administer this scheme. Would that be in the ballpark?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:10): The advice that has been received by government in relation to the cost of a fully extended scheme is in the arena of the figure that you mentioned, yes.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (11:10): Under the scheme, how much are the states putting towards this and how much is the federal government paying towards this?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:10): The states have a set contribution, and once that contribution has reached a peak it goes no higher and the balance is provided by the Commonwealth.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (11:11): We're going to the cost factor here. How much is the administration of this scheme going to cost Australian taxpayers?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:11): I don't actually have those figures at hand, but I understand it's in the quarterly report and I'll make sure that's provided to your office today.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (11:11): I might be able to help you: it's around $2 billion a year in administration costs. Minister, do you know how many people are actually on the board of the NDIS? There are board members, plus the CEOs and the DCEOs—I calculate that there are 22 on it. The chief executive officer receives $587,241. Board members receive approximately $85,000, $98,000 and $102,000. Then you've got other members on the board. There is the DCEO, Participants and Planning Experience, and the DCEO Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer. You're looking at $453,000 for one and $431,000 for the other one. The head of People and Culture receives $481,000. Minister, who determines the remuneration that is paid to these board members and others that hold these positions? Is it government or is it the board members themselves, and what category do they come under?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:13): The CEO and many of the very senior executives within the agency are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. However, once you get past those, the board is the determining body, but I would need to get back to you with the specifics as to exactly whose salaries are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal and whose are determined by the board, in the interests of absolute accuracy.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (11:13): I would like to know that, because when I drew attention to what the CEO of Australia Post was getting paid—$5.6 million—I found the remuneration was set by the parliament under (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), with (e) meaning unlimited; they can basically pay what they want over $400,000, which is unacceptable, in my opinion, to the Australian people. Especially with a scheme like the NDIS, it's very important for the Australian people to receive the care and attention that they need, yet we're paying these huge amounts—approximately $5.3 million a year—in remuneration to these board members. We as a nation are going to struggle to pay for the NDIS.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:14): I move:

That the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Griff ): The question is that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Progress reported.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:21): I move:

That the committee have leave to sit again at a later hour.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the question on the motion moved by Senator Cormann be now put—the procedural motion.

The PRESIDENT (11:25): The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann, the substantive motion, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:25): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019.

Leave not granted.

Senator CORMANN: Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent him moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide for a limitation of debate on the bill.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is the procedural motion moved by Senator Cormann, that the suspension of standing orders be now put.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:26): I seek leave of the chamber to make a statement of no longer than one minute.

Leave not granted.

The PRESIDENT: I'm going to put the procedural motion—Senator Wong on a point of order?

Senator Wong: I'd ask the government to reconsider that. I understand the government has the numbers to gag this debate. You've just moved a motion which prevents suspension—

Government senators interjecting—

Senator Wong: Well, generally governments have allowed a debate on the suspension motion, because it is—

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Senator WONG: Eric, even you did, mate.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I've granted some discretion.

Senator Wong: I'm asking the government to reconsider the denial of leave, given you are moving this without amendment or debate. I may not agree with him, but he has a right to speak.

The PRESIDENT: I'm in the hands of the Senate. Leave was denied, so I'm now required to put the procedural motion that Senator Cormann moved. Senator Steele-John?

Senator STEELE-JOHN: Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Steele-John, I can't deal with that until I dispose of the two matters before the chair, the first of which is the procedural motion moved by Senator Cormann that the question now be put. The question is that the procedural motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (11:35): The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:43): I would like to ask the minister whether she is comfortable with the decision that has just been made by her government to effectively gag this debate and therefore silence the very many disability organisations that have, over the course of more than a month, liaised with my office in the construction of the questions which I had prepared to put to her. I want to make it very clear: these are detailed questions, contributed in good faith to the decisions around this bill. They will take longer than this marker will allow, not because I'm being obstructive but simply because this is a very detailed piece of legislation affecting, as you so well described it earlier, a joint venture between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, the size of which we haven't seen since Medicare. I will not now, nor will any other senators, be able to fully finish the interrogation of the bill and, I must say, also the subsequent amendment which goes to one of the most important royal commissions in Australia's history. Is the minister remotely comfortable with this decision that has been taken by the government in the chamber this morning?

Progress reported.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:48): I present the eighth report of 2019 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 8 OF 2019

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 13 November 2019 at 7.37pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 February 2020 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(b) the provisions of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Sport Integrity Australia) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2020 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(c) the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Tax Transparency in Procurement and Grants) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 March 2020 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (New Commissioner Functions) Bill 2019

Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2019

Education Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019

Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018 [No. 2]

Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017.

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

Air Services Amendment Bill 2018

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia's Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019

Constitution Alteration (Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press) 2019

Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019

Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018

Family Law (Self-Assessment) Bill 2019

Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2019

Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019

Health Legislation Amendment (Data-matching and Other Matters) Bill 2019

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019

National Integrity (Parliamentary Standards) Bill 2019

Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019

Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2019

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Unsolicited Communications) Bill 2019

Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures) Bill 2019

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Near-new Dwelling Interests) Bill 2019.

5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral)

(Dean Smith)

Chair

14 November 2019

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To determine whether the Parliament of Australia should vote in favour of this bill in its current form (or in an amended form), having regard to the views of industry and other key stakeholders

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various banks and financial institutions (including professional services, superannuation and financial services firms), representatives from the gambling sector, representatives from the real estate sector, the Department of Home Affairs (specifically AFP and AUSTRAC), the Law Council of Australia and other commercial law representatives.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

21 February Z1119-

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To ensure current glaring money laundering/terrorism financing risks (e.g. a range of services provided by lawyers, accountants, conveyancers, real estate agents, high-value dealers, trust and company service providers, and offshore-based businesses) that aren't currently captured by the AML/CTF Act are fully examined.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Transparency International Australia, Australian Council for International Development, Australian Privacy Foundation, Law Council of Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal & Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

6-7 February 2020

Possible reporting date:

21 February 2020

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Sport integrity Australia) Bill 2019

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Hear from stakeholders

Examine issues around self-incrimination

Ensure Wood Review recommendations are implemented appropriately

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Athletes' associations across major sports codes

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

On the papers

Possible reporting date:

February 2020

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Tax Transparency in Procurement and Grants) Bill 2019

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Determine details of current policy measures in place to address tax evasion and use of tax havens by grant recipients and Government suppliers

Determine any need for amendments to ensure that the Bill operates as intended

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Government Agencies: Treasury, Finance, ATO

Civil Society: Tax Justice Network, Tax Institute of Australia, CPA Australia, CAANZ, Institute of Public Accountants

Significant Government Contractors: Serco, Transfield, Paladin, etc.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

(Canberra — February 2020 Sydney — February 2020)

To be determined by the Committee

Possible reporting date:

19 March 2020

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Human rights concerns, given the Government's track record with citizenship bills (bill will originate in the House on Thursday 19 September 2019).

