BILLS

2013-06-19 43 1 9 Senate 0 0

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 9:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

BILLS 3331 BILLS Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 3331

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013

In Committee 3331 09:31 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia When the committee adjourned consideration and reported to the chamber just prior to question time yesterday, I was in the midst of making some comments regarding the amendment before the chamber, which is the Australian Greens amendment to extend and dramatically change the way in which ownership of minerals is recognised, by doing it with a backdoor method by essentially giving carte blanche power to landowners to be able to block any type of mineral exploration or development on their properties. I gave the chamber some background on the very extensive history of state laws in this area, as did Senator Joyce, at length. We recognised in those contributions the genuine concerns of landowners and adjourning landowners, which need to be managed carefully. But I think it is important we recognise that laws as they exist at a state level at present do provide levels of process to ensure consent is ideally given and, if not, that mediation processes are undertaken. Not always do these processes provide the perfect outcome, but this Greens amendment would be a complete and utter over-reaction to the lack of perfection in some of those state processes. To understand exactly where the states are in terms of their assessment of applications, and the processes they go through, I thought it would be useful for the chamber if in a reasonable quick way we went through step by step what some of those processes are. Importantly, there are distinctions between exploration activities and production activities in terms of the rights of landowners and the way in which consent is given or allowed. For landowners in New South Wales, under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 as it currently stands, if a petroleum licence holder seeking to undertake exploration seeks to enter a property, a written notice detailing the licence holder's intention to obtain an access agreement must be served on the landowner. The licence holder and landholder must then reach an access agreement in order for such exploration activity to be undertaken. If that access agreement cannot be reached within 20 days of the serving of the notice of intention then an arbiter may be appointed whose role is to facilitate a conciliated agreement. If an agreement still cannot be reached, the arbiter is then bound to make a decision on access arrangements. This initial decision is known as an interim determination to allow for it to be varied either by the landholder or by the petroleum exploration licence holder subject to the agreement of both parties. If within 14 days no agreement variation is made to the interim determination, the determination becomes the arbiter's final determination. However, as a further right of recourse either party may apply for a review of the arbiter's final determination through appeal to the Land and Environment Court. An access agreement may include arrangements for the time period for which access is permitted. It may identify the parts of the land that may be explored. It may identify the kinds of activities that can take place. It may identify the conditions that must be observed during the activities that are being undertaken. It may identify measures surrounding the protection of the environment. Importantly, it may identify the relevant compensation to be provided to the landholder. A licence holder cannot carry out any activity on the landholder's land other than which is prescribed in the access agreement. Compensation, which as I indicated is a very, very important part of the agreement process, can be agreed to under the access agreement or determined separately. The licence holder is liable to compensate the landholder or every person having an estate or interest for any loss or interference as a result of any operations conducted by the licence holder. That is an important point and one that should be emphasised in this debate: the licence holder, the party planning to undertake exploration, is liable to compensate the landholder for any loss or interference as a result of any operations conducted by the licence holder. A licence holder cannot undertake any exploration activity on any land within 200 metres of a dwelling house, within 50 metres of a garden, vineyard or orchard or over any improvements or valuable work structure except with the written consent of the landholder. Those are the features in relation to exploration activities. There are other features in relation to production and others in terms of how the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 works in New South Wales. It is also relevant to note that there must also be appropriate development consent given under the New South Wales Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. So there are several hurdles that must be cleared. Under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991, New South Wales must grant an approval. Under the New South Wales Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, New South Wales must grant an approval. And, as we know—and are debating extending this—at the federal level there is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and approval must be granted there. In relation to production activities in New South Wales, a licence holder cannot carry out any mining operations or erect any works on the surface of any land that is under cultivation except with the consent of the landholder. Cultivation for the growth and spread of pasture grasses is not considered cultivation within the meaning of the act, though. The minister may, however, permit mining operations on land under cultivation if the minister considers that the circumstances warrant it. There is no requirement in relation to production to enter into an access agreement. However, provisions relating to compensation—which I outlined before—and to the protection of homes and gardens and other areas that are applicable to exploration licences also apply to production leases. Once again, the compensation provisions state that any landholder must be compensated for any loss or interference as a result of any operations conducted by a licence holder. I understand that there are legislative changes before the New South Wales parliament at present that again are responding to the types of concerns that have driven the debate on this measure by the Greens in this place. But it comes back to the fundamental point that these decisions—the management of legislation regarding land access undertakings—rightly belong at the state level. They are rightly decisions for state governments, as has been the case for more than 100 years. Constitutionally, as the government has indicated, it is likely that they must be decisions for state governments. So this chamber would find itself, and this parliament would find itself, exposing the Commonwealth government to a High Court battle in which the states, wanting to protect their rights in relation to land access and mining arrangements, would be taking on the Commonwealth should we pass this bill in an amended form as proposed by the Greens. For these reasons, and because of the many concerns we have about how significant this would be in overturning the longstanding practice of Australian law in relation to land management, the coalition again emphasises that it cannot possibly support the Greens amendment. The CHAIRMAN: Before I call Senator Waters I will just remind the chamber that the question that is before the chair at the moment is that amendment 1 on 7375, moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to. It was remiss of me to not indicate that up-front. 09:41 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thank you, Chair. We have debated this amendment for one hour now. This is the Greens amendment to give landholders the right to lock the gate against coal seam gas and coal. We will not stand for the opposition filibustering on my amendment any longer. I move: That the question now be put. The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7375 be agreed to. The Committee divided. [09:49] (The Chairman—Senator Parry)

The Committee divided. [09:46]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

39 AYES Bilyk, CL Bishop, TM Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, RJ Collins, JMA Conroy, SM Crossin, P Di Natale, R Farrell, D Faulkner, J Feeney, D Furner, ML Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Hogg, JJ Lines, S Ludlam, S Ludwig, JW Lundy, KA Marshall, GM McEwen, A (teller) McLucas, J Milne, C Moore, CM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Siewert, R Singh, LM Stephens, U Sterle, G Thorp, LE Urquhart, AE Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P Wright, PL Xenophon, N 32 NOES Abetz, E Back, CJ Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Boswell, RLD Boyce, SK Brandis, GH Bushby, DC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Edwards, S Eggleston, A Fawcett, DJ Fifield, MP Heffernan, W Humphries, G Johnston, D Joyce, B Kroger, H (teller) Macdonald, ID Mason, B McKenzie, B Nash, F Parry, S Payne, MA Ronaldson, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Sinodinos, A Smith, D Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC Ludlam, S Milne, C Rhiannon, L Siewert, R (teller) Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wright, PL Xenophon, N 45 NOES Back, CJ Bilyk, CL Birmingham, SJ Boswell, RLD Boyce, SK Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, RJ Colbeck, R Collins, JMA Conroy, SM Cormann, M Crossin, P Edwards, S Eggleston, A Farrell, D Faulkner, J Fawcett, DJ Furner, ML Gallacher, AM Hogg, JJ Kroger, H (teller) Lines, S Ludwig, JW Lundy, KA Marshall, GM McEwen, A McKenzie, B McLucas, J Moore, CM Nash, F Parry, S Payne, MA Polley, H Pratt, LC Ronaldson, M Ruston, A Scullion, NG Singh, LM Smith, D Stephens, U Sterle, G Thorp, LE Urquhart, AE Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question negatived

09:52 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I move opposition amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7397 concurrently: (3) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 31), after item 18, insert: 18A Section 528 (at the end of the definition of coal seam gas development ) Add ", but does not include exploration, assessment or appraisal pursuant to a petroleum title granted under a law of a State or Territory.". (4) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 31), after item 18, insert: 18B Section 528 (at the end of the definition of large coal mining development ) Add ", but does not include exploration, assessment or appraisal pursuant to a minerals exploration licence or permit granted under a law of a State or Territory.". I thank you, Chair, and I thank the chamber for leave. These amendments are important amendments. Before I get to these amendments, I will reflect for a moment on what transpired in the chamber. We just saw the Australian Greens moving to gag debate on their own amendment. The Greens moved to gag debate on their own significant amendment to environmental laws. It is the most remarkable thing I have seen in this place. The sanctimonious Greens come in here on a regular basis and preach transparency and accountability and have told us countless times how paramount the importance of this chamber is and how significant it is, and railed during the Howard years against any attempt to gag debate by the Howard government. On countless occasions, far more than ever occurred in the Howard years, the Greens have supported the Labor Party to gag debate. But now we see the remarkable situation of the Greens themselves moving the gag motion. And they are not just moving the gag motion on, say, the opposition's consideration or on the legislation as a whole; they start moving the gag motion on their very own amendments. Senator Waters stood up and noted that we had been debating the amendment for an hour, 60 minutes—wow, whoop-de-do, what a big deal, a whole hour of consideration to something that would overturn a century-plus of state environmental laws and state land planning laws. Well, why on earth would you want to spend more than an hour considering overturning something that has been enshrined in the way this country has operated for more than a century? Why on earth would you need more than 60 minutes to contemplate such a vast and significant change to the way land management laws work in Australia! Really, the hypocrisy that comes from the Australian Greens on so many levels is quite astounding, but perhaps none more so than such a contemptuous act as this, in terms of the way this chamber operates and the way the Australian people should be treated, and in terms of the significance of the law-making changes that they have proposed in this country. I really do question the sincerity of the Greens when it comes to their sanctimonious comments about having proper debate in this place, and I really do question their sincerity when it comes to their approach to facilitating transparency and openness in government and law-making, if they just want to come in here and simply shut down debate, even on their own substantial amendments. It is worth noting that the amendments proposed add little, if any, relevance to the bill before the chair. The amendments the Greens have proposed are amendments to introduce a whole new area of responsibility to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, an area of responsibility where the federal minister for the environment would become the gatekeeper and the checker on whether or not agreements had been reached between landowners and mining companies. There is not anything about whether environmental standards are met or whether the water trigger that has been put into this act is being appropriately applied, but a whole different scenario in terms of actual land use agreements. I am pleased to say that, in speaking to the amendments moved by the opposition—the amendments that relate in particular to definitional issues surrounding coal seam gas development and large coalmining developments—we are going to come back to the legislation before the chamber and actually deal with the specific proposal in the bill before the chamber. The Senate inquiry into this bill heard numerous concerns about definitional issues in relation to this legislation on a range of fronts. We heard concerns about how it is that a 'significant impact' is defined in the legislation. We know that regulations are being drawn up by the government, and we had some answers to questions about those earlier in the debate. I foreshadow to the government that I will have further questions for them about the significant impact provisions and how it is that they operate. Equally, the committee heard questions and concerns about how it is that a 'water resource' is defined in this legislation or how it will be treated in terms of its definition in this legislation. Of course, there was the not unreasonable question of what a 'large coalmining development' is. How big is big enough to be a large coalmining development? Obviously, that is a particularly vague term in that sense. In particular, the amendments that I have moved deal with the difference and distinction between exploration or appraisal activities and actual production and development activities. In the previous debate on the Greens' amendment, I highlighted what happens at a state law level in terms of the granting of approvals and the different tests that are applied to exploration and appraisal activities versus those applied to production and development activities. It is quite reasonable that they are distinct. On the one hand, companies go in and assess whether there is a decent deposit there worth looking at in the first place—a decent deposit of coal or a decent amount of gas that can be extracted. What does the ground below the surface actually contain? You do not know that until you do the assessment, appraisal and exploration work. That is such a critical component of what occurs right across Australia to try to ascertain what our minerals and resources potential is under the soil, state by state. It is very important that there be proper processes in place to facilitate that as easily as possible. In many, many instances—probably in the vast majority of instances—when that work is done, when a hole is drilled to test what the content of the ground beneath the soil is, the company will find that it is not satisfactory and moves on elsewhere. The intrusion—the access to the land—is therefore short term and minimal. The environmental impact on the land is also relatively short term and minimal. But sometimes, of course, deposits are found and it is then worthwhile proceeding to the next stage, the stage of production. Rightly, state laws recognise that these are two distinct areas. Separate licences are granted for exploration activities and production activities. Different processes for approvals occur for exploration activities and production activities. But a major flaw in the legislation before the Senate today is that in relation to this expansion of powers at the federal level no such distinction has been factored in. A company will face exactly the same federal environmental hurdles to clear in relation to exploration or appraisal activities as they would face in relation to production and development activities. That is a significant flaw in this legislation and has the real capacity to hold up some of the most important work done in Australia, which is that exploration work to identify what and where the resources are. As I said, the Senate committee took evidence in regard to this matter and heard a number of concerns. Santos submitted to the committee as follows: Most concerning to Santos is a seemingly unintended consequence of the amendments that 'exploration' and 'appraisal' activities will be captured. …Traditionally the Act has been interpreted to regard a 'development' as referring to a defined project already committed to by the proponent. Obviously, there is a vast difference between simply exploring whether something is there and actually committing as a company to extract those resources from the ground. The company argued that of course development can only follow after they have a sound understanding of the resource that is there. That is simply logic. If you do not facilitate the exploration, companies will never know what is in the ground and indeed governments and regulators will not know what is in the ground. It is to the benefit not just of industry but also of government and regulators to have a very clear understanding and knowledge of what is contained within the ground when making assessments as to whether or not full production activities should be undertaken. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association submitted to the Senate inquiry and said: The proposed amendment bill utilises the definition of coal seam gas development activity used by the existing Independent Expert Scientific Committee gateway. Coal seam gas development means any activity involving coal seam gas extraction that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on water resources (including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity). This is a broad definition that is likely to extend to petroleum exploration activities, which involve small amounts of coal seam gas extraction. The inclusion of exploration activities in the scope of activities covered by the amendment will result in situations where exploration cannot proceed. This is despite the fact that it is the act of exploration that informs the assessment of a water resource. This paradox is particularly concerning in remote areas where little or no information already exists. APPEA submitted that the bill should expressly exclude exploration activities from the definition of coal seam gas development. So we see very clearly there in the submission of APPEA that the bill, as drafted at present, would result in situations in which exploration could not proceed, thereby undermining the capacity of regulators to be informed when assessing what the water resource is that they are seeking to assess. So there is an internal failure in this bill: the government will be less informed because such exploration may not be undertaken. Dr Dripps, the deputy secretary of the relevant department, informed the committee that: The way the EPBC Act operates is that it is based on a 'significant impact' on one of the listed matters. So the stage of the activity, whether it is an early exploratory stage or an actual production stage, is not relevant in considering whether or not there is a significant impact. Well, the opposition believes it is relevant, and we believe it is relevant because it does not just facilitate potential development; it facilitates better understanding and knowledge of the very water resources that the government seeks to be able to assess. By undertaking the exploration activities, we gain, especially in remote areas where there is little existing knowledge of some of those underground water resources, a far better appreciation, as a whole, of what is out there and how the connectedness operates and how it may indeed impact in terms of any future production that is to be undertaken. That is why the coalition is moving this amendment. We would hope that the government—who, I know, want to see this industry grow but want to see it grow in a safe and sensible way—will recognise that this is a safe and sensible and largely technical amendment. So I would urge the government to support it. As I flagged, I would also ask the government if, in relation to the 'significant impact' definitions, they can outline just what minimum level of consultation with industry they are committed to, and how those significant impact criteria in particular deal with the issues of exploration. Do those significant impact criteria make it clear that exploration activities are not considered to be of significant impact? If they do, that will be some level of comfort—although, obviously, it would be preferable if the legislation itself made clear, as the coalition moves and proposes, that exploration activities are expressly excluded. 10:07 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I would just like to put on record the Greens' opposition to this amendment moved by the opposition to exclude anything but the production stages of coal seam gas and coalmining. Clearly, as we have heard at length from the experts, the very punching of a hole through aquifers to get to a coal seam is what potentially causes the connectivity which can lead to dropping of the groundwater table or contamination of the groundwater. So I am afraid that, in terms of water, there is little difference between exploration and production in terms of the possible damage to aquifers, and on that basis we will be opposing this amendment. 10:08 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria All of the matters raised by Senator Birmingham were fully considered by the Senate committee and the committee recommended to the Senate that this bill be passed. So we will not be supporting the amendments, and I move: That the question be now put. The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Conroy that the motion be now put be agreed to.