Possible submissions or evidence from:

legal and human rights experts and advocates such as The Law Council of Australia, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Australian Human Rights Commission, and Civil Liberties Australia.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

7-8 November 2019

Possible reporting date:

4 December 2019

Senator DEAN SMITH: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (11:48): I won't hold the chamber up unnecessarily. I want to be very clear here that the Selection of Bills Committee has chosen not to refer this legislation to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I remind colleagues that this is a bill that will provide the minister even more powers to strip Australian citizenship from people in a way that does not provide for natural justice or procedural fairness.

The Selection of Bills Committee has tried to justify its decision not to refer this bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee by arguing that the bill has been referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, but this is a completely inadequate justification, because, of course, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is a closed shop for the major parties. It does not provide for crossbench input and for a broad consideration that truly reflects the Australian people's right to have scrutiny on these debates. The bill should be considered by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which, of course, does have crossbench membership in the form of my position on the committee representing the Australian Greens. The Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security has recommended the passage of some absolutely atrocious authoritarian legislation in its time, doing nothing more than knock off a few rough edges. Having said that, I do note the recent decision of the PJCIS in regards to the Identity-matching Services Bill 2019 and Australian Passports Amendment (Identity-matching Services) Bill 2019 but make the point that this is actually an exception that proves the rule. We know the major parties don't like hearing alternative views on the erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms in this country, and this decision shows that they are, once again, trying to shut the Australian Greens and the crossbench out of the debate.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:50): I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion add:

"and in respect of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019, the bill not be referred to a committee."

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:57): Before asking that this motion be taken as formal, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Urquhart will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Urquhart, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 February 2020:

The current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia, including:

(a) the appropriateness of the current regulatory regime through the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) Special Access Scheme (SAS), Authorised Prescriber Scheme and clinical trials;

(b) the suitability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for subsidising patient access to medicinal cannabis products;

(c) the interaction between state and territory authorities and the Commonwealth, including overlap and variation between state and territory schemes;

(d) Australia's regulatory regime in comparison to international best practice models for medicinal cannabis regulation and patient access;

(e) the availability of training for doctors in the current TGA regulatory regime for prescribing medicinal cannabis to their patients;

(f) the education of doctors in the Endogenous Cannabinoid System (ECS), and the appropriateness of medicinal cannabis treatments for various indications;

(g) sources of information for doctors about uses of medicinal cannabis and how these might be improved and widened;

(h) delays in access, and the practice of product substitution, due to importation of medicinal cannabis and the shortage of Australian manufactured medicinal cannabis products;

(i) the current status of the domestic regulated medicinal cannabis industry;

(j) the impacts on the mental and physical wellbeing of those patients struggling to access medicinal cannabis through Australia's regulatory regime;

(k) the particular barriers for those in rural and remote areas in accessing medicinal cannabis legally;

(l) the significant financial barriers to accessing medicinal cannabis treatment;

(m) the number of Australian patients continuing to rely on unregulated supply of medicinal cannabis due to access barriers and the impacts associated with that; and

(n) any related matters.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (11:57): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator DUNIAM: The government does not support the premise of this proposed inquiry. It wilfully ignores the significant progress made to date. The Morrison government continues to make it easier for doctors to access medicinal cannabis products more rapidly while maintaining strict safeguards for individual and community safety. Since January 2016 over 23,000 applications for medicinal cannabis have been approved to nearly 15,000 patients via the special access scheme, which is overseen by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. There is no barrier to applications to the PBS. PBS applicants must, by law, be determined on medical, not political grounds as proposed in this motion.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 be agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:04): At the request of Senator Sterle, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2020:

The Federal Government's response to the drought, and the adequacy and appropriateness of policies and measures to support farmers, regional communities and the Australian economy, with particular reference to:

(a) loans and financial support;

(b) water availability, infrastructure, agreement and supply measures;

(c) various market impacts of the measures;

(d) interaction with existing legislative and regulatory instruments across jurisdictions;

(e) the response to the Drought Coordinator's report;

(f) preparedness for the current drought and the capacity of the Australian Government to prepare for future drought; and

(g) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:06): At the request of Senator Keneally, I move:

(a) The Senate notes that the Australian public has a right to know vital information that is held within the Department of Home Affairs, and that regular and timely information should be reported to the Senate and the Australian people to provide oversight and transparency on activities of the Department.

(b) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by not later than 14 days after each:

   (i.) 31 January;

   (ii.) 28 February;

   (iii.) 31 March;

   (iv.) 30 April;

   (v.) 31 May;

   (vi.) 30 June;

   (vii.) 31 July;

   (viii.) 31 August;

   (ix.) 30 September;

   (x.) 31 October;

   (xi.) 30 November; and

   (xii.) 31 December, a monthly update of onshore protection visa lodgements.

(c) Each monthly update must include:

   (i.) the total number of protection visa lodgements made onshore during the period;

   (ii.) the total number of protection visa lodgements made onshore at airports, by airport and state, during the period;

   (iii.) the total number of individuals, by country of origin, that made a lodgement for a protection visa onshore during the period;

   (iv.) the total number of individuals, by age and gender, that made a lodgement for a protection visa onshore during the period;

   (v.) the total number of refugee status determinations made during the period;

   (vi.) the total number of individuals granted a Final Protection Visa during the period;

   (vii.) the total number of individuals, by country of origin, granted a Final Protection Visa during the period, and the grant rate;

   (viii.) the total number of individuals, by age and gender, granted a Final Protection Visa during the period, and the grant rate;

   (ix.) the total number of individuals that were not granted a Final Protection Visa during the period, and the grant rate;

   (x.) the total number of individuals, by country of origin, that were not granted a Final Protection Visa during the period, and the grant rate;

   (xi.) the total number of individuals, by age and gender, that were not granted a Final Protection Visa during the period, and the grant rate;

   (xii.) the total number of individuals that were not granted a Final Protection Visa that were deported during the period, and the deportation rate;

   (xiii.) the total number of refugee status determinations awaiting a decision at the end of the period; and

   (xiv.) the total number of individuals that were not granted a Final Protection Visa that have yet to be deported at the end of the period.

(d) If the Senate is not sitting when a monthly update is ready for presentation, the statement is to be presented to the President under standing order 166.

(e) This order is of continuing effect.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (12:06): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator DUNIAM: The government strongly opposes this motion and rejects the inaccurate assertion on which it is based. The motion seeks to require the regular tabling of an extensive list of documents related to so-called final protection visas. Such a category of visas does not in fact exist. As such, the Senate should not support this order of continuing effect.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:29): At the request of Senator O'Neill, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, by no later than 3.30 pm on 25 November 2019:

(a) the 75 submissions received by the Franchising Taskforce;

(b) the names and titles of the people and organisations who submitted to the Franchising Taskforce;

(c) the minutes of the 31 roundtables and 57 bilateral meetings the Franchising Taskforce undertook;

(d) the minutes of the meeting with the Franchising Council of Australia;

(e) the minutes of the meeting with McDonalds Australia;

(f) the minutes of the meeting with the Australian Association of Franchisees; and

(g) the minutes of the meeting with Professor Jenny Buchan.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (12:29): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator DUNIAM: The government will not be supporting this motion, as the regulatory impact statement is still open for consultation. Publication of these documents prior to the consultation period ending could result in unfair prejudice and negatively impact the process. Importantly, some submissions were made anonymously and it would be unfair to disadvantage or punish stakeholders who made submissions on this basis. The government is committed to achieving the best outcome that strikes the right balance between franchisees and franchisors. Recommendation 1 of the bipartisan parliamentary inquiry was to establish the task force, which the Morrison government has done, and the task force will report back to the government by the end of the year.

Question agreed to.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:30): I move:

(1) That the Senate notes that the ABC Four Corners story, Cash Splash, aired allegations of mismanagement of funds under the Commonwealth's water savings efficiency program, including:

(a) the construction of new dams on greenfield sites under a program intended to save water by upgrading existing irrigation developments; and

(b) water holders purchasing water in different valleys, and passing these onto the Department of Agriculture as a water saving from an infrastructure upgrade.

(2) That the Senate has, flowing from its oversight responsibilities, an obligation to examine allegations raised in respect of the proper and efficient expenditure of taxpayers' money.

(3) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, by no later than midday on 26 November 2019:

(a) all correspondence, assessments, technical assessments, reports and audits relating to the Commonwealth purchase of water relating to the following New South Wales (NSW) water access licences: 9628, 23848, 37739, 37738, 15026, 4605, 41568, 7559, 5266, 4529, 5541, 5310, 14803, 9315, 7446, 88123, 8314, 7721, 8676, 37222, 15364, 37379, 16354, 3607 and 11236;

(b) any other purchase through a water efficiency project in NSW, where the total price paid is in excess of $1 million; and

(c) any other purchase through a water efficiency project in NSW, where the project was located in a different valley to the water recovered.

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:41): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by 5 pm on 15 November 2019:

(a) the written agreement between the South Australian Government and the Commonwealth Government for 100GL of Murray-Darling River water to be cut from South Australia's allocation, and the Commonwealth to fund the increased use of the State's desalination plant;

(b) the Project Agreement setting out the terms and conditions of the 'Water for Fodder' program;

(c) all other correspondence between the South Australian Government and the Commonwealth Government and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder in relation to this deal; and

(d) all other relevant documentation or agreements between the Commonwealth Government and state governments, and relevant departments and agencies, including the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (12:41): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator DUNIAM: The government will make the agreement between the Commonwealth and South Australia, the associated project agreement and the program itself publicly available in the coming weeks and prior to the launch of the program.

Question agreed to.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:48): Labor will support the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019, which will reduce PBS safety net thresholds from 1 January 2020. Labor matched the government's commitment to do so during the election campaign. Unfortunately, this bill won't fix the crisis in medicine affordability that we see on this government's watch.

The government's own figures show that many Australian's don't fill prescriptions, because they can't afford them. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 961,000 people a year delay or avoid taking prescribed medicines due to cost. The rate of people skipping prescriptions is twice as high in the most disadvantaged areas, at 10 per cent, as in the least disadvantaged areas, at five per cent, meaning that the cost of medicine is contributing to health inequality in Australia.

What has this third-term government done about this crisis? It's tried to make it worse. In the 2014 budget the government proposed to increase the costs of PBS medicines by up to $5, even for pensioners, and to increase the thresholds for the PBS safety net. Only Labor's opposition in the parliament stopped the government from implementing this measure.

This government also has an appalling record of delaying PBS listings. Last month the PBAC made public their recommendations from the July meeting, which took the total number of drugs waiting to be listed by Minister Hunt into the dozens. These are drugs that have been recommended for listing by the independent experts, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, because they stack up on both clinical and cost grounds. The government like to pat themselves on the back with every listing. However, in the media and even during question time in this place they're also accountable for every drug the minister refuses to list. The health minister needs to stop the delays on PBS listings and start treating Australian patients with respect.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (12:50): I thank senators for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (12:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:51): Labor will not oppose this bill, the Education Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019. It provides sensible measures to make sure that students taking up aviation courses are not saddled with repaying debts for high-fee courses immediately. It will also discount teachers' HELP debts for moving to a very remote school and will wipe debts for spending four or more years in that school. We will not oppose measures aimed at improving educational outcomes in rural, regional and remote Australia.

But this bill does little to stem the cuts to education in this country. In recent months we've seen results and reports showing that Australia's education system is headed in the wrong direction—from refusing to fund universal access to three-year-olds' preschool to ripping $14 billion from public schools, capping university places, locking 200,000 students out of higher education over the decade, slashing research funding and presiding over a skills crisis in this country, where we have 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than when the Liberals came into office and more than $3 billion cut from TAFE and training. On top of that, this week we've seen from the Department of Education's annual reports that Scott Morrison has short-changed TAFE training and apprenticeship programs by almost $1 billion, despite the fact that Australia is suffering from a national shortage of tradies.

Mr Scott Morrison and the Liberals are failing our kids, our businesses and our economy when they fail to invest in education, because when you lock someone out of education you are locking them out of a job. We know that for the Liberals, when it comes to training Australian workers, TAFE and training are little more than an afterthought. In case anybody wasn't entirely convinced of how little Mr Scott Morrison cares about TAFE and training, they need only look at the fact that they've put Senator Cash in charge. And when it comes to Australian universities the government is incapable of unlocking the economic potential of a skilled workforce. A university education transforms the lives of individuals and is one of the best investments any government can make. It has the power to close the gap in just one generation and has spill-on effects for the whole community. Put simply, investing in and maintaining our world-class universities is good for all of us.

When last in government, Labor introduced the demand-driven funding system to overcome structural disadvantages and, according to a Productivity Commission report, it worked. Labor's policies saw an extra 220,000 Australians getting the opportunity of a university education, including an increase in financially disadvantaged student enrolments by 66 per cent, in Indigenous undergraduate student enrolments by 105 per cent, in enrolments of undergraduate students with a disability by 123 per cent and in enrolments of students from regional and remote areas by 50 per cent.