The Committee divided. [10:12]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

36 AYES Bilyk, CL Bishop, TM Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, RJ Collins, JMA Conroy, SM Crossin, P Di Natale, R Farrell, D Faulkner, J Feeney, D Furner, ML Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Hogg, JJ Lines, S Ludlam, S Ludwig, JW Lundy, KA Marshall, GM McEwen, A (teller) Milne, C Moore, CM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Siewert, R Singh, LM Stephens, U Sterle, G Thorp, LE Urquhart, AE Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wright, PL 30 NOES Abetz, E Back, CJ Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Boswell, RLD Boyce, SK Bushby, DC Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Edwards, S Eggleston, A Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Heffernan, W Humphries, G Johnston, D Macdonald, ID McKenzie, B Nash, F Parry, S Payne, MA Ronaldson, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Sinodinos, A Smith, D Williams, JR (teller) 4 PAIRS Carr, KJ Joyce, B McLucas, J Kroger, H Thistlethwaite, M Brandis, GH Wong, P Mason,

Question agreed to.

10:14 The CHAIRMAN e5v The question now is that opposition amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7397 moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to. The Committee divided [10:16] (The Chairman—Senator Parry) 30 AYES Abetz, E Back, CJ Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Boswell, RLD Boyce, SK Bushby, DC Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Edwards, S Eggleston, A Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Heffernan, W Humphries, G Johnston, D Macdonald, ID McKenzie, B Nash, F Parry, S Payne, MA Ronaldson, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Sinodinos, A Smith, D Williams, JR (teller) 36 NOES Bilyk, CL Bishop, TM Brown, CL Cameron, DN Collins, JMA Conroy, SM Crossin, P Di Natale, R Farrell, D Faulkner, J Feeney, D Furner, ML Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Hogg, JJ Lines, S Ludlam, S Ludwig, JW Lundy, KA Marshall, GM McEwen, A (teller) Milne, C Moore, CM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Siewert, R Singh, LM Stephens, U Sterle, G Thorp, LE Urquhart, AE Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wright, PL Xenophon, N 4 PAIRS Brandis, GH Thistlethwaite, M Joyce, B Carr, KJ Kroger, H McLucas, J Mason, B Wong,

Question negatived.