This government loves to pick and choose which areas of investment benefit our rural, regional and remote communities. Too often they forget that real investment in education benefits our regional areas—not tinkering around the edges but real funding. In relation to La Trobe University's Bendigo campus, if Labor had been elected, our commitment to return to a demand-driven funding system would have seen 1,000 additional students from Bendigo get a university education. There would have been another 1,000 additional students from the electorate of Page. Research has found that seven in 10 regional university graduates take up work outside metro areas and that regional universities and students reinvest more than $2 billion a year in regional communities with university campuses.

A recommendation of the recently released Napthine review confirmed what we already know about the government: they have no plan for rural, regional and remote education. The Minister for Education, during his speech to the National Press Club, said that he supported all the aims of the review. But the very first aim of the first recommendation is: 'providing demand-driven funding for university places in regional areas'. What has this government done instead? Over the past two years, they've capped university places, impacting on equity participation in our universities. And, when it comes to our schools, every dollar counts.

While Labor supports this bill's aim of improving educational outcomes in very remote schools, this bill does nothing to redress the $14 billion cut from public schools over the decade. Public schools educate 70 per cent of our kids in rural, regional and remote schools and the majority of children in poorer families, children with a disability and Indigenous students—the children for whom the extra resources and support make the most difference. So $14 billion would have given the neediest schools the most money in the shortest amount of time. In the electorate of Indi, where Senator McKenzie lives, public schools would have been $22.7 million better off. Perhaps the senator could take the four-minute drive from her electorate office to Wodonga Senior Secondary College and let the school know why her government refuses to fund the additional $2.4 million they would have received under a Labor government over the term of this parliament. In Senator McMahon's community, more than $14 million was cut; in Senator Canavan's community, more than $23.36 million; in Senator Davey's community, $24.89 million; and in Senator McDonald's community, $23.5 million.

We know the benefits that flow from additional needs based funding. Schools can hire more teachers or more teacher aides. Class sizes can be smaller. Children who are struggling are identified early and get the help they need to catch up. Children who are gifted and talented get to stretch themselves. Children who need accommodation in the classroom have the attention of a teacher who has the time to properly make those accommodations. School cohorts in regional, rural and remote areas already face learning challenges compared to their metro cohorts in NAPLAN. International measures of learning progress, such as PISA, tell a similarly concerning story, with the latest data revealing a two-year gap in maths literacy between metro and remote students. Under the federal government's school funding regime, all private schools will reach or exceed their fair funding level, but nine in 10 public schools never will. Sadly, it's our kids and our economy who will pay the price.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (12:59): I would ordinarily thank senators for their contributions, but on this occasion I don't think I will. But I do commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (12:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:59): I'm pleased to speak on the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 2019. The bill will amend the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 to expand eligibility for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to all current and former members of the Australian Defence Force who have at least one day's continuous service, from 1 January 2020. This is a consequence of recent changes to the definition of a veteran to cover anyone who has served one day of full-time service. This will ensure that all current and former members of the ADF are eligible for concessional home building insurance under the scheme, regardless of the type of service they have undertaken. Reservists, peacekeepers, widows and widowers will all be eligible under the scheme. This will help ease cost-of-living pressures faced by ADF members, veterans and their families and provide greater peace of mind for deploying members, and for their remaining spouses and family, should an adverse event occur and an insurance claim is warranted.

This is particularly important in regional and northern Australia, where many of our ADF personnel are posted. As we know, from experience and the climate science, northern Australia is generally more disaster-prone, with a greater exposure to and frequency of adverse weather and other natural events like cyclones, tropical storms and floods. Also, as we know from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's northern Australia insurance inquiry, consumers in the north face significantly higher home insurance premiums and can often be underinsured when natural disasters hit. It's commendable that the government is addressing this issue for our defence personnel and veterans, but it needs to respond to the ACCC's recommendations and act now to urgently fix the wider problems of access and affordability of insurance for all consumers in northern Australia.

In any case, these recommendations before us today will mean better outcomes for our defence personnel, veterans and their families, especially in the regions, and Labor supports them. I commend the bill.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (13:02): This bill, the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 2019, amends the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 to expand eligibility to the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to all current and former members of the ADF who have at least one day of continuous service. As the Minister for Defence, I understand that the Australian community, rightly, has a clear expectation that veterans and members of the Defence Force and their families will be well looked after, and of course, as a government, we are absolutely committed to recognising their service.

On 24 April 2019, this government announced that expanded eligibility under the scheme would commence from 1 January next year. Expansion of eligibility under the scheme will close existing gaps in eligibility for ADF members and also for veterans and will ensure that all current and former members of the ADF are eligible for home building insurance under the scheme, regardless of the type of service to our nation that they have undertaken. The bill will ensure that reservists and also peacekeepers, currently ineligible to participate in the scheme, will have access to the scheme. Widows and widowers will also be eligible under the scheme.

The amendments will align the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to the Australian government's policy of supporting all veterans who have served, regardless of their type or length of service, in recognition of their sacrifice and service to our nation. These amendments will mean better outcomes for defence members and veterans and for their families. I thank senators for their contribution to this bill, and I commend it to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (13:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (13:04): The Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019 implements the Convention between the Government of Australia and the Government of the State of Israel for the Elimination of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance, as signed by Australia and the State of Israel on 28 March 2019. Labor supports this convention and this legislation. This convention will ensure a more productive and cooperative bilateral investment environment between Australia and Israel. This convention will offer new trading opportunities for Australian businesses by reducing withholding taxes and significantly alleviating the risk of double taxation of income by Australia and Israel. Labor strongly encourages cooperation between the national tax agencies to detect and prevent tax evasion. The convention will do this by authorising the revenue authorities of Australia and Israel to exchange taxpayer information on all taxes that are covered by the convention.

This legislation incorporates important integrity provisions from the G20 OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. These provisions are designed to minimise tax avoidance opportunities and to ensure that multinational corporations pay the appropriate amount of tax. The convention will also improve tax certainty for businesses and investors by introducing antidiscrimination and arbitration rules. The new convention will commence when both Australia and Israel have fulfilled their domestic requirements, including passing this bill.

This bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give force to the convention, while also amending the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce a new 'deemed source of income' rule. This will ensure Australia can fully exercise the taxing rights it has negotiated under the new convention and will streamline the negotiation of future international tax agreements.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (13:06): I thank Senator Brown for her contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019. This bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 and will give the new tax treaty between Australia and Israel the force of law in Australia. The new treaty is the first of its kind between Australia and Israel and will provide an avenue to support closer linkages between Australia and Israel. It will also create new opportunities for businesses in both countries—which is a good thing—particularly in the areas of commercial trade, investment and innovation, through reduced withholding tax rates. The new treaty will also help ensure that multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax and further demonstrates Australia's resolve to stamp out international tax avoidance. Therefore, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (13:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (13:07): The Labor Party will be supporting the Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which seeks to improve the operation of indemnity insurance following a first principles review. Medical indemnity insurance covers doctors, midwives and other health professionals and providers for the large compensation that may be payable to patients after provider errors. Since a major market failure in 2002, the Commonwealth has provided substantial support for the medical indemnity insurance market—around $83 million in 2018-19. This bill amends the Medical Indemnity Act 2002 and related legislation to improve the operation of the Commonwealth support. In particular, this bill introduces a requirement that all indemnity insurers must provide cover to all providers. At present this universal coverage obligation only applies to the four insurers who have contracts with the Commonwealth. This is a sensible and helpful extension.