10:18 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7376: (1) Schedule 1, items 20 to 22, page 10 (line 26) to page 12 (line 28), omit the items, substitute: 20 Application (1) Except as provided by subitem (2), the amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to an action involving coal seam gas development or large coal mining development that is taken on or after the day this item commences, even if the action began before that time. (2) The amendments made by this Schedule do not apply in relation to the taking of an action if, before 10 February 2013: (a) the Minister approved the action under Part 9 of the old law; or (b) the Minister decided under Division 2 of Part 7 of the old law that the action was not a controlled action; or (c) the action was specifically authorised in accordance with section 43A of the old law. (2) Schedule 1, item 23, page 12 (line 29) to page 13 (line 14), omit subitem (1), substitute: (1) This item applies if, immediately before the day this item commences, there was in force a decision of the Minister, under Division 2 of Part 7 of the old law, that an action involving coal seam gas development or large coal mining development is a controlled action, regardless of: (a) whether the taking of the action has been approved by the Minister under Part 9 of the old law for the purposes of a provision of Part 3 of the old law (unless subsection 20(2) applies to the approval); and (b) whether advice has been obtained from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development in relation to the action. (3) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 1), after item 24, insert: 24A Requirement for assessment of impacts of certain actions (1) If, on or after 14 September 2010, the Minister approved the taking of an action involving coal seam gas development or large coal mining development, the Minister must assess the relevant impacts of so much of the action as has been taken before this item commences. (2) For the purposes of assessing the relevant impacts, Part 8 of the old law applies as if: (a) section 24D or 24E had been a controlling provision for the action; and (b) the Minister were required to complete the assessment no later than 12 months after the day this item commences. (3) No later than 13 months after the day this item commences, the Minister must publish a report in relation to each action assessed under this item, setting out the relevant impacts of the action on the matter protected by the controlling provision. By leave, I will also move amendment (1) on sheet 7374 and amendment (1) on sheet 7394 together but the questions will be separately put. I move amendment (1) on sheet 7374: (1) Page 17 (after line 13), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2—Preventing the Commonwealth from handing to a State or Territory responsibility for approving proposed actions that significantly impact matters protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 1 Paragraph 11(a) Omit "a bilateral", substitute "an". 2 Division 1 of Part 4 Repeal the Division. 3 Paragraphs 44(c) and (d) Omit "and approval" (wherever occurring). 4 Subparagraphs 45(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) Omit "and approval" (wherever occurring). 5 Section 46 Repeal the section. 6 Subsection 47(4) Omit "but the action must still be approved under Part 9". 7 Subsection 48(3) (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: Relationship with section 47 8 Subsection 48(3) Omit "sections 46 and", substitute "section". 9 Subsection 48A(1) Omit "46 or". 10 Subsection 48A(1) Omit "(2) or" (wherever occurring). 11 Subsection 48A(1) Omit "(as appropriate)". 12 Subsection 48A(2) Repeal the subsection. 13 Subsection 51(1) Omit "(1)". 14 Subsection 51(2) Repeal the subsection. 15 Subsection 51A(1) Omit "(1)". 16 Subsection 51A(2) Repeal the subsection. 17 Subsection 52(1) Omit "(1)". 18 Subsection 52(2) Repeal the subsection. 19 Subsection 53(1) Omit "(1)". 20 Subsection 53(2) Repeal the subsection. 21 Subsection 54(1) Omit "(1)". 22 Subsection 54(2) Repeal the subsection. 23 Section 55 Omit ", or accredit for the purposes of a bilateral agreement a management arrangement or an authorisation process,". 24 Subsection 59(1) (examples 1 to 3) Repeal the examples. 25 Section 64 Repeal the section. 26 Section 65A Repeal the section. 27 Section 66 Omit "(It does not deal with actions that a bilateral agreement declares not to need approval.)". 28 Paragraph 77A(1A)(b) Omit "relates; or", substitute "relates." 29 Paragraph 77A(1A)(c) Repeal the paragraph. 30 Subparagraph 78(1)(ba)(i) Omit "a bilateral agreement and a management arrangement or an authorisation process that is a bilaterally accredited management arrangement or a bilaterally accredited authorisation process for the purposes of the agreement", substitute "an agreement". 31 Subparagraph 78(1)(ba)(ii) Omit ", or the management arrangement or authorisation process is no longer in force under, or set out in, a law of a State or a self‑governing Territory identified in or under the agreement". 32 Subsection 82(2) Omit "1,". 33 Subsection 82(2) Omit "a bilateral", substitute "an". 34 Subsection 146(2) (note 2) Omit ", or make a bilateral agreement declaring,". 35 Section 528 (definition of bilaterally accredited authorisation process ) Repeal the definition. 36 Section 528 (definition of bilaterally accredited management arrangement ) Repeal the definition. I also move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7394: (1) Page 17 (after line 13), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2—Further amendments Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 1 After section 12 Insert: 12A Requirement for approval of activities with a significant impact on a National Park (1) A person must not take an action that: (a) has or will have a significant impact on the environment within a National Park; or (b) is likely to have a significant impact on the environment within a National Park. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process). (3) A property is a National Parkfor the purpose of this Act if it is: (a) an area that is a National Park for the purpose of a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a National Park, or is added to an existing National Park, on or after that date; or (b) an area that is a nature reserve for the purpose of a law of the State of Western Australia as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a nature reserve, or is added to an existing nature reserve, on or after that date; or (c) an area that is declared under the National Parks Act 1975 of the State of Victoria as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that is declared under that Act, or is added to an existing area declared under that Act, on or after that date; or (d) an area that is land designated for conservation under Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 of the State of Victoria as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes land designated for conservation under that Act, or is added to an existing area that is land designated for conservation, on or after that date; or (e) an area that is a state reserve or a nature reserve under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 of the State of Tasmania as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a state reserve or a nature reserve, or is added to an existing state reserve or nature reserve, on or after that date; or (f) an area that is a reserve under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975 of the State of South Australia as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a reserve, or is added to an existing reserve, on or after that date; or (g) an area that is a wilderness protection area under the Wilderness Protection Act 1992 of the State of South Australia as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a wilderness protection area, or is added to an existing wilderness protection area, on or after that date; or (h) an area that is a park or reserve under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2006 of the Northern Territory as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a park or reserve, or is added to an existing park or reserve, on or after that date. 2 After section 15A Insert: 15AA Offences relating to National Parks (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results or will result in a significant impact on the environment of a property; and (c) the property is a National Park. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (1A) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code. (2) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment of a property; and (c) the property is a National Park. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2A) Strict liability applies to paragraph (2)(c). Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code. (3) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term of not more than 7 years, a fine not more than 420 penalty units, or both. Note 1: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection. Note 2: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this section may also be guilty of an offence against section 495. Note 3: If a person takes an action on land that contravenes this section, a landholder may be guilty of an offence against section 496C. (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process). Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. 3 Subsection 29(1) After "or 24E", insert " or section 12A or 15AA". 4 Section 34 (after table item 1A) Add: 5 After section 34BA Insert: 34BB Declarations relating to National Parks (1) The Minister may make a declaration under section 33 relating to a National Park only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity; (b) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under any other relevant international environment convention which aims to protect the natural environment to which Australia is a party; and (c) the declaration meets the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations. (2) For the purpose of this Act, the Convention on Biological Diversity means the Convention on Biological Diversity done at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992. 6 After section 37D Insert: 37DA Declarations relating to National Parks The Minister may make a declaration under section 37A relating to a National Park only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under any other relevant international environment convention which aims to protect the natural environment to which Australia is a party. 7 Subsection 46(1) After "or 24E", insert " or 12A or 15AA". 8 Subsections 46(2) and (2A) After "or 24E", insert " or 12A or 15AA". 9 After section 51A Insert: 51B Agreements relating to National Parks (1) The Minister may enter into a bilateral agreement containing a provision relating to a National Park only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the provision is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity; (b) the Minister is satisfied that the provision is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under any other relevant international environment convention which aims to protect the natural environment to which Australia is a party; and (c) the provision meets the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations. (2) The Minister may accredit a management arrangement or an authorisation process under section 46 for the purposes of a bilateral agreement containing a provision relating to a National Park only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the management arrangement or authorisation process is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the management arrangement or authorisation process is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under any other relevant international environment convention which aims to protect the natural environment to which Australia is a party. 10 After section 137A Insert: 137B Requirements for decisions about National Parks In deciding whether or not to approve, for the purposes of section 12, the taking of an action and what conditions to attach to such an approval, the Minister must not act inconsistently with: (a) Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity; and (b) any other relevant international environment convention to which Australia is a party which aims to protect the natural environment. 11 After section 146G Insert: 146GA Approvals relating to National Parks If the approval relates to a National Park, the Minister must not act inconsistently with: (a) Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity; and (b) any other relevant international environment convention to which Australia is a party which aims to protect the natural environment. It is my great pleasure to move these final amendments to try to strengthen these new water protections against coal seam gas and coalmining. The first amendment goes to the application of these new protections. Whilst the Greens are thrilled that almost two years after we moved similar legislation to protect aquifers the government finally has done so themselves, we are concerned that in the interim all the big projects have already been approved. Sadly we know that Minister Burke has not rejected a single coal seam gas or coalmine application that has crossed his desk. I was particularly disappointed that, only several days after approving Gloucester coal seam gas and three big coalmines in New South Wales—Maules Creek, Boggabri and Tarawonga—suddenly the minister announced that he would belatedly move to protect aquifers with this new water trigger bill. This first amendment goes to the fact that those four projects should be subject to these new water powers and those big companies should now have to look at the impact of water. The federal environment minister should be obliged to ensure that water impacts are able to be managed and, if there is any uncertainty, the minister should have the ability to reject those projects. As I say, given that work has not already commenced, we think this is a safe and sensible approach. The other effect of this retrospectivity amendment goes to those earlier approved Queensland coal seam gas projects. Within several months of becoming the environment minister, Minister Burke ticked off on the first two big coal seam projects and, several months thereafter, the third big coal seam gas project. Given that the fourth one is yet to be approved, we need the benefit of information about the water impacts of those first big three before the decision on the final fourth one gets made. This amendment would not change the approval status of those big three—given that, unfortunately, it was granted many years ago and work has commenced—but it would ensure that water studies have to be done so that we know what damage is already being done and how much risk those aquifers are already facing before the minister decides whether or not to approve the fourth project, that being Arrow coal seam gas. So that is the genesis of those amendments. The second tranche of amendments goes to the protections that the Greens think the federal government should keep for nationally important environmental assets. We have seen that this bill was amended in the House to make sure that this new water power cannot be given away to state governments. We absolutely support that; in fact, we were behind that amendment getting up. But what we have now seen is an admittance, a concession, that the state governments do not always do the best job in looking the after the environment. If there is acknowledgement that water is too precious to be trusted solely to the states and that we need federal oversight, then we think it is only fair that World Heritage sites of international significance receive the same attention. Likewise, all those other elements that are currently protected by the EPBC Act—threatened species, Ramsar wetlands, migratory species, the Great Barrier Reef, and national heritage areas—are of national importance. It is a craven shame that, while we originally saw a Labor government protecting these areas 30 years ago through intervening in the Franklin Dam, we now see a Labor government proposing to give away those federal veto powers to state governments. I want to set the record straight, because there has been a lot of confusion and rhetoric promulgated by the Business Council and its ilk. We have two stages of environmental approvals—assessment and approval. The Commonwealth has already accredited the state assessment processes, so any duplication that might have existed has already been dealt with and put to bed. There is now no duplication; there is simply no need for the Commonwealth to also issue an approval or a refusal decision. As we know, generally an approval decision gets made. Nonetheless, we still need that important veto power. So it is simply ridiculous to contend that there is duplication going on, which is why it is so crucial that the Commonwealth retain that final power to say no to things like mines in World Heritage areas or to clearing the last vestige of a threatened species habitat that would send a threatened species to extinction. People need to know that the national environment deserves national protection, and that is certainly what all the polls on these issues are telling us. People want the federal government to be able to protect the environment; it is not a bizarre concept, and it has majority support. So this amendment would delete those parts of the act that allow those final protection approval powers to be simply given away to state governments. This amendment would stop Mr Tony Abbott's coalition, who have committed to using these powers to hand off federal environment approval powers, from doing so—unless, of course, they get control of both houses of parliament and change the laws again, and that is in the hands of the people. The point of this amendment is to make sure that Campbell Newman is not solely in control of Queensland's environment, nor Barry O'Farrell solely in control of New South Wales's environment, nor any of the other state premiers solely in control of national parts of our environment that are often internationally significant. We need that final veto power of the federal government against state governments, who have a history of approving development even though it would damage the environment. The final amendment goes to protecting our national parks. It is along a similar theme. Unfortunately, we have seen state governments in recent months approving shooting in national parks. Never mind the safety concerns of families wanting to walk in those parks who might actually not want to be shot. Who would have thought they would rather have a picnic than be dodging bullets! We have also seen grazing approved, originally in the alpine region of Victoria, which was then overturned, and now in Queensland. We have had shooting and we have had grazing—and logging has now been approved by the Queensland government, and of course prospecting has just been approved by the Victorian state government, and there are plans to sell off Victoria's national parks. So I am afraid national parks are under threat from the reckless actions of state governments. When we have less than four per cent of the country covered by national parks, why on earth can't they be off limits to logging, mining, grazing and shooting? Why can't we just protect those areas and properly manage them? It does not seem unreasonable to me. This amendment would deliver on Minister Burke's commitment of almost two years ago that, sadly, has gone nowhere. Minister Burke originally said he would step in and protect national parks if state governments continued on their destructive agenda. They have done so. They have gotten worse and still the federal government has not acted. So this amendment clearly says: national parks should be given national protection. We urge both sides of the chamber to support it. The federal environment minister has missed the deadline to act to protect national parks by regulation. If he does so move, we would encourage him to do so, but we would rather he support this amendment here and now, which will deliver lasting protection for national parks. If the minister simply moves to add national parks as a trigger to these laws by regulation, we know those regulations are susceptible to disallowance and we can expect that the opposition, in government, if they gain that honour, will in fact disallow them. The only way to guarantee protection for national parks is to support this amendment. So it is with great pleasure that I commend these amendments to the chamber. 10:27 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia So eager are the Greens to collapse debate on this that they are now moving all of their remaining amendments in one fell swoop, despite the fact that, of course, there is absolutely no linkage between any of these amendments. They cover three completely different issues and areas and, indeed, two of them are completely unrelated to the bill before the chamber. Two of them are using the fact that we have a bill that seeks to amend the EPBC Act to amend it in completely different ways that have nothing to do with water or coal seam gas or large coalmines whatsoever. It is a remarkable approach by the Greens, who are coming in here and wanting to simply push through as much change to Australia's environmental laws as possible, without any assessment or consideration of the impact of those changes but the shortest of possible Senate debates. After I finish speaking, the government will probably try to gag debate again, because the last two debates on amendments have been gagged—and gagged, indeed, after only the most fleeting of consideration. Most remarkably, the last time around, Senator Conroy stood up, having been asked some specific questions, and completely ignored those questions in gagging the debate. So I again emphasise to Senator Conroy the specific questions. He could at least, before he gags the debate, do the industry and those interested in these matters the courtesy of answering the questions. The questions were in relation to the significant-impact criteria being developed. Will he outline what the minimum level of consultation on the drafting of those significant impact criteria will be? Exactly what opportunity does he expect industry, stakeholders, landowners, environmental groups and others to have to comment on those significant impact criteria? Exactly how long will they have and when will they have that opportunity? Secondly, having informed the Senate earlier in the debate that, yes, there is a draft and, importantly, that until those criteria are finalised all assessments under the amendments to the EPBC Act will be considered against those draft criteria, will he also inform the Senate how those draft criteria deal with matters of exploration and appraisal? I really hope that Senator Conroy might do the Senate and stakeholders the courtesy of at least answering those two questions; just answer those two questions, at least, when you stand up and before you decide to gag debate yet again on the legislation. Now, to the three Greens amendments that we have before us: firstly, the amendment regarding the timing of assessment of applications. The Greens essentially are seeking to make this legislation have a greater retrospective effect than it already does. The Greens basically want to ensure that projects that are already well advanced in the assessment phase suddenly find that the parliament has changed the rules on them—that, having already spent time and money and effort in going through and complying with existing laws, proponents and applicants will suddenly have to comply with different laws. Now, the coalition stands resolutely against retrospectivity. And we note that there are already concerns that the bill, even in its existing form, has an unfair and unacceptable level of retrospectivity to it. The Senate inquiry heard evidence from those concerned about the retrospective application of aspects of the existing bill. Mr Hooke from the Minerals Council urged the Senate committee to: … remove the retrospective application, the trigger for projects not undergoing EPBC Act referral. This is not a good point of law, to have retrospectivity applying in a situation where it creates great uncertainty for projects which may be currently undertaking activities, including ancillary activities. The legislation should clarify the grandfathering exemptions provided in 22(3) and 22(4) to expressly acknowledge that changes to grandfathered projects do not impact on the status of prior environmental authorisations of unchanged components or where changes are immaterial to the significance of or impact on a water resource. Mr Hooke was not the only one to identify concerns. The Australian Coal Association equally had concerns about the retrospective application of the bill that is before us in its existing form. They submitted: Industry is also concerned with the retrospective application of the new trigger to projects that are already well advanced in the approvals process. These projects now face further uncertainty and potential delays. There is also the potential for the water trigger to capture established coal developments even where there are no significant changes to their operations. The exemptions should clarify that new provisions apply only to existing projects where there is a major new development proposal. They are concerned about the level of retrospectivity that exists in the bill as it currently stands. Yet the Greens have identified that they want to increase that level of retrospectivity, that they basically want to take it back and be able to cover pretty much anything that may not already be well and truly under operation. The Greens obviously want to do everything within their power to hold up and stall the types of developments that are being considered. The opposition emphatically rejects those moves by the Greens and emphatically rejects their attempts to increase the retrospective elements of this legislation, whilst expressing our concern at the level of retrospectivity that exists already within the bill before the chamber. The second of the amendments that the Greens seek to apply is completely unrelated to coal seam gas, completely unrelated to large coal developments and completely unrelated to water resources. It is an amendment that is basically yet another attempt by the Greens, because they have done this on multiple occasions, to try to ensure that we lock into law forever in this country a dual system of state and federal environmental law that maximises the expense, that maximises the duplication, that maximises the bureaucracy, that simply would create an unacceptable situation wherein, now and into the future, no government of any persuasion could ever try to sit down with the states and say, 'Let's actually harmonise the assessments and approvals processes and get a one-stop shop in place.' Everybody knows it is the coalition's clear policy that has long been stated. It is our policy to have a one-stop shop for environmental assessments and approvals. Much as the government and the Greens and others may accuse the coalition of not having policies, this is a substantial policy and a policy that we have had announced for a long period of time. It is something that we are determined to implement in government. What the Greens' amendment seeks to do is simply stymie, block and make it as hard as possible for the coalition, should we win the election later this year, to implement that policy. As I said, it is amendment that has nothing to do with what the bill before the chamber is about. It is an amendment that is a sheer act of bastardry from the Australian Greens to try to block and stop the coalition from being able to implement our policies should we win a mandate from the Australian people later this year. Such is the contempt of the Greens for the views of the majority of Australians that they are not willing to let the coalition go to the election with our policies and see whether the people endorse us, elect us to government and endorse our policies in that process. They want to take pre-emptive action before the election to close the door on the coalition's ability to implement those policies. This is obviously a taste and a sign, should we succeed later this year, for just how obstructionist the Greens will be, for just how destructive the Greens will be, for just what lengths the Greens will go to to try to block and harass the coalition in the application of our policies. We have grave concerns at the approach of the Greens in introducing these amendments. They would lock into law existing duplication, which I assessed and commented on earlier in this debate, and which Deloitte Access Economics have identified as costing around $1.19 billion in excessive duplication of bureaucracy that we have at a state and federal level around environmental approvals. The coalition believes there must be a better way when it comes to environmental approvals. We want to uphold the highest standards, we want to uphold the very important matters of national environmental significance that are contained in the EPBC Act, which we brought into law when we were in government. Our commitment to those standards is in no way under any doubt because those standards were identified in laws that the Howard government passed. But those laws provided for the capacity to say that we should be able to align assessments and approvals processes at a state and federal level and, in doing so, remove the excessive duplication. The Greens amendments would seek to strip out that capacity to align those assessment and approvals processes. I trust that the government, despite their complete flip-flopping on this important issue of reducing green-tape regulation, will support the coalition in opposing the Greens amendments. I hope the government will show just a scintilla of support for the judgement of the Australian people later this year when it comes to whether or not the coalition should be in a position to implement its policies. I hope the government does that because, of course, it was the government's own policy. Just a year ago the government was proposing to do, through the COAG processes, exactly the same thing. The Prime Minister said, back in 2012 when it was the government's policy: Today COAG acted on that concern— Concerns around duplication and costs— and the Gillard Government and states and territories agreed to fast track arrangements to use state assessment and approval processes by March 2013. Instead of delivering on that commitment made at the start of 2012—and why would we expect Prime Minister to deliver on a commitment when all she does is routinely break them?—the government, by the end of 2012, had abandoned it completely. They abandoned it so much that already built into this legislation is a limitation on the future operation of one-stop shops insofar as the new water trigger applies. If the Greens got their way, and if the government were reckless enough to support them, we would see a complete blockage on one-stop shops. Lastly, the Greens propose another remarkable amendment completely unrelated to the bill before the Senate. This amendment would put in place a new section to the EPBC Act relating to national parks. It would add another five pages of legislation relating to how activities in national parks can be governed. This of course is a knee-jerk reaction of the Greens to decisions being made, justifiably, rightly, by state governments. Once again, the Greens want to tear up a century of federalism in this place. The Greens want to tear up the understanding of where responsibility lies in the Commonwealth for different activities and provide a whole new swathe of powers to give the Commonwealth minister capacity to encroach upon the activities of the states and the right of the states to govern their own national parks and to make their own determinations about land use. These amendments once again have nothing to do with coal seam gas, nothing to do with large coal development and nothing to do with water resources. Nonetheless, the Greens seek, with no consultation, no opportunity for comment by anybody, to at the last minute bolt on to the legislation before the chamber, and simply sneak through, dramatic new changes to our laws. Again, the coalition rejects these efforts of the Greens. In closing, I urge the government to allow a proper debate on these Greens amendments around national parks, because I know there are colleagues who want to have a contribution. Because the Greens have done these amendments all together, I have only been able to say a couple of words on them. But these are significant changes and they deserve to be properly debated, not gagged. (Time expired) 10:42 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria The purpose of the bill is to enable the Commonwealth environment minister to take into account significant impacts of coal seam gas and large coal-mining developments on a water resource—that is, the bill provides for a water trigger. There are a range of amendments being proposed on a range of issues. The government does not support amendments that would broaden the scope of this bill. The proposed amendments are very broad. The government advice is that, because these amendments are so broad, they carry a high level of constitutional risk. I move: That the question be now put. The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the question now be put. The CHAIRMAN: Senator Waters, you asked that we divide separately on the three remaining blocks of amendments, which were taken together by leave. I see no need to divide the question as the government and the opposition during the course of the debate have indicated that they will be voting against. So, unless the Greens have a different position on any of the amendments, I intend to put them all as one block.

The Committee divided [10:47].
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

37 AYES Bilyk, CL Bishop, TM Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Carr, RJ Collins, JMA Conroy, SM Crossin, P Di Natale, R Farrell, D Faulkner, J Feeney, D Furner, ML Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Hogg, JJ Lines, S Ludlam, S Ludwig, JW Marshall, GM McEwen, A Milne, C Moore, CM Polley, H (teller) Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Siewert, R Singh, LM Stephens, U Sterle, G Thorp, LE Urquhart, AE Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P Wright, PL 30 NOES Back, CJ Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Boswell, RLD Boyce, SK Brandis, GH Bushby, DC Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Edwards, S Eggleston, A Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Heffernan, W Humphries, G Johnston, D Joyce, B Macdonald, ID McKenzie, B Nash, F Parry, S Payne, MA Ronaldson, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Sinodinos, A Smith, D Williams, JR (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:50 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Mr Chairman, I sought leave and was granted leave for the questions to be put separately, and I would like that to maintain. Leave was granted at the time. The CHAIRMAN: You sought leave to have the three groups of amendments taken together, which was granted by the chamber. Precedent is that, unless there will be a different division on these amendments, they will be put together. It is at the discretion of the chair, and that is the way I rule. Unless you can indicate to me that there will be a different vote on any of the divisions, that is the way I intend to proceed. 10:50 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Perhaps I can point out that there is an internal inconsistency in the amendments. Amendment (1) on sheet 7374, which would remove bilateral agreements from consideration, is inconsistent with the fact that amendment (1) on 7394 actually contains provisions that would allow for bilateral agreements to apply. So there is a level of internal inconsistency between them that may create a problem— The CHAIRMAN: Senator Birmingham, that is a debating point. 10:51 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I think Senator Birmingham has just illustrated why we need a separate vote, and I just suggest that— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WATERS 192970 Hang on. Excuse me, folks. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Waters has the call. Senator WATERS 192970 Thank you, Chair. I wanted to seek your guidance. When I asked that the amendments be moved together, I did specifically twice say that the vote be put separately, and I understand leave was granted on that basis or I would not have moved them together. So I just ask that we continue on that basis. The CHAIRMAN: I was not in the chair at the time. Leave was sought to have them all taken together, which was granted. You did indicate, which is why I raised the point prior to putting this motion, that you would like the three motions voted upon separately. Normally that would happen if there were an indication there was going to be different outcomes on different votes. At this stage, the government and the opposition have indicated that they will be opposing all three groups of amendments. So, unless the Greens are going to be voting differently on any of the amendments, I do intend to put them together. 10:52 Senator MILNE ka5 Tasmania The point here, as Senator Waters has said, is that they are three separate matters on which we require three separate resolutions. It is the prerogative of people moving amendments to have them voted on separately, and that has been the request. Are you setting a precedent in this chamber that you will collectivise every amendment in this way? This would be an extraordinary precedent to set. I request that we vote for them separately. 10:53 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria The government is happy for these matters to be voted on separately, especially given the point that Senator Birmingham just made. The CHAIRMAN: First and foremost, this is totally at the discretion of the chair—that is the first and foremost point. Secondly, I am following precedent and advice from the Clerk. Thirdly, the only matter for which leave was sought from the chamber was to take the amendments together. Leave cannot be sought as to how we divide and vote on matters concerning the bracket and the way the vote will be taken. So it is my decision that we will take them together. No-one has indicated that we are voting differently on any of the amendments. Senator Waters is on her feet. I will take this as the last point of order on this matter. 10:54 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thank you for your indulgence, Chair. I sought leave for them to be both moved together and voted on separately and leave was given. Honourable senators interjecting— The CHAIRMAN: Order! The point is that you cannot seek leave to do the latter part of what you asked to do. Senator WATERS 192970 Sorry, my apologies, Chair— Honourable senators interjecting— The CHAIRMAN: Order! Senators on my left are not assisting this matter! Order on my left! In the time this has taken we could have voted on all three separately. 10:54 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave that the three tranches of amendments be voted on separately. The CHAIRMAN: It is not a matter of leave. You cannot seek that by leave. It is a matter of discretion of the chair. I now put the questions: that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7576, amendment (1) on sheet 7374 and amendment (1) on sheet 7394, moved by Senator Waters by leave together, be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells rung— 10:55 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Australian Greens just made a threat to you as the presiding officer here. The CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald, a point of order must relate to the division, but that can be made a matter at a later time.

The Senate divided. [10:56]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

8 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC Ludlam, S Milne, C Siewert, R (teller) Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wright, PL 57 NOES Back, CJ Bernardi, C Bilyk, CL Birmingham, SJ Bishop, TM Boswell, RLD Boyce, SK Brandis, GH Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Carr, RJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Collins, JMA Conroy, SM Cormann, M Crossin, P Edwards, S Eggleston, A Farrell, D Faulkner, J Fawcett, DJ Feeney, D Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Furner, ML Gallacher, AM Heffernan, W Hogg, JJ Humphries, G Johnston, D Joyce, B Kroger, H Lines, S Ludwig, JW Macdonald, ID Marshall, GM McEwen, A McKenzie, B Moore, CM Nash, F Parry, S Payne, MA Polley, H Pratt, LC Ronaldson, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Singh, LM Smith, D Stephens, U Sterle, G Thorp, LE Urquhart, AE Williams, JR (teller) Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:02 The CHAIRMAN e5v The question now is that the bill stand as printed. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman, about the behaviour of the Leader of the Australian Greens. When you called that division, the Leader of the Australian Greens, in a very loud voice—I suspect you may not have heard it, Mr Chairman, because of other noise—made a direct reference to you, suggesting bias. Her words were along the lines of, 'This is the sort of biased treatment we can expect in the future.' She then issued a threat against you. I ask you to ask the senator to withdraw those reflections and that threat. Senator Hanson-Young I0U On the point of order, Mr Chairman: I reject the assertion made by Senator Macdonald. Numerous conversations take place in this chamber. One of them on that side of the chamber, which I heard, included a slur about our leader. If you want to start going tit for tat, we can do that. The CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald and Senator Hanson-Young, I did not hear any of the comments you have referred to. You have both made your remarks, so it is now on record. I propose to take no further action. 11:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Because of the outrageous gags being applied by the government, I indicate very clearly that the coalition will be opposing the bill standing as printed and will be opposing the reporting of the bill. The government, along with the Greens, have treated this chamber with complete contempt throughout this process. The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the bill stand as printed.

The Senate divided. [11:05]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

37 AYES Bilyk, CL Bishop, TM Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Collins, JMA Conroy, SM Crossin, P Di Natale, R Farrell, D Faulkner, J Feeney, D Furner, ML Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Hogg, JJ Lines, S Ludlam, S Ludwig, JW Marshall, GM McEwen, A Milne, C Moore, CM Polley, H (teller) Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Siewert, R Singh, LM Stephens, U Sterle, G Thorp, LE Urquhart, AE Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P Wright, PL Xenophon, N 27 NOES Back, CJ (teller) Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Boswell, RLD Boyce, SK Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Edwards, S Eggleston, A Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Heffernan, W Humphries, G Johnston, D Joyce, B Macdonald, ID McKenzie, B Nash, F Parry, S Payne, MA Ronaldson, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Smith, D Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

(11:08 The CHAIRMAN e5v ): The question now is that the bill be reported. Bill reported without amendment. The PRESIDENT 7L6 The question is that the report be adopted.