Unfortunately, this legislation fails to fix the significant gaps in indemnity insurance for Australia's midwives. In fact, this legislation does not even attempt to deal with those. In particular, it fails to address the lack of cover for homebirths and the lack of competition and choice in other midwifery cover. Currently we do not have indemnity insurance for all homebirths. The current exemption for holding that insurance is set to expire, putting midwives in a position of uncertainty. Unless the minister addresses this issue, it could jeopardise the ability of midwives to attend homebirths. On the issue of competition, there's only one provider of indemnity insurance for midwives.

This is not an easy situation to resolve, but we call on the government to consider options to address it. The Labor Party is concerned about these issues because we believe midwives perform an incredibly important role in our health system. The last Labor government added midwives to the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme and gave midwives access to a range of Medicare and PBS items for the first time. We call on the government to give midwives the support and attention they deserve.

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (13:10): I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Growing up on a family farm just outside of Chinchilla, where my mum was the local midwife, today, as a senator for Queensland, I have a very special interest in medical and midwifery services for regional Australia, especially in Queensland. As I noted in my maiden speech, these essential services are contracting away from many towns and small communities in regional centres around Queensland. While Chinchilla has a hospital, it's a hospital without any reliable maternity services. So much for better access to essential services in my home town! How can this work? How can families plan for what should be a joyous time? I'm grateful for the leadership of the Prime Minister and for the coalition government's determination to lead the fight for rural and regional Australians to ensure that they receive their fair share of government funding, services and support.

Improving essential services in the bush starts with this bill, the Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. As a responsible Commonwealth government, we must do all that we can to enable privately practising doctors, health professionals and midwives to take up the slack in neglected communities, and that means nationwide access to affordable professional indemnity insurance. Currently, under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act, midwives are required to hold appropriate professional indemnity insurance in order to be registered. At the present time, an exemption to this requirement applies to privately practising midwives who provide labour and delivery services for homebirths up until December 2019. According to the Australian College of Midwives, most midwives will be covered by their employer. However, self-employed midwives will need to arrange their own insurance.

A recent submission from the Australian College of Midwives to the First Principles Reviews of the Medical Indemnity Insurance Fund concluded that indemnity insurance was a barrier for privately practising midwives and has resulted in the loss of a number of excellent privately practising midwives from the profession. Stepping up to the plate on this issue, the Australian government has agreed to work with indemnity insurers, representative peak bodies and practitioners to improve Commonwealth support for medical indemnity arrangements. Taken collectively, the initiatives in this bill will aim to: simplify the legislative structure that supports effective and affordable medical indemnity insurance; ensure universal cover to medical practitioners; expand government support for high-cost and exceptional claims made against healthcare professionals; clarify eligibility for run-off cover schemes; streamline reporting obligations; and monitor capacity. This is an impressive list of reforms. These reforms should support the long-term stability and sustainability of a sector that is so vital to improving equality of access to reliable maternity care in regional communities.

The World Health Organization has announced 2020 as the Year of the Nurse and Midwife. I trust that the Senate will support this bill and, in doing so, provide for the long-term stability and affordability of medical indemnity premiums for our midwives and medical practitioners around Australia to help ensure better equality of health care and patient safety, irrespective of postcode. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator WATERS (Queensland) (13:13): I acknowledge I'm not on the speakers list, but I wish to make a very short statement. I want to rise to associate the Greens with the comments made by Senator Carol Brown in relation to midwives and to flag that, whilst I unfortunately don't have my documents with me, we endorse the sentiment and contents expressed therein.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (13:14): I thank all senators for their contributions and in particular Senator Rennick for his personal reflections relating to elements of this bill. This bill, as has been outlined by a number of others, amends the Medical Indemnity Act 2002 and related legislation to reduce and simplify the legislation underpinning the medical indemnity schemes through consolidation and repeal of redundant legislation. The new legislation will continue to ensure medical indemnity insurance products are both available and affordable for medical and allied health practitioners. Improvements have been made to the provision of universal cover for doctors who may otherwise be uninsurable. While there is a risk that poor-performing doctors benefit from universal cover, the reason it exists is to protect doctors with a significant claims history from being denied cover where the claims history relates to their specialty, location or patient cohort. This risk is being mitigated by increasing the risk loading which insurers can apply and by enabling insurers to refuse cover in exceptional circumstances.

Only four of the six participating insurers have a contract with the Commonwealth. The effect of this has been that the two insurers outside of these contractual arrangements cannot be compelled to provide cover and there is no mechanism to enforce universal cover. The effect of the contractual arrangements has, therefore, been unevenly distributed. Insurers will continue to be able to impose risk management conditions on high-risk doctors and refuse insurance in exceptional circumstances. These new arrangements will reduce administrative requirements, and insurers will no longer need to contract with the Commonwealth, removing inequities between contracted and non-contracted parties. This will reduce the burdensome and duplicate reporting and ensure there is an open market.

The government will also be maintaining support for high-cost claims and exceptional claims made in respect of health practitioners who are insured by insurers presently participating in the schemes. These practitioners will need to be practising in professions accredited by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. The government will be establishing a separate high-cost claims and exceptional claims scheme for allied health professions, including employed privately practising midwives. The allied health schemes will mirror the existing high-cost claims and exceptional claims schemes to include midwives and close an inequitable gap. This means all registered midwives not covered under the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme are covered under the allied health high-cost claim scheme. Claims made under these schemes will apply regardless of whether it is made against a practitioner covered by an insurance contract between the individual practitioner and insurer or an insurance contract between the practitioner's employer and insurer. However, the claim must be against the individual practitioner. The amendments in this bill will ensure parity arrangements for doctors, allied health professionals and midwives.