The Senate divided. [11:09]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

37 AYES Bilyk, CL Bishop, TM Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Collins, JMA Conroy, SM Crossin, P Di Natale, R Farrell, D Faulkner, J Feeney, D Furner, ML Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Hogg, JJ Lines, S Ludlam, S Ludwig, JW Marshall, GM McEwen, A Milne, C Moore, CM Polley, H (teller) Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Siewert, R Singh, LM Stephens, U Sterle, G Thorp, LE Urquhart, AE Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P Wright, PL Xenophon, N 28 NOES Back, CJ (teller) Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Boswell, RLD Boyce, SK Bushby, DC Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Edwards, S Eggleston, A Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Humphries, G Johnston, D Joyce, B Kroger, H Macdonald, ID McKenzie, B Nash, F Parry, S Payne, MA Ronaldson, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Sinodinos, A Smith, D 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:12 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland The motion that the report be adopted is a crucial part of the whole debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill. We are reluctant to adopt the report from the committee because there has not been sufficient debate on the bill. I particularly am concerned that I was not given the opportunity of saying a few words on the amendment proposed by the Greens political party which would have had the effect of giving the Commonwealth minister the power to override the Queensland government in the management of its national parks and in particular the decision made by the Queensland government to allow starving cattle into Queensland national parks in an attempt to overcome an animal catastrophe, an animal welfare issue of horrendous proportions. This is a bill which has incensed every Queenslander, and as a senator representing the state of Queensland I believe I should have had the opportunity of at least debating the bill. Instead, it was guillotined on the motion of the Greens political party. I can remember sitting in this chamber for hour upon hour listing to the Greens political party rail against even the very moderate use of guillotines by the Howard government. For example, the regional forest agreement debate went for some 36 hours, kept going by the leader of the Greens political party simply repeating himself. When the Howard government moved to curtail the debate, after 36 hours of repetition, we then had hours more of the Greens saying how awful it was to curtail a debate after 36 hours. You and I, Mr Acting Deputy President Furner, as representatives of the state of Queensland, have a vital interest in this amendment dealing with Commonwealth control of state national parks. Were we given the opportunity to discuss it, to put forward the views of our constituents or to put forward the view of the RSPCA in Queensland, who thought it was a good idea? The Greens political party claim to be interested in animal welfare, but they would have 300,000 cattle in Queensland die a horrible death from starvation because they want to prevent them from using the limited grass that is available in some Queensland national parks. This amendment moved by the Greens has nothing to do with the substantive part of the bill we were discussing—nothing to do with coal seam gas, the protection of water or care for the aquifers; nothing to do with that. But, here, tacked on, in a very tacky way, in the proposed amendments on sheet of 7394 the Greens political party have raised this issue of the declaration of national parks. Had these amendments been carried, they would have given the Commonwealth minister the power to override the Queensland minister and the Queensland government in that area, where a very sensible decision was made to allow starving cattle access to the limited food available in national parks. Yet, on this matter, we were not given the opportunity to say one word. Senator Birmingham had about 15 minutes to traverse a series of complicated amendments. That was all that was allowed. Then we saw the Greens political party move the guillotine, the gag, to stop debate on this most important issue. However, I do not want to hold up the chamber any further. I understand we have a lot to discuss. I see I have 15 minutes left. I know that my colleague Senator Back would like to say a few words on the same subject and on the proposed amendment to the bill. But I make this point in all good faith. I could say a lot more in the 14 minutes or so I have left to address my other issues, but in consideration of the procedures of the Senate and because my colleague Senator Back wants to say a few words, I am going to sit down before my time is up. But I do hope that the guillotining frenzy of the Labor Party and the Greens will not apply at least for the next 14 minutes so that my colleagues have the opportunity of saying a few words on this very important issue. 11:17 Senator JOYCE e5d Queensland It is extremely important to understand that in a short period of time the EPBC Act will have a water trigger and that that is supported by the coalition. This belies the story that has been peddled around in many areas that the coalition do not support the water trigger; we do. This matter has been held up for such a long period of time now for a whole range of reasons, but most importantly because the Greens have been frolicking with amendments that never had a snowflake's chance of ever getting up. They dealt with them for divisive purposes. They have never really properly prosecuted the argument. They have not properly lobbied people about them; they never do. The first we ever hear about most of these things is when they appear in the chamber. It has been clearly said throughout the New England area and in so many other areas, and around southern Queensland—peddled by Independents and the Greens—that the coalition do not support the water trigger. In a very short period of time, it will be legislation and it is supported by the coalition. That needs to be clearly put on the record. 11:19 Senator BACK J7Q Western Australia Briefly, I rise firstly to support the comments of Senator Macdonald, who spoke so eloquently about the starving cattle in North Queensland and other places in Queensland. And I have spoken about this openly and frequently in Queensland and other places. There is no need for that cattle to be there in the first place. The heavily pregnant cows are about to calve. Their calves from last year should be being prepared now for sale and those from two years ago should have long gone. The important point to be made here is that so many of the national parks, which the graziers and the pastoralists requested be opened and whose request the Queensland state government approved—and I do hope Minister Burke will see the value in the matter—were in fact cattle stations. They are rich in buffel grass and species introduced specifically for cattle-grazing purposes. The perverse irony here is that if they are not opened that buffel grass will dry off and burn, and many of the environmental assets in those parks will be destroyed by the burning. In the few moments allowed to me, I want to make some points. It is interesting that this amendment debate was gagged by the Greens or they joined in support of the gag in gagging their own amendment, something I find remarkable. I want to place on the record the circumstance of Western Australia, as a Western Australian senator in this. Whilst we recognise, as Senator Joyce said, that the coalition will be supporting the water trigger, the point is that these issues are principally confined to the eastern seaboard, particularly Queensland and New South Wales. Western Australia is not commercially prospective for coal seam gas, but we did view these amendments with concern. In the lead-up to the introduction of the amendments, the Commonwealth established the independent expert scientific committee to review coal seam gas and large coalmining deposits. Western Australia is not a signatory to the national partnership agreement that established the IESC. Western Australia views this as yet another imposition, another layer of regulatory approvals, over existing, comprehensive state regulatory arrangements in Western Australia. I use this opportunity to refute the comments that were made here by another Western Australian Greens senator, Senator Ludlam, in which he condemned Western Australia and its environmental processes. It is a relief to us in Western Australia that this amendment has gone down. The IESC and the proposed amendments would only have served to increase delays and uncertainty, to encourage a lack of confidence in state processes in Western Australia and ultimately—and most importantly—to undermine the credentials of the state's Environmental Protection Authority. This is an organisation that I have had a long association with in different aspects of my professional career in Western Australia, and I have always found the EPA to be independent, to be fair and to be very, very serious in its approach. Representations that we made in my time as a chief executive officer of a state instrumentality were often rejected by the EPA. Therefore, we see it as a very severe issue that the Commonwealth would have the capacity to walk in and, for no reason, overrule it. In the case of Western Australia, it is not coal seam gas but shale oil and shale gas that is very much the area of concern. I want to place on record that the WA government has a strong regulatory framework for commercial gas extraction, from deep shale and so-called tight rock formations, especially where hydraulic fracture stimulation—or fracking, as it is known—is involved. Those listening may be interested to know that fracking has safely been used in the Western Australian mining and extractive industries for some 55 years, since 1958, with no—I repeat: no—adverse effects on the environment, on water sources or indeed on the health of the communities in their vicinity. I again comment on the statements made by Senator Ludlam yesterday in which he called into question the transparency of information regarding fracking chemicals. I say this, and I say it proudly: in Western Australia, we have the strongest chemical disclosure requirements of any Australian jurisdiction; we have rigorous environmental and safety approval processes; and we have international standards for well design and integrity. It is not acceptable for any senator, let alone one from our own state, to stand up and deny that to be the fact. I would urge that the Western Australian standards be scrutinised nationally to establish that what I have said is the case and, if it is the case, let them become the benchmark for other state jurisdictions. We have a very robust regulatory regime in Western Australia. We have an independent environmental protection authority. It is for that reason Western Australia coalition senators and, I am pleased to see, their Labor colleagues voted down that particular amendment. I conclude by reflecting on the potential value of the shale oil industry not only for WA but also for the nation generally. It would appear once again that we have amongst the highest levels of shale gas reserves anywhere in the world. We already see that, in the United States of America, shale oil and shale gas in particular are now being extracted and, most importantly, we see a resurgence of manufacturing in the United States as the Americans bring back onshore, to continental USA, much of the manufacturing that they had outsourced to other countries. How wonderful it is, when their manufacturing industries were suffering so severely, with so much criticism that everything was going offshore, that now, because of cheaper energy, they actually have the capacity to bring their manufacturing back onshore. Of course, we have all spoken in this debate about environmental safety, community safety and health and wellbeing. But I say again: we have the safeguards in place. I look forward to the extraction of shale gas being the next area in which Western Australia will not only advance as a state but also be able to make its contribution to the national economy. 11:27 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. Report adopted. Third Reading 3356 11:27 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a third time. 11:27 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I do not intend to detain the chamber for terribly long. There has been a lengthy debate on this bill, and it is unusual to make a contribution on the third reading, but it is important to make clear that, whilst the coalition has significant concerns about the way the government and the Greens have conducted this debate—grave concerns about the application of the gag and the guillotine, and concerns about some of the technical aspects of this bill which we have debated and sought to move amendments to—we nonetheless acknowledge, as I said way back in my contribution on the second reading and as Senator Joyce just emphasised, that there are genuine community concerns that surround the issue of coal seam gas development and large coalmining development, and what their impact may be on water resources. We understand the imperative to protect our water resources and we want to make sure that in the future they are appropriately protected and the right safeguards are in place. That is why the coalition ultimately supports this bill and will ultimately support the passage of the third reading of this bill. In the future, in government—as is our declared policy—we will to try to streamline assessment and approval processes to ensure that we minimise or eliminate, ideally, the duplication of costs between the Commonwealth and the states when it comes to environmental assessments. But that will in no way undermine our commitment to ensuring that the water resources of Australia are properly protected when it comes to how mining and exploration activities are undertaken. I want to make it very clear, lest there be any doubt or any attempts by others to misinterpret the coalition's stance on this legislation, that despite our misgivings around the political and tactical handling of this legislation by those opposite in the government and the Greens, and despite vehement opposition to the amendment made by Mr Windsor that attempts to block any way of eliminating duplication and excessive costs to environmental regulation, we support the third reading of this bill, support the development of the new water trigger, and will make sure should we be elected to government that it is applied in a robust way and in a way that ensures that our water resources are appropriately protected but, hopefully, also in a way that eliminates the duplicative costs that we see from state and Commonwealth overlapping of environmental regulation. With that, I ultimately commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 3357

Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013

Second Reading 3357 11:31 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland This is a bill which comes before the parliament in order to observe the procedure prescribed by section 128 of the Constitution to enable a question to be put to the people at a referendum for an amendment to the Constitution. Section 128, as you know Mr Acting Deputy President, provides that the Constitution may only be amended at a referendum after a bill has passed through both chambers of the parliament and the question is put not less than two and not more than six months after the passage of the referendum bill through the parliament. In this particular case, the proposal is to amend section 96 of the Constitution, that is, the provision which provides for the Commonwealth to make payments to the states on such terms and conditions as it sees fit. The proposal is to include in the words of section 96 a reference to local government. The purpose is to put beyond legal doubt the validity of a number of schemes for the making of payments to local government, which governments of both Labor and coalition persuasion have engaged in for some years now. For example, to illustrate the point, I think of the Roads to Recovery program—a very popular program—which was pioneered by my colleague Senator Ian Macdonald when he was the Minister for Local Government in the Howard government. Payments under the Roads to Recovery program, which are used by local authorities to upgrade and repair roads within their jurisdictions, come directly from the executive. They are, of course, subject to the annual appropriation bills but are not otherwise specifically legislated for. That was thought to be a constitutionally valid way for the Commonwealth to make payments, because although section 96 does not refer to payments to local government, it had until recently been thought that section 61 of the Constitution, which conferred the executive power of the Commonwealth on the Governor-General and made it exercisable by ministers, together with section 83 of the Constitution, which provides for the appropriation of Commonwealth moneys, were a sufficient footing for the making of payments by the Commonwealth government without specific legislative provision. That had been the orthodox constitutional provision. However, that orthodox constitutional position was questioned in two recent decisions of the High Court—the Pape case and more recently, last year, the Williams case. The Williams case was not in fact about payments to local government. Nevertheless, it raised this broad question. It is a very fundamental constitutional question: may the executive power of the Commonwealth be used to make payments to entities, whether government entities or nongovernmental entities as was the case in the Williams case, other than the states without specific legislative provision? The language of the judges in the Williams case has been interpreted, I think correctly, to mean that specific legislative provision is necessary to validate payments by the Commonwealth to government entities other than the states—the states are already catered for by section 96 in its existing form—or nongovernmental entities. One only has to state that proposition to appreciate the great significance, particularly of the Williams case, otherwise known as the 'school chaplains case', for the way in which Commonwealth funding operates. It seems that the Commonwealth may only make payments either to the states under section 96 or to entities other than the states for which there is specific legislative provision which falls within a section 51 head of power, but may not do so by decision of the executive government. When the Williams case was delivered by the High Court and the significance of it was appreciated, the government rushed through the parliament with the support of the opposition—it was about this time last year, in the last sitting fortnight before the winter recess—a measure that was designed to try and fix up the problem. It was called the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill No. 3. The finance minister, Senator Wong, who introduced the bill, said in her speech to the chamber on 27 June last year that the bill would 'ensure that the government can maintain funding for community programs'. She went on to say that the bill 'has been designed to address the new requirement for specific legislative approval of spending in programs identified by the High Court'. Although the opposition supported the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill No. 3 because we did want to see the very large range of program payments validated—there were some hundreds in the schedules to that bill—I expressed the view at the time that, given the language that the High Court used in the Williams case, that bill would not satisfy the High Court's requirements, and that it would be struck down. The view that I then expressed, which the government did not at the time accept, has since been endorsed by a number of constitutional scholars, including Professor Anne Twomey and Professor George Williams. Indeed, when I gave a paper on the school chaplains case in February of this year to the Gilbert + Tobin constitutional law conference, the annual conference at which all the constitutional lawyers in the country gather to discuss the constitutional issues of the previous year, I could not find a single scholar or judge attending that conference who disagreed with the view I had expressed, and expressed in the paper I gave, that the government's legislative makeover of June next year would not stand scrutiny before the High Court. The government, eventually, seems to have arrived at the same view, hence the proposal to put beyond constitutional doubt, at least, payments to local government by including a reference to local government in section 96 of the Constitution. That is why this bill is before the parliament, and it is why a referendum is being proposed. It is no secret that this is an issue which has caused a lot of controversy inside the coalition. There are some who take the view—my distinguished colleague Senator Dean Smith, who I see sitting here, is one of them—that for section 96 to be amended explicitly to provide for payments directly from the Commonwealth to local government would in an important way subvert the role of the states. I hope I do not oversimplify, but I understand that is the gravamen of the complaint. There are many people in the Liberal Party who are of that view. There are some constitutional scholars—I mentioned Professor Anne Twomey before, the professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney—who give considerable credence to that view. There are others who do not. The position the opposition has therefore adopted is to allow these referendum bills through the parliament in order to satisfy the requirements for an amendment to the Constitution being proposed at referendum—in other words, to satisfy the requirements of section 128—and allow the matter to be put to the people. That is the position we adopted in the House of Representatives and it is the position we adopt in this chamber. But there will be some of my colleagues—it is one of the things the Liberal Party is most proud of—who will take a different position and vote a different way. It is one of the glories of the Liberal Party that we accommodate, without difficulty, the existence within our party of different views. But, nevertheless, this legislation will be passed through the chamber. However, we do this to facilitate the public consideration of this referendum question, and it is necessarily implicit in that that the yes case should be heard and that the no case should be heard. It has always been the constitutional practice in Australia for as long as I can determine that, when a referendum to amend the Constitution is put—and there have only been 47 in the history of the Commonwealth, and only seven of them have ever succeeded—the yes case should be argued and funded and the no case should be able to be argued and funded, because, to put a proposition that a three-year-old child could understand, there are two sides to every story. There are two sides to this argument: the yes argument and the no argument. It has never been the case that the funding of the yes case and the no case should be in different proportions. Yet the day before yesterday, on Monday—shockingly—the minister for local government, Mr Albanese, who has the carriage of this matter, announced that the Commonwealth would fund the yes case to the tune of $10 million but would fund the no case to the tune of $500,000—so that 20 times more would be spent on the yes case than on the no case. That is an astounding decision by this government, and it is utterly to be condemned for two very important reasons. First of all, it is extremely dishonest. There have been, going back some months now, discussions and exchanges between the Prime Minister's office and the opposition leader's office in relation to this referendum question, and those discussions have always been on the footing that when the referendum question were put, the yes case and that no case would be equally funded. The coalition allowed the passage of this bill through the House of Representatives recently on the explicit understanding that the yes case and the no case would be equally funded. That understanding was vacated—it was betrayed—by Mr Albanese in his announcement on Monday. We have all been in politics for a long time, Mr Acting Deputy President—and not many things shock me, but I was actually shocked at the boldness of the breach of good faith shown by the government on this occasion. The matter was explored in senate estimates within the last fortnight, particularly by my colleague, Senator Scott Ryan, and no indication came from the government to suggest otherwise than that the yes case and the no case would be equally funded. This has been a cynical, cold-blooded act of political dishonesty, the like of which it is hard to find a comparison with. There is a second important reason quite apart from the dishonesty of the government in relation to this matter. It is that it is a violation of constitutional practice. The Constitution does not actually say that there should be public funding of a yes case and a no case, but that has always been the constitutional practice. In 1999, when the Howard government facilitated not a referendum to amend the Constitution but a plebiscite—on the issue of whether or not Australia should retain its form of government as a constitutional monarchy or move to become a republic—the then Prime Minister Mr Howard, although famously an avowed supporter of the constitutional status quo, had no hesitation in ensuring that the yes case, which his government was opposed to, and the no case, which he supported, were equally funded. More importantly—because the meagre justification has been put forward by Mr Albanese that the no case should only get one-twentieth of the funding of the yes case because only two members of the House of Representatives voted no and the rest either abstained or voted yes—the meagre justification that there should be some relativity between the funding of the yes case and the no case to reflect the political complexion on the issue of the House of Representatives is wrong too, not only because the opposition were, in effect, tricked into voting as they did because of the false assurances that the no case would be funded equally with the yes case but also—as I said before was the case with the republican plebiscite in 1999—because there is a much more direct comparison and that is the 1977 referendum on simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. That was a referendum proposed by the Fraser government. It was supported by the opposition. It passed through the House of Representatives, I think, unanimously. When it came to the Senate, a small number of backbench Liberal senators dissented, and it passed through the Senate with the support of the government—net the few dissentient Liberal backbench senators—and of the opposition. The referendum was put to the people on 21 May 1977, after a campaign in which the dissentient senators were funded to argue the no case with an amount equal to that which the government and opposition jointly were funded to promote the yes case. Do you know what happened, Mr Acting Deputy President? The no case won. The no case won, notwithstanding that the government and the opposition were of a common mind, because the small minority of senators were able to persuade the Australian people it was a bad idea. So the idea that you fund the cases in relativity to the voting patterns in the parliament is a constitutional nonsense. Therefore, I move: At the end of the motion, add “but that further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the Government puts into place financial arrangements to provide for equal funding for both the ‘yes’ and the ‘no’ cases, to ensure that the Australian community is properly informed about the arguments for and against the proposed change to the Constitution.” That is what the government assured us it would do, and it lied about it, and that is what constitutional practice in this country has uniformly prescribed. 11:51 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales The Greens support this legislation. Local government recognition is long overdue. It is very interesting to hear the debate and also to see the speakers list for today, which is very informative about the tactics that we have seen from the coalition. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition that, in principle, he supports constitutional recognition. But what does 'in principle' mean when it comes from the opposition leader, Mr Tony Abbott? What is the meaning of 'principle', when it comes to his utterance? It looks like we are about to get a lesson in that. It looks as though we could have the first broken promise from the Leader of the Opposition and he is not even Prime Minister yet! The coalition has been running a campaign of support for constitutional recognition, but there have been disruptive tactics. Senator Brandis interjecting— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator RHIANNON CPR I acknowledge the interjections from Mr Brandis and his colleagues here. They have been running a disruptive campaign. Now it looks as though they will try and further disrupt this very important referendum, which we know needs bipartisan support. We know how critical that is. But let us stay with the issue first: what we should be discussing here is how we can facilitate an urgently needed referendum to give certainty to that level of local government. Section 96 of the Australian Constitution needs to be amended to give legal certainty to the Commonwealth's ability to directly fund local government. That is what I would like to be talking about in the debate, but we have heard the line from Senator Brandis and we can see where that is going. We have been hearing the comments being made in the media today. There is clearly an attempt to severely damage the chances of this referendum. Having been on the inquiry into local government and having heard from so many representatives of that important tier of government about how much it means to them to gain that recognition and why it is so important for so many of the programs that they run, I find that particularly disappointing. Many of them are colleagues of those who sit on the opposition benches, particularly from the National Party. Many of their colleagues, particularly from Queensland, understood how important this is and talked about the extent of their programs. But I think we also need to remind ourselves that what we could well see here is history repeating itself, because twice there have been attempts to gain this constitutional recognition and twice the coalition went very hard to defeat it. In the context of what we are about to see play out in the coming hours, it is worth reminding ourselves that we have been down this path before and it looks as though the coalition is about to throw away its apparent commitment to constitutional recognition. It was in 1974, when the Whitlam government put up a similar referendum to what we have now, that the coalition campaigned rigorously against it and it was defeated. Then we saw the same thing in 1988 with the Hawke government. Again, the coalition went in very hard with very disruptive tactics, which were destructive for many of their own constituencies—particularly for people in rural and regional areas, where this uncertainty really hits home. What we have before us is very, very wrong, because constitutional recognition—to my mind—actually is about a lot more than financial certainty; it is about doing the right thing. It is as if there is a serious omission within our constitution and, clearly, all levels of government should be recognised. But what we are hearing from the coalition and from many of their supporters are some real scare tactics and so much disinformation, which need to be addressed here. For example, the Institute of Public Affairs have been coming out with their arguments about the issue of constitutional recognition. One of their statements is that state governments will be obsolete—how extreme and how ridiculous—but those are the sort of scare tactics that they are running. The IPA have also stated that it would be a disaster for democracy and lead to less accountability. As we know, we have heard that many of the debates—some of them in here and some of them through the media—are questioning the wording of the question itself. What we have seen in the past month is a build-up in the disruption to this all-important campaign. It is also worth remembering what has been happening this week in Canberra. There are hundreds and hundreds of local government representatives, elected by their councils, who are in Canberra for the national conference of the Australian Local Government Association. I had the opportunity of going to that meeting, and Senator Christine Milne, leader of the Australian Greens, spoke there. She got a fantastic reception when she spoke in support of the yes case for the referendum. This is something very close to the heart of the Greens. A number of years back, a former leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, told the conference that he would raise the issue with the government of the day. That is something that we did under our agreement with Labor. While there are many aspects of that agreement that have gone pear-shaped, this is one thing that we were able to advance and advance successfully with the coalition, which looked like they were on side for a period, but now the scare tactics are apparent. These are totally unnecessary and are a totally wrong and disruptive way to engage with the democratic process. Let us come to some of the issues that Senator Brandis has just shared with us. First of all, he said that he was 'shocked'. He said, 'I am hard to shock, but I have been shocked.' I think it would be worth remembering what Senator Brandis also said last night, when he was speaking in the very moving tributes to Senator Trish Crossin. At one point he said how he was shameless; that is what we are seeing, again in this debate. He was shameless in how he presented his argument. The coalition has had a whole tactic running here of building up the level of disruption to make out that this is dysfunctional and cannot work. It most definitely can work. It is worth going back to how things have played out in the preparation and in the process for this all-important referendum. It is worth looking at the report from the Spigelman expert panel, which sets out very clearly some of the mechanisms for advancing the referendum—steps that we have taken. But Senator Brandis is trying to make out that it is otherwise. So let us go back to the actual report, which states in part: The majority of panel members support a referendum in 2013 subject to two conditions: first, that the Commonwealth negotiate with the States to achieve their support for the financial recognition option; and second, that the Commonwealth adopt steps suggested by ALGA necessary to achieve informed and positive public engagement with the issue, as set out in the section of this report on the concerns about a failed referendum. Let us look at ALGA, which launched its campaign for a yes vote this weekend. ALGA notes that the yes/no campaign should be overseen by the parliament, with a panel of members appointed to prepare both the yes and no cases. I understand that is what is proceeding. Again, Senator Brandis is throwing up his hands in horror at the money aspects of this—but it has been worked through. When you look at the situation that I have set out, there is consistency. ALGA proposes that the Commonwealth allocate funds for the yes/no cases for each referendum based on the votes of parliamentarians for and against the bill, and that this funding be equivalent to that provided for elections. We have had a clear process; the process has been followed through. At the 12th hour, all of sudden, Senator Brandis is shocked. It is not shock; it is shameless. Let us remember what he really meant to say. Yesterday he was honest; today it seems to have vacated his ability to remember his real tactics here. Let us get down to the details. The allocation of funding for the yes/no campaign will reflect the overwhelming support that the referendum has here. We know what that is, and this is where the coalition tactics come undone. Let us remember that, when the vote on the financial bill went through the House of Representatives, the vote was 134 in favour and two against. How did we have two coalition members vote against it? Everybody here knows that it was a decision by the coalition to release two of their members to vote against the bill. They released only two to vote against the bill; 134 voted for it. That is the proportion. That is how we have come to the situation where processes are being worked through—we have heard the advice from Spigelman, and we have heard from ALGA on how to set it out—and the coalition have made their call. Only two MPs in the House of Representatives voted against the bill, and now the decision has been made about that allocation. Senator Brandis, what have you got to be shocked about? What you should be shocked about is your own crude tactics that are now being played out by an opposition that has gone back to form by running a disruptive campaign at every turn. It is very disappointing, because this legislation is needed. History tells us that it is very tough to get a referendum through if there is not the support for it from all the parties that are active in the parliamentary process. In concluding, I want to emphasise some of the points made by the many local councils that have come to see me over a number of months to discuss how we can gain support for this measure. I particularly pay credit to the Local Government Association of Queensland. They have worked very effectively, with enormous support from their local councils. Again, I emphasise that many of these councils are from constituencies of the National Party in Queensland—and here we see a desertion from a fundamental position that can make a real difference to people in regional and rural areas. Some of the issues that the Queensland Local Government Association went through were concerned with a program that we have heard a great deal about—the Roads to Recovery program. The councils emphasised the need for increased funding levels, including for urgent bridge upgrades and also a commitment to indexing funding to reflect increases in road and bridge construction costs. They told me they did not feel that they could gain that certainty if they did not have the recognition, because they did not know if it would be challenged. How could they themselves allocate money if they could not be certain that the money would definitely come through from the Commonwealth? Another argument they put was that a responsive and relevant regional community infrastructure funding program, which has local government as a genuine partner, is urgently needed. What many of these councils spoke to me about—I found it very interesting to understand how they work—was that, more and more, they are picking up a range of programs that were once undertaken by other levels of government. We are seeing governments these days, not just coalition but Labor as well, adopt neo-liberal policies, where they ditch so many of the traditional services that they would have run in the past. Local governments often take on those responsibilities. That is why there was emphasis given to this area. Another point the Queenslanders raised was the need for an updated system of natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements that locks in existing value for money benchmarks to enable councils to deal with future disaster recovery on a more certain footing. Wouldn't the coalition like to ensure that our colleagues in regional and rural areas could be confident about that? No. It looks like they are all going to follow Senator Brandis. We are going to have 16 speakers from the coalition on this measure, all getting up and telling us how bad this process is, how wrong it is and how they now cannot support it. I will be interested to hear their arguments; but, knowing how it has happened before, it is certainly not a good look for the coalition to be deserting their constituency in such a damaging way. I again emphasise my concern about the comments made by Senator Brandis. It is worrying that the coalition is about to move away from the cross-party support for this important measure. Whatever the outcome is here, if this is a major break with the policy position by opposition leader Mr Tony Abbott, the Greens will continue to work very hard for a yes outcome for the referendum on constitutional recognition of local government. It is important for the Constitution; it is important for our future. 