In summary, these legislative changes support the recommendations of both the first principles and thematic reviews while addressing recommendations made by the Australian National Audit Office. The government will continue to ensure improvements are made in the monitoring and performance of the indemnity insurance fund against its objectives of delivery of the independent actuarial evaluation to be tabled in parliament in 2021. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:18): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (13:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:18): The committee is considering the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet TK154.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (13:19): Labor will be supporting this government amendment. This amendment compels the chief executive officer of the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner to provide data and information including protected information under the NDIS Act for the purposes of a royal commission. Currently, under the NDIS Act 2013, agency heads can release information at their discretion. This amendment eliminates that discretion and associated administrative process that may prevent a royal commission, including the disability royal commission, from accessing the information it needs for its purposes. Labor supports measures that will ensure that the royal commission can maintain its integrity and that people with disability, their families and carers and the disability sector can have confidence their evidence is heard independently and impartially. That's why Labor is supporting this amendment.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:20): I'd like to continue on with where we were before we were so rudely interrupted and put a question to the minister. We were discussing the nature of the genesis of the bill. I think we pretty clearly landed on the person who has so far had the shepherding of this process. Could you go into a little bit more detail as to what motivated the government to put this bill forward. What, ultimately, are the series of problems that you are trying to solve here?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:21): Thank you very much, Senator Steele-John. My understanding is that a major motivation behind the substantive component of the bill, as opposed to the amendments we're currently debating, is to ensure that we maximise the efficiency of the operation of the act by making sure that the requirements around the rules of operation are appropriate for purpose.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:21): Could I take you to the Commonwealth's submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill. It talked at length about some of the delays that had been experienced in the appointment of members to the board, therefore creating—I'm not quite sure—obstructions. Could you outline for us what obstructions we are talking about here and the length of time that we are talking about, in terms of delays, that have motivated relevant sections of the bill?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:22): It is my understanding that, due to the requirements in the rules on identification of suitable individuals to be on the board that require every state and territory to unilaterally agree to those appointments, the process through which the 2017 board was appointed actually commenced in 2015. Due to the inability of all states and territories to agree on the particular members of the board, because of the processes, it made it particularly difficult to get a unanimous decision in relation to who should be appointed to the board—simply by the requirement for every state and territory to be in agreement with each other as well as with the Commonwealth.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:24): The submission made by the Commonwealth referenced a lack of interest on behalf of states and territories, and it said that this bill 'is a remedy to that lack of interest'. Can you clarify what you mean by that?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:24): Senator Steele-John, I'm afraid I'm not across every single detail of the submission that the Commonwealth put into the inquiry, so I'm going to have to take that on notice so I can get some greater context around what the meaning of that particular statement that you have provided is—what the intent of it was.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:25): Senator, just to clarify, this is what the department gave in their submission. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the government's aware of the submission that it made. So, in the submission, you spoke clearly about 'a lack of interest' and that the bill was a remedy to that, but I'm just trying to burrow a bit into that. The evidence that you gave in the subsequent hearing spoke again to that lack of interest and that the bill was part of a remedy to that lack of interest. I'm just wondering what the examples were the department had in mind when it was talking about a lack of interest on the part of states or territories.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:26): Certainly, Senator Steele-John, the complexity of this issue and the rollout of this scheme mean there are a number of moving parts that are all happening at the same time. I am certainly unaware of 'lack of interest' being the driving factor behind the requirement, or the desire, for this bill to be brought into this place. That's certainly not my understanding of the genesis of or the motivation behind this bill. I don't think you said that I had said that it was through a lack of interest. I think you were referring to the submission—

Senator Steele-John: I was—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): One at a time, please. It's a rhetorical flourish.

Senator RUSTON: You might clarify whether you were or you weren't suggesting that when you respond. My very clear understanding is that this bill was not generated because of 'a lack of interest'. However, I think it would be fair to say that some of the concerns and some of the delays and timing problems that have occurred with the administration and the rollout of this scheme have certainly come about because of different jurisdictions having different levels of prioritisation of particular issues. Clearly, the desired outcome we're trying to achieve here is to make sure we get some sort of clarity around how these decisions are going to be prioritised.

As you would well know, the process that sits behind the appointment of the board is, we believe, very important, but we would seek to make sure that—with all the right sorts of measures in place to ensure its integrity—it's not a process that in the future takes two years to go through to enable appointments to the board. We did need to address that. I raise that as an example, and there are a number of other situations that have occurred in other areas of the agency that that applies to. As I said, I haven't seen the 'lack of interest' comment. To my mind, it would suggest that it is about the relativity of prioritisation in decision-making. That is probably how I would have couched it.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:29): Just to clarify, I was referencing evidence given by Mr Broadhead to the Senate inquiry. When the department were asked to contextualise why there had been, to their mind, extended periods of time between the appointments, he characterised it as 'a lack of interest' that the bill would remedy. But, moving on to another question I have, would you be able to explain to the chamber what safeguards exist to prevent the minister making unilateral and unpopular decisions to appoint or terminate members of the board and of the IAC should this legislation pass?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Bernardi ): Order! The time allotted for consideration of this bill has expired. I will now put the questions required to conclude consideration of this bill. The first question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet TK154 moved by the government be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR: I remind senators that we are following the orders that were passed earlier in the day. The question now is that the amendments on sheet 8745 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (lines 17 to 24), omit subsection 127(4), substitute:

(4) Before the Minister appoints a Board member other than the Chair, the Minister must:

(a) seek the support of all the host jurisdictions for the appointment; and

(b) be satisfied that the appointment is supported by the Commonwealth; and

(c) secure the support of a majority of host jurisdictions for the appointment.

[appointment of Board members]

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (lines 20 to 27), omit subsection 127(4D).

[appointment of Board members]

(3) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 27), after item 7, insert:

7A Subsection 134(4)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(4) Before the Minister terminates the appointment of a Board member other than the Chair, the Minister must:

(a) seek the support of all the host jurisdictions for the termination; and

(b) be satisfied that the termination is supported by the Commonwealth; and

(c) secure the support of a majority of the host jurisdictions for the termination.

[termination of Board members]

(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 9 (lines 21 to 25), omit the item, substitute:

11 Subsections 147(2) to (3A)

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

(2) The Minister must consult the host jurisdictions about the appointment of the Principal Member.

(3) Before the Minister appoints a member of the Advisory Council other than the Principal Member, the Minister must:

(a) seek the support of all the host jurisdictions for the appointment; and

(b) be satisfied that the appointment is supported by the Commonwealth; and

(c) secure the support of a majority of the host jurisdictions for the appointment.

(3A) The Minister must give a notice (the original notice) in writing to one host jurisdiction Minister for each host jurisdiction seeking the agreement of that host jurisdiction to the appointment covered by subsection (3) and requesting the agreement be given before the end of 28 days beginning on the day the notice is given.

(3B) If, immediately before the end of that 28‑day period:

(a) no host jurisdiction Minister for a host jurisdiction has informed the Minister whether that host jurisdiction agrees to the appointment; and

(b) no host jurisdiction Minister for that host jurisdiction has made a request under subsection (3C);

then, at the end of that period, that host jurisdiction is taken to have agreed to the appointment.