12:06 Senator JOYCE e5d Queensland ():I rise in support of the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013, and the reason is based on a range of issues. Our nation, which federated in 1901, is a vastly different place now from what it was at that period of time. Let us look at what would be presumed to be the activities of a local government at that point in time: we had horses and carts; we did not have telephones; and we did not have airports. The whole notion of how we saw the world at that point in time is so incredibly different from where we are now. Now we live in a land of broadband, B-doubles, B-triples and rail. It is a completely different world. We live in an Australia now of 23 million people, whereas at Federation we had 3.9 million. One of the problems with Federation is the design of the Constitution made the creation of new states extremely hard. If we could have the creation of new states, then we would have a greater capacity to deal with the demographic variances apparent in our nation now. Because it is so difficult to create new states—and New England tried to create a new one in 1967; it was knocked out by the inclusion of Newcastle—quite obviously there is always going to be a greater role for local government. Local government has evolved because it had to. The places where it evolved and became most prominent as a reflection of people's lives are the regional areas. It is now the case that we have seen, as has been alluded to before, programs such as Roads to Recovery, the Black Spot program and the future policy of bridges to recovery. In fact, there have been over 200 streams of funding that have gone from the federal government to local governments. We have also seen that people are desirous of a greater reflection of their area in their lives. The people of North Queensland most definitely want to be thought of as North Queenslanders. There are over half a million of them up there now. The people of the Riverina call their area the Riverina because they believe in the Riverina. The people of New England call themselves New Englanders because they believe in New England. It is a belief in their area. They have the right to have government close to the people being effective in their lives. The natural course of our nation was such that, when we had a nation of only 3.9 million people, there was no real cause for local governments because we were then dealing with a nation that was approximately the size of Brisbane and the Gold Coast. They were lucky to be thinking about states; they certainly did not have to think too much about local government because the population really did not require it. By default, states were forms of local government. They were very minor in some instances for the purposes of the new federated nation. I probably come from a different philosophical viewpoint. I am not a centralist; I am completely the opposite; I believe in the diminution of power; I believe in getting it as low down as possible. I believe that people are just as capable in Townsville as they are in Brisbane. I do not think that any person in Brisbane is endowed with some sort of exceptional quality that it is not possible to find in some individual in Townsville. They can do just as good a job, given the opportunity. But in this instance, though, on the philosophical argument, I believe that power that gets closer to the people is best for the people. We in this job at a federal level should be doing as much as we possibly can to remove power from here. If you want to send it to the states, send it to the states. Then the states should continue getting it down closer to the people. I do not believe that there is any sort of clandestine plot behind this. I think that it is something that basically takes into account what is actually happening, which is Roads to Recovery et cetera. More specifically, we have been through the Pape case and the Williams case, which were succinct in elucidating the problems. We have to acknowledge that other nations did not have to deal with the problems that we have. In the development of United States of America, closer settlement was inspired by the arrival of the Mayflower in 1620. Closer settlement, after thousands of years of Indigenous oversight, in our nation started in 1788. So our history of closer settlement is about 225 years long. That would put us against the United States, which, in 1845, had a population of around 19.7 million. In 1850 I think it was 25 or 26 million. So we now have a population of that approximate stage. In 1845 Florida was the 27th state claimed. They have managed to evolve with the times, but we have not. We have the same ones we started with. That is a very hard argument to get past people in Cairns, Townsville, Tamworth, Wagga or Albury because they believe in their local area. They see that the political system is starting to become a manifestation of the status quo of the capital cities. To reflect that, they will take us to where senators reside. They will say, 'In some states all 12 out of 12 senators come from one town.' That is not a reflection of the demographic spread. That means they have all the lower house members and all the senators as well all in the one town. So where is their only form of greater demographic representation at some level of government? It is in local government. Quite obviously you are always going to have a partisan view. A partisan view will come from state governments that specifically do not want to see this because there is a turf war between state and local governments. But this issue here is an amendment to section 96. The amendment to section 96 basically allows the granting of money to local governments as long as there is oversight and it is authorised by the state. The states will still retain the right to make local governments, break local governments, make them bigger, make them smaller, get rid of them or do what they like with them. If you went to any state parliament and said, 'Put up your hand all those who don't support this referendum,' everyone would put up their hand. If you went to the local government constitution and said, 'Put up your hand those who do support this referendum,' they would all put up their hand. So we have diametrically opposed positions—both fervently held, but opposite. And that would be natural enough, because they are dealing, in some instances, with a cursory look over their shoulder at the other and with the cautionary principle. The mechanism for this referendum and the process thus far are bad and, in some instances, appalling. I was affronted by the fact that we do not have an equal distribution for the yes and the no case. I wished in all things to engage in a debate on its merits and not have it clouded by the issue of disproportionate funding. I want it to win because it is right, not because we had more money, and I want to engage in a debate on that premise. When you go out on a limb, you do so on the premise of trust. You trust someone to do the right thing. On Sunday night, after I had given my speech, Minister Albanese invited me to the stage to shake my hand. That is fine—there was probably a photo and it is good theatre for him. I was easy with that because I trust people. I work on the premise of trust. But when I woke up on Monday I found out that, with respect to the allocation of funding—because it was all supposed to be fair—one side had $10 million and the other side had $500,000. That is not trust; that is being sneaky, and it does not help the case. It causes problems, because you give people $9½ million worth of reasons to think that you are playing a game—and we do not need to play a game. I like my position on the conservative side of politics because I believe in the liberty of thought, I believe in the jousting of debate and I believe in the separation of the desired acumen from the nastiness that can come into so many things. And might I say that one of those debates is going on on the other side, with the jousting over the leadership in the Labor Party. I wish them the best in working that out. But we have to make sure that we go into this debate with clean hands. If I could run the show, I would have started this debate ages ago, and I think Spigelman asked the same thing. I would have made sure that we had the states onside. I would have said, 'You know what the problem is; give us the terms that you would live with,' but we have not done that. Most importantly, someone has to try to convince the Australian people, who are always suspicious of referendums, why this one, conducted at breakneck speed, with two months to go, should succeed. Under section 126 of the constitution—I might be corrected by Senator Smith—you have two months from the passage of a bill to the start of prepolling, and if you go a day before that this whole process is unconstitutional and therefore the whole thing will get thrown out. The way in which this has been foisted on us is very, very peculiar. I am honest—I put myself forward as being honest; you can form your own opinion of what you think of me—and if a vote on the local government referendum were called now, it would be absolutely annihilated. It would not stand a chance. I am not into Pyrrhic victories; I am just into winning. We have to convince the Australian people of the justification of this in light of a leadership dispute in the Labor Party, which sucks out every bit of oxygen that ever existed, and then, in the frame of an election, which will suck out any oxygen that may be left over. So we are making it incredibly hard for ourselves. A wiser head than mine might suggest that we ought to truly consider whether going to a referendum will succeed—and it is on them. But I will shoulder my burden and do my job because I put up my hand and said I would, and I do not break my word. So that is what will happen. Where does it go from here, who would know? There are 150 seats. One imagines that the only people that local government can now look to for support of this are themselves. It does not need to be said as a tactic; it is just the reality. I will be campaigning flat out to try to win the seat of New England—I can assure you of that—and Mr Albanese will be campaigning flat out to make sure that I do not win. Everybody else will be campaigning flat out to save their bacon or to take somebody else’s. There is only one group of people who can help this referendum succeed, and that is local government themselves. So, where are the campaigns? In which seat do they believe they have this wrapped up and are going to win? They should have 150 campaigns ready to go, but I do not think they have got any. I think there is a belief that, somehow, if you put an ad in the paper or on the television, that does it. No, you literally have to drag people across the line. You have to do what every other politician does: door knock, go to functions, go to town hall meetings. This all has to be done in the same time frame in which an election is going on. I am being a realist. It is going to be incredibly difficult for this to succeed. But does it need to happen? Yes, I fervently believe it does, for a whole range of reasons, first and foremost that the Pape case and the Williams case have brought about problems that are totally unresolved—and more learned and wise people than me have basically brought that to my attention. Secondly, it may be that I am indoctrinated, coming from a state and an area where there is a strong belief in local government. Queensland by its nature is a decentralised state and therefore people have a strong belief in their areas. That might not be the statement of the state parliament at the moment, but I assure you it is the statement of the people on the ground. I am the shadow minister, and I have not had one local government authority come and see me yet saying that they do not want it—and they are of all political hues. It is probably the only thing that draws them together. They all want this. There is a fervent attachment to this debate in many areas. I am incredibly grateful and lucky that, in the coalition, this fervent attachment on both sides is presided over by a group of people who understand that there are differences of views. That is how the coalition operates. I totally respect those who have a different view to mine. I totally understand, to be honest, their bewilderment at times at my views. I have the deepest admiration for my good friend and former colleague former senator Nick Minchin. Nick is pathologically of a different view to me on this one, but I am sure that at the end of this debate we will remain as good friends as we were before it. Isn't that the nature of politics? Isn't that the wonder of Australian democracy? Isn't that the joy and the beauty of this chamber? This chamber, more than anywhere else, has the capacity to conduct a debate where people have fervently-held, well-articulated and well-considered views from all parts of the spectrum. Isn't it a wonder that we have the respect that people can go forward with those views? This is the political football ground and out there is the recreation area, or whatever you like to call it. In conducting this debate, we hope to portray the merits of both our cases to the Australian people. It is going to be highly instructive to them as to how they vote. I will stand behind the position that I hold, and I know that others will stand behind alternative positions. I will respect absolutely the greatest arbiter of the lot, which is the Australian people at the ballot box, and their decision is coming. 12:25 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise this afternoon to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013. If the Senate will indulge me for a brief moment, I note that yesterday's date, 18 June, marked exactly one year since my first speech in this place. Senator Joyce e5d Hear, hear! Senator SMITH 241710 Thank you very much, Senator Joyce. Given my longstanding interest and commitment to maintaining the integrity of Australia's federated structure, I can think of no better way to mark that occasion than to outline some of the dangers to that structure that are contained in this constitutional bill. I want to acknowledge the heartfelt and genuine support of Senator Joyce and others for this important issue. However, I will be voting against this bill. For a long time I have opposed the constitutional recognition of local government on the basis that it would distort the federal structure, give rise to unforeseen and unintended consequences and lead to an eventual eclipse of the states and their eventual irrelevance as a balance against the centralised power of the Commonwealth. I will come to the detail of those arguments shortly. First, however, we need to ask ourselves: why are we preparing to hold a referendum in just 87 days' time on an issue which, frankly, does not loom large in the day-to-day thinking of many Australians? After all, there is no massive groundswell of community opinion demanding constitutional recognition of local government. There is no pressing crisis in our system of government or in our federation that demands this reform. Despite the rhetoric from some of this proposal's more fervent supporters, there is no threat to the services currently being provided by local government across Australia. So why this referendum and why now? I believe a clue as to why this push is coming now lies in an examination of the supporters of this proposal. It is very difficult to identify public supporters of this proposal who are not either members of parliament, mayors, councillors, employees of local governments or the various local government associations that represent local councils. In other words, the chorus of enthusiasts for this proposal starts and ends with political elites, most particularly those who have a vested interest in further centralisation of power in Canberra and local councillors who labour under the misguided belief that this change will mean more funding and greater influence for their councils. In fact, I believe these changes have the potential to neuter councils, but I will come to that shortly. Let us start at the beginning. Let us remember that this referendum was born in the midst of a deal the Prime Minister did with the Greens and Independent MPs in an effort to cling to office after the 2010 election. The policy imperatives have never really been argued by this government. This is a referendum that is being driven by political necessity, not a desire for substantial constitutional reform. Indeed, supporters of this referendum proposal seem to be deeply confused about why we need constitutional recognition of local government at all. The Australian Local Government Association, the peak body to which the Gillard government will funnel $10 million in taxpayers' money in order to campaign for a yes vote, says that constitutional recognition of local government is needed because the Williams and the Pape decisions in the High Court have posed a direct threat to council funding from the Commonwealth. ALGA says that the only way around this is to formally recognise local government in the Constitution. So I was rather surprised when, in the course of questioning during senate estimates, Senator Lundy said that the Williams decision was 'not one of our justifications at all'. Senator Lundy's view is indeed borne out by the wording of the government's bill and the accompanying explanatory memorandum, neither of which mentions the High Court or the Williams or Pape decisions. So we have a situation where the two strongest proponents of constitutional change—the Labor government and ALGA—fundamentally disagree about why this change is needed at all. If they cannot agree, why should the Australian people be expected to take a risk and change a Constitution which has served our nation so well since 1901? Those supporting this change have sought to disguise what they are doing by claiming the change is minor or that it is 'just a few words'. When it comes to wording in the Constitution, many of us know that one word can and will make a difference. Indeed, there is an avalanche of opinion from respected constitutional experts and those with long experience in constitutional interpretation which says that what is being proposed is anything but minor. I trust the views of the former High Court Justice Ian Callinan, who has said: The proposal will, if adopted, enable the Commonwealth government to side line the states and divide and rule a multiplicity of clamouring councils swollen in ego and, inevitably in bureaucracy. Anyone who would believe that local autonomy and democracy will be enhanced would be delusional. Instead, the flow of funds and accordingly the preference for project over project, and their implementation will be micro-managed by Canberra. The marginalised states will be denied the capacity to design and implement the infrastructure that the states require, and, in addition to the demarcation disputes in the High Court between the states and the Commonwealth, there will be endless litigation between the states, the Commonwealth and the new empowered local authorities as to who is entitled to do what and equally importantly, where. Those are not my words but the words of a respected High Court judge. I trust the respected constitutional scholar, Professor Anne Twomey of the University of Sydney. She wrote: A constitutional amendment that permitted the Commonwealth to make grants to local government, ‘on such terms and conditions as the [Commonwealth] Parliament thinks fit’, would provide a further means for the Commonwealth to interfere with and potentially override State policies. It would therefore undermine the federal system of government. Along with many Australians and many in this chamber, I trust the