(3C) If, before the end of that 28‑day period, a host jurisdiction Minister for a host jurisdiction gives a notice in writing to the Minister requesting a longer period within which that host jurisdiction may agree to the appointment:

(a) that host jurisdiction may give that agreement before the end of 90 days beginning on the day the original notice was given; and

(b) if, immediately before the end of that 90‑day period, no host jurisdiction Minister for that host jurisdiction has informed the Minister whether that host jurisdiction agrees to the appointment, then, at the end of that period, that host jurisdiction is taken to have so agreed.

[appointment of members to the Advisory Council]

(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (lines 26 to 31), omit the item, substitute:

12 Subsection 155(4)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(4) Before the Minister terminates the appointment of a member of the Advisory Council other than the Principal Member, the Minister must:

(a) seek the support of all the host jurisdictions for the termination; and

(b) be satisfied that the appointment is supported by the Commonwealth; and

(c) secure the support of a majority of the host jurisdictions for the termination.

(5) The Minister must give a notice (the original notice) in writing to one host jurisdiction Minister for each host jurisdiction seeking the agreement of that host jurisdiction to the termination covered by subsection (4) and requesting the agreement be given before the end of 28 days beginning on the day the notice is given.

(6) If, immediately before the end of that 28‑day period:

(a) no host jurisdiction Minister for a host jurisdiction has informed the Minister whether that host jurisdiction agrees to the termination; and

(b) no host jurisdiction Minister for that host jurisdiction has made a request under subsection (7);

then, at the end of that period, that host jurisdiction is taken to have agreed to the termination.

(7) If, before the end of that 28‑day period, a host jurisdiction Minister for a host jurisdiction gives a notice in writing to the Minister requesting a longer period within which that host jurisdiction may agree to the termination:

(a) that host jurisdiction may give that agreement before the end of 90 days beginning on the day the original notice was given; and

(b) if, immediately before the end of that 90‑day period, no host jurisdiction Minister for that host jurisdiction has informed the Minister whether that host jurisdiction agrees to the termination, then, at the end of that period, that host jurisdiction is taken to have so agreed.

[termination of members of the Advisory Council]

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

The PRESIDENT (13:38): The committee has considered the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019 and agreed to it with amendments. The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed with the amendments.

Senator Rice did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy created by the resignation of Senator Sinodinos

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (13:42): I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019. The opposition will be supporting these amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act, as they give effect to the new global cap of 0.5 per cent on the sulphur content of fuel used on board ships, as provided for under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL. Under MARPOL, the new global cap will come into effect on 1 January 2020. Although the current Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act already prescribes the new global cap, it does not prohibit the carriage of non-compliant fuel for combustion on board a ship. The carriage ban, as proposed in this legislation, will further strengthen the endeavours by the international community to ensure that the sulphur cap will apply in international, national and local waters. This will remove any incentive for ships to switch to non-compliant fuel on the high seas and will remove any uncertainties around Australia's ability to enforce the new cap in Australian waters.

The development of MARPOL was coordinated by the International Maritime Organization. For those not familiar with the work of the IMO, it is a specialised agency of the United Nations, responsible for the regulation of shipping. It was established following the agreement of the United Nations conference in 1948, when the Hon. Doc Evatt was its president. In addition to its role in developing international agreements covering the prevention of collisions at sea, the safety of life at sea, the standards of training for seafarers, ballast water management, and the like, the IMO has taken on a role in tackling climate change.

Immediately following its formation, the IMO began work on a convention to prohibit the release of oil waste into the sea within a 50-nautical-mile coastal zone. Although a positive step, this convention did not cover non-oil tanker commercial vessels, nor did it cover maritime operations outside of coastal zones. OILPOL, as it became known, lacked sufficient enforcement controls. Enforcement was passed to the vessel's flagged state, with coastal authorities being responsible for monitoring.

A series of large oil spills and other significant polluting events led to the reform and transition of OILPOL to MARPOL. Following significant accidental pollution, there was public pressure on a number of nations to take action to protect their respective natural environments. It is interesting to note that it was US leadership and influence that drove the 1973 international conference on marine pollution that was the birthplace of MARPOL. It is also important to recognise that the 77 parties to annex VI represent almost 95 per cent of the world's merchant shipping tonnage.

These changes to MARPOL have been negotiated between independent nation-states, facilitated by the International Maritime Organization, over many years. Australia is a proud signatory. We gave effect to this commitment and our obligations in 1983 with the passage of the POTS act. In introducing the legislation on behalf of the Hawke government in May 1983, the then transport minister, the Hon. Peter Morris, outlined the importance of Australia honouring our international transport obligations and the importance of acting to protect the marine environment.

The development and agreement of the MARPOL convention was the first time that all forms of ship-sourced pollution were addressed in the one international treaty. When MARPOL first came into effect in the 1980s it was estimated that vessels released two million tonnes of oil into the sea each year. By 2007 it was estimated that the amount had reduced to 450,000 tonnes of oil being discharged into the marine environment each year.

As an island continent, safe and sustainable shipping and the protection of our marine environment are of vital importance to Australia. As a trading nation, Australia cannot isolate itself from its international obligations. The international shipping that will be covered by this new cap on the sulphur content of fuels carries 99 per cent of Australia's trade by volume. International trade would be impossible without the shipping industry. Merchant ships around the world transport the majority of products considered essential to international trade as well as everyday life. These products include manufactured goods, food products, raw materials and the principal sources of global energy.

Unfortunately, Australia is becoming increasingly reliant on foreign flagged ships for its coastal shipping trade, meaning that international pollution agreements such as MARPOL have become an increasingly important component of how we manage our marine environment. It is important to recognise that the proposed 0.5 per cent cap is a significant reduction on the current 3.5 per cent cap. It is for this reason that passage of this legislation is required now to allow the maritime industries to make the necessary adjustments and to give them time to use up fuel stocks that will be noncompliant on 1 January next year.

Shipping currently contributes approximately 13 per cent of sulphur oxide and 15 per cent of nitrous oxide to global emissions. Limiting the sulphur oxide emissions from ships will reduce air pollution and have a positive impact on human health, particularly for people living in coastal communities. A Finnish study submitted to the International Maritime Organization estimates that the move to the 0.5 per cent cap will help prevent 570,000 premature deaths worldwide between 2020 and 2025. There are published reports of an estimated 400,000 premature deaths per year throughout the world due to emissions from dirty shipping fuel, along with 14 million childhood asthma cases per year. The chemical reactions in the air due to sulphur emissions create tiny airborne particles that get into our lungs and are small enough to pass through human tissue and enter our bloodstream. These tiny particles are also ingested by marine life.

Although sulphur emissions from marine fuels make a smaller contribution than other fuels and sources of power to acid rain, they do have an impact. In addition to the well-known effects on forest and other vegetation and on human health, ocean acidification is increasing, and acid rain in our oceans makes it more difficult for different coastal species to survive, which impacts on the wider ocean food chain. Coral limestone skeletons are also sensitive to the impacts of acid rain.

Australia has the third-largest marine environment in the world, covering some 13.86 million square kilometres. In addition to our unique environmental assets, Australia's oceans support billions of dollars worth of fisheries and aquaculture. It is estimated that the economic value of resources extracted from our oceans will double by 2030. Marine industries will contribute $100 billion per year to the Australian economy by 2025.

Our marine life and environment are sensitive not just to emissions from shipping, both local and international, but also to fuel spills from ships. Compulsory pilotage has helped protect areas of environmental significance like parts of the Great Barrier Reef and the Torres Strait. Vessels going significantly off course when transiting the reef cause damage to coral beds. Spillages that have polluted Moreton Island, Bribie Island and parts of the Sunshine Coast in previous years have led to calls to extend the compulsory pilotage to other significant areas of our precious marine environment.

To truly understand the impact that an oil spill can have on the marine and local environment, you need only cast your mind back to the grounding of the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1989. The discharge of 35,000 tonnes of crude oil in that single incident is estimated to have killed 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbour seals and 13 orca whales. It also shut down the Alaskan salmon fishery and cost over US$3.5 billion for the clean-up.

It is in our national and international interest to continue to do whatever we can to protect our marine environment, and the content of shipping fuel can make a significant contribution to this quest. Any change in fuel composition will naturally lead to an adjustment in prices. In this, we in Australia cannot isolate ourselves. Our refined fuel products are sourced largely from Singapore, which, in itself, raises questions about our national fuel security—but that is a matter for another day. Ships' bunker fuel constitutes just over four per cent of global oil demand. It is therefore expected that any movements in the price of bunker fuel due to the shift to lower sulphur content are likely to be less than global crude oil price fluctuations.

Prior to these new regulations coming into effect at an international level, an assessment of the availability of low sulphur fuel was undertaken for the IMO. It was completed in July 2016 and found that the global refinery sector has the capability to supply sufficient quantities of low-sulphur marine fuels.

Fuel costs make up approximately 15 per cent of international maritime transport costs. Most large-scale maritime transport providers have long-term fuel contracts in place, or they hedge against any fluctuations in the price of fuel. Add this to the forecast growth in global refining capacity, and any pressure on the price of low sulphur fuel should be minimal. Of course, it is possible that any increase, no matter how minimal, in the cost of marine fuel could be passed on to the end-of-line consumers. However, it is difficult to predict if this would happen or how large that one-off lift in prices could be. Having said that, industry have expressed concerns that the Australian government has not worked with them on how any price impacts could be managed.

This bill not only enshrines Australia's commitment to low-sulphur fuel in law but also clarifies Australia's law enforcement authorities' powers to enforce the convention in Australian waters. Any breaches of the carriage ban as contained in this bill will be subject to the same penalties as the use of non-compliant fuel, which will remove the incentive for ships to switch to the use of higher sulphur content fuel on the high seas.

International shipping companies and fuel suppliers have been working towards this transition for some time. In March this year, at least one international supplier of marine fuel announced that it would begin to market low-sulphur fuel that meets the new MARPOL regulations. Successful trials of the fuel have been conducted in the Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Singapore shipping hubs. The development of this new low-sulphur fuel also required the manufacturer to make a number of changes at its refineries to ensure the safe segregation, handling and storage of the fuel. In addition to modifications to the fuel content, this bill allows for the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems—or scrubbers, as they are more commonly known—as an alternative to meeting the new emissions requirements. Scrubbers, despite being a significant piece of equipment, can be retrofitted to existing ships. The scrubber removes sulphur from the exhaust gas stream before it is discharged into the atmosphere. It is intended that the use of scrubbers will be permitted, with new guidelines to be issued by the IMO, in the first half of 2020. The guidelines will specifically set out the requirements for testing, certification, survey and verification of the use of scrubbers. There will also be initial approval of systems, before they are installed on ships, to demonstrate their capacity to deliver a reduction in the sulphur emissions. Australia is also making financial contributions towards the IMO study that will assess the long-term environmental impacts of scrubber discharges. This study is due to commence in 2020. I understand that AMSA is also looking to investigate the impacts of scrubber discharge.

This bill also contains a number of amendments to better align the application of the POTS act with the MARPOL convention. This includes providing for exemptions for naval and government vessels. There are also a number of clarifications of definitions contained in the bill.

Labor has a proud history of supporting the vital role that Australian maritime industries play in securing our economic, environmental and national security interests. We remain committed to revitalising the industry, supporting maritime workers and protecting the marine environment. Compare this to what has taken place on this government's watch, including the repeated misuse of temporary licences that has enabled foreign flagged vessels with crews paid just a few dollars a day to regularly transport goods between Australian ports. In conclusion, I would like to thank the office of the Deputy Prime Minister for showing the opposition the usual courtesies of providing briefings and facilitating our access to technical advice from the department. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:57): In the few minutes I have left I'd like to talk about my personal connection with the ocean. One of the first things I talked about in this chamber was marine pollution. Indeed, in my first speech to the Senate I talked about how passionate I, as a surfer, am about the marine conservation area and about the work that I and many other good people have been doing over the years to tackle pollution. The specific issue dealt with in the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill is a critical issue in my home state of Tasmania. We get a lot of visits now from cruise liners in Tasmania, especially in the port of Hobart, and there has been ongoing debate about the pollution impacts that cruise liners have had on the clean, green air of Tasmania and about the need for better regulation and higher standards.

I am very proud to say that we as a political party have been consistent in all of our efforts around tackling marine pollution. It surprised a lot of people and shocked a lot of people that I was the first member of parliament to talk about the impact of plastic on our ocean. The Senate has done some fantastic work in the last five years in looking at the impact of plastic on marine pollution and what we can do to clean up our act. The World Economic Forum estimated that by 2050, by volume, there'll be more plastic in the ocean than fish. That is a sad indictment of both the decline of fisheries globally and the amount of plastic that we are putting in our ocean. I was very excited to hear, in my conversations with Senator Van in the chamber today, that his government is planning to do something, rather than just talk about tackling the issue of marine pollution in this term of parliament. I am very much looking forward to seeing some legislation around that.

As we all know, our oceans are critical to life on earth. Many of us think of them as our life support, and we need to do everything we can, because of the cumulative impacts of marine pollution from run-offs in rivers; agricultural run-offs, which we've seen on the Great Barrier Reef, as one example; the amount of plastic and other debris which is going into our oceans every day; the acidification of our oceans from rising CO2 levels; and, of course, a whole range of other pressures.

The PRESIDENT: Order. Senator Whish-Wilson, you'll be in continuation.