opinion of former Prime Minister John Howard, who was elegant in his simplicity when he provided his view to the Spigelman expert panel on local government recognition. He said: Whilst I respect very much the role of local government in our community I am not disposed to support a constitutional change. The historical evolution of our Constitution has been one of colonies agreeing to form a commonwealth. To use the clumsy jargon, local government units are 'creatures' of the states. In my opinion even a casual reference to local government in the Constitution would end up having legal implications far beyond what might be advocated by the proponents of such a change. I also trust the views of the other Liberal and National Party senators who will be standing up for their states and their local communities by opposing this grab for power. One need not think that it is only conservatives who are opposed to the constitutional change this referendum would propose. Gary Johns, a former Keating government minister, advocates a no vote. Professor Cheryl Saunders, laureate professor at the University of Melbourne law school—someone generally considered to be on the left of the political debate—has said, simply: This is not a good idea. It is correct, as several premiers have argued, that it undermines the authority of the states in areas of state responsibility. I also trust the views of the state governments of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, all of which oppose this referendum. I hold great hope that they will soon be joined by the Queensland government. Nor do all local councils speak with one voice on this matter. In my own state of Western Australia, I am aware of several councils which are ardently opposed to constitutional recognition of local government, among them those of the City of Nedlands, the town of Cambridge in Perth, the Shire of Plantagenet in WA's Great Southern Region and the Shire of Dalwallinu, to name but a few. In my view, opposition to constitutional recognition of local government will only grow stronger in the next 87 days—because its supporters cannot give the people of Australia a single good reason to support it. When you look behind the vapid sloganeering and ALGA's platitudinous claim that to vote no is to vote against local communities—a claim which makes no sense whatsoever—you are not left with very much at all. How do I know this? When the WA Local Government Association and the City of Perth wrote to me and asked me to support this bill, I replied with a series of questions. I asked those questions in good faith—because, if we are to have a fully informed debate, I believe it is important to fully consider all the issues. I asked the City of Perth for information: a list of the moneys currently received directly from the federal government by the City of Perth; a list of the current and future projects which depend on constitutional recognition of local government in order to proceed; a list of previously planned projects which have not proceeded due to local government not being currently recognised in the Constitution; a copy of the legal advice referred to in their letter which claims that this reform proposal will not reduce the power of states over local communities; a copy of any economic modelling they had or had seen demonstrating the economic benefit of constitutional recognition of local government; a copy of the minutes of the meeting at which the City of Perth's position on the proposed referendum was agreed to and advice as to whether or not that decision was unanimous; advice as to whether or not the City of Perth supports the creation of independent, publicly funded yes and no committees for the purpose of preparing cases to be put before electors; and information about what quantum of ratepayers' funds, if any, they had already committed or expected to commit to the campaign to recognise local government in the Constitution. I grant you that that was quite a list. But the essence of those questions is the need for supporters of this referendum to justify the need for the proposed change. In our system, the burden of proof should always rest with the prosecution. If we make this change, what will the benefit for the community be? If we do not, what projects will be prevented from going forward? I sent the letter to the City of Perth and to the Western Australian Local Government Association on 3 June. Last week I received a reply from the Lord Mayor of Perth, and I thank her for that. WALGA has, as of this moment, not had the courtesy to reply to my letter. The City of Perth's answers were far from comprehensive; however, I was pleased to note that they do not plan to contribute any ratepayers' funds to the forthcoming campaign. When we come to identifying projects or services that were under threat because local government is not recognised in the Constitution, the City of Perth evaded the issue. Likewise, they were unable to clearly identify new projects, services or initiatives that were dependent on local government recognition to proceed. I am confident that any replies I receive from other councils in Western Australia will also struggle to identify any such projects. The reason for that is that, despite the spin, this proposed change to our Constitution is not about services and it is not about lower rates for ratepayers or better run councils or better local services—it is about the federal government expanding its influence, having more control over local councils and sidelining the states, all at the expense of local decision-making in local communities across our country. Worse still, so many mayors and local councils around Australia are supporting this because they naively believe that somehow it will result in more money for their councils and give them greater status. In fact, it will reduce their power in the face of the federal government and very possibly reduce their funding too, especially if state governments, knowing that the federal government has a constitutional power to fund councils, decide to reduce their own funding. Even the wording of the proposed alteration is suspect. The proposed change does not refer to local councils; it refers to funding being provided to local government bodies. If passed, this referendum will create a veritable lawyers picnic as everyone rushes off to court to get a judicial interpretation of what constitutes a local government body. What happens when there is a ruling that schools, hospitals and other community services run at local levels constitute local government bodies? It would give the federal government licence to run many, many things. This is surely the most rushed, ill thought through constitutional reform proposition ever put to the Australian people. This bill has never been reviewed independently by the parliament. This government is rushing the bill through this place because it knows that if we had time to stop and understand the consequences the Australian people would run a mile from this proposal, just as they will run a mile from this government. Further proof of that point, if it were needed, came this week when Minister Albanese and the Attorney-General announced the Gillard government's nefarious plan to buy the referendum result through blatant misuse of taxpayers' money. ALGA will be given $10 million to wage its campaign for a yes vote. Those who advocate a no vote will have to make do with just $500,000. This is one of the Gillard government's most scandalous decisions—and, when you consider the performance of this government, that is a very big statement. The government stacking the deck by, in effect, funding only one side of the debate is a total breach of the basic principle of fairness that has always underpinned our democracy. Whatever their views on the constitutional recognition of local government, all Australians would share the view that the upcoming referendum campaign should be conducted in a fair manner. This lopsided funding of the yes case—using the money of taxpayers who will vote no—is an absolute outrage and a disgrace to our most cherished democratic principle, that of fairness. When we last had a referendum in Australia, in 1999 on the republic issue, then Prime Minister John Howard ensured that equal public funding was made available to both the yes and no campaigns. This was despite his own clear personal preference for the no campaign. In marked contrast to John Howard's approach, Julia Gillard has done a grubby deal with the Australian Local Government Association in agreeing to funnel taxpayers' money into what will be a blatantly political campaign. Former Prime Minister John Howard set the standard for fairness in these circumstances—and Julia Gillard has not been able to meet it. The government's decision to weight funding for a referendum campaign in this fashion is entirely without precedent. The government's justification of using the House of Representatives vote on this bill to arrive at its funding formula is laughable. If we want proof that this change is intended to undermine the states, witness the way the government is clearly ignoring the views of the Senate—the states house—in this debate. The Leader of the Opposition has written to the Prime Minister and called on her to reverse this decision. As he correctly notes in his letter, funding one side of the debate over the other by a factor of 20 to one looks like the government is trying to buy the result it wants. Indeed, I believe that is exactly what the government is doing. The Leader of the Opposition's letter to the Prime Minister says: … it is not up to the Government of the day to pre-determine the outcome of any referendum question: a referendum is a decision for the Australian people to make.' He is quite correct. Any referendum must be conducted in a spirit of absolute fairness and with both sides being given the opportunity to put their views; not with a desperate Labor government trying to stack the deck in its own favour. This lopsided funding scheme is nothing more than the government trying to drown out the critics of this reform. Truly great thinkers have a way of remaining relevant beyond their time. In closing my contribution, I reflect on the words of John Stuart Mill, from his 'On Liberty' essay of 1869: If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Labor senators and those on the cross bench would do well to reflect on the wisdom of those words and urge the Prime Minister to adhere to the very basic principles of democratic fairness and decency in our nation and ensure that equal funding is provided to both the yes and no referendum campaigns. As Senator Brandis commented earlier, it is a glory of the Liberal Party that all voices are able to be heard on issues that are contentious in our party. It remains the ost notable differentiator between our own party and the Australian Labor Party. In my first speech, a year ago today, I prayed for conviction in the words I speak and courage in every action. With all my heart and with all the political principles I hold dear, I reject this bill and the dubious motives that drive it. Debate interrupted. MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST 3373 MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Literacy Skills 3373 12:45 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I have spoken previously in this place about the National Year of Reading 2012 and the importance of encouraging children to read, and I was really proud to serve as a national ambassador for this program along with great Australian icons such as William McInnes, Anh Do and Jennifer Byrne. The National Year of Reading was started by a national network of libraries and it linked together all the great things happening around Australia promoting books, literacy and a love of reading. That campaign was a resounding success. I have a few statistics to demonstrate how successful it was. The National Year of Reading received $1.7 million in funding, including $1.3 million from the Gillard government. From this, it leveraged $5.6 million of in-kind support and media coverage, with an estimated value of $26 million. That is roughly $20 of value for every dollar invested. More than 4,000 events were held across Australia and the campaign had 12,000 online followers and 200,000 participants. Now that the National Year of Reading is over, the national network of libraries that started this campaign have decided to continue it with the Love2Read campaign. Both campaigns were motivated by an Australian Bureau of Statistics report entitled the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey, or ALLS. The report found that 46 per cent of Australians lacked the literacy skills needed to perform fully in life and work. In Tasmania, my home state, the figure is 49 per cent, the worst performance of all the states and territories, and an outcome that I am very keen to work to address. Having literacy skills at this level can mean facing difficulty in important day-to-day tasks like reading a newspaper or making sense of bus timetables. But it is hard to see whether these figures have improved. The ALLS has been superseded by the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, which in 2011-12 found that the number of Australians aged 15 to 74 with literacy skills below the level needed to fully function in life and work had fallen slightly to 44 per cent. However, the ABS cautions that the data from ALLS is not directly comparable with the data from this survey. Still, this is a disappointing result and one that as a nation we have to work hard to improve. The overwhelming majority of Australian adults can read and write, but it is a question of whether their literacy skills are adequate for the most basic day-to-day challenges life throws at them. While adult literacy is important, we know that we can deliver the best outcomes by developing literacy skills early, especially in childhood. An important part of this is encouraging a love of reading, which we can achieve through our schools, through our public libraries, in the home and in many other settings. Research shows that young children who are read to regularly by family members develop literacy skills long before they are able to read, and they also experience emotional and mental benefits. Developing literacy skills confers many other benefits in childhood and later on in life. It is our most important way of acquiring the information we need for our work and day-to-day living. It is our primary source of learning and gaining knowledge. When we read fiction, it helps inspire us and develop our imagination, which sharpens our skills in creative thinking. Reading is the foundation of almost every other skill we will attain in life, even the most basic skills of writing, numeracy and critical thinking. That is why I support the Love2Read campaign because it is of such fundamental importance to our society. Love2Read helps to promote not just the practice but the enthusiastic enjoyment of an activity that leads to an essential life skill. Love2Read features several national events that promote the love of reading. On 22 May this year, I participated in National Simultaneous Storytime. I read a book to a group of about 20 children at the Learning and Information Network Centre, or LINC, in Rosney on Hobart's eastern shore. I have over a decade of experience as an early childhood educator, so I knew how to involve the children in the activity in a way that was fun and engaging for them, and they certainly were engaged in my reading the story. National Simultaneous Storytime aims to encourage young Australians to read and enjoy books, and involves the simultaneous reading at venues across Australia of a well-known children's book. The book chosen this year is Nick Bland's The Wrong Book. When I asked how many children in the group of about 20 knew this book, it was like being a schoolteacher in fact, because all bar about four kids put up their hands. That showed me that either the parents or the childcare educators in these children's lives were actively pursuing reading to them, and I was really happy to see that. The book was chosen to explore age-appropriate themes and address key areas of the national curriculum for grades 1 to 6. The event is now in its 13th year. If you have not read The Wrong Book, I would encourage everyone to take a couple of minutes of their life to read it. National Simultaneous Storytime 2013 was held at 2,300 locations with 410,000 children enjoying the story at the same time. Another national event is The Reading Hour. The Reading Hour is a series of events and activities held nation-wide, which this year will take place on 24 August. While The Reading Hour is notionally between 6 pm and 7 pm, many events will be held during the day to accommodate venue opening hours or to coincide with other events. The Reading Hour is a campaign aimed at encouraging parents to read to their children for just 10 minutes a day, or roughly one hour a week, and I do not think that is too much to ask of any parent. It also tries to instil in parents the attitude that reading should start at the earliest possible time in a child's development. Most of our brain development happens between birth and the age of three, so we should not just assume that reading is something that happens at school. Parents have a responsibility to read to their kids and to ensure that regular reading is part of their routine. As a national ambassador for Love2Read I do whatever I can to promote reading. I often read books to children during some of my many visits to local schools in Tasmania; I try to promote Love2Read initiatives through local media; and I donate books as prizes for school fairs and end-of-year school assemblies, and to childcare centres when I visit them. I also attend literacy related events throughout Tasmania. Just in March this year, I participated in a Rock & Rhyme event, which is an interactive session for parents and/or carers and their babies, at the Kingston LINC, some 500 metres away from my office. Rock & Rhyme is a weekly series of half-hour sessions which include songs, nursery rhymes, stories and music. It promotes listening, memory and vocabulary skills, as well as promoting the bonds between children and their parents. Rock & Rhyme is based on the Canadian Parent-Child Mother Goose Program. It started at the Launceston Lending Library in Hobart, which is now the Launceston LINC, and it has been rolled out state wide and even interstate, and it is getting great support. Of course, you do not have to be a Love2Read ambassador to promote the joys of reading. As I have mentioned quite a few times already, it is something I really believe we all have a responsibility to do. If you are an adult who finds reading challenging, why not enrol in a literacy class? Thanks to the Tasmanian government and some non-government community services, my home state has free adult literacy programs available through LINC Tasmania, the 26TEN grants program and a variety of other providers, including some neighbourhood houses and community centres. The Australian government also provides help to job seekers in developing reading, writing, maths and language skills through the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education's Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program. It is never too late to enhance your reading skills; and, when you do, you will find that it opens up a whole new world of possibilities. Not only is it useful and educational but it has the added benefit of being fun—not all the time but a lot of the time. For more information about the Love2Read campaign, I encourage you to visit their website at www.love2read.org.au. The Love2Read website has links to Facebook and Twitter, so those on social media can share their information through that process. For Tasmanians, there is also some fantastic information about adult literacy at www.26ten.tas.gov.au. We in this place have precious little spare time but, when we do, reading a good book or a newspaper is a great way to fill it. I know that lots of senators and members do take advantage of the time we spend in the air to do some reading, whether it is newspapers, fiction or non-fiction books. I certainly try to read whenever I get the time, and I do encourage every Australian to discover the joys of reading, if they have not already. As a child I lived in the country and did not have access to a library until I was seven years old. When we first moved into the suburbs, one of the first things my mum did was take me to the library, because until then we had only had access to the mobile school library bus. I found it was not much of a detour, walking home from school, to go via that library and I dropped in fairly frequently. I still love going to libraries when I get the chance. Obviously, the Parliamentary Library is a very valuable asset to senators and members here, and I am very proud to be on the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library. The library has a fiction section as well as a non-fiction section, and there are some brilliant books in there. I would encourage any member or senator who has not been in the Parliamentary Library to go in and support it. It is really important that we not only enjoy reading for ourselves but share and promote a love of reading at every opportunity. You can set up a reading group if you have the time. You can discuss your favourite books with your friends. I know that in my family we actually share our books and pass them around to other family members. If you are not a member of your local library, as I have said previously, now is the time to join. It is free. I do not understand why any adult, in particular, would not be a member of their local library. In the last few minutes of this contribution, I reiterate the importance of reading to kids and young people. We cannot overestimate the importance of our involvement in reading to kids, not just as a learning concept—the child learning to read, understanding words and how grammar and those sorts of things work—but also as a bonding process. Even if you do not have children of your own, you must know children, and I would encourage everybody to take the time to read to a small person. It is quite a heart-warming experience. As I said earlier, 10 minutes a day is not a huge ask of a parent—and, once kids start school, it is too late, really, to worry about starting the process of them learning to read. So, if you have kids, read to them. Establish a regular habit of reading; that is really important. I know that when my children, now adults, were very small it was a very important part of their bedtime routine. Lots of parents do that and I think that is a great thing to do, as it is part of relaxing before they go to sleep and brings all those other benefits I have already mentioned. Encourage any other parents you know to do the same. As I said, we all have a part to play in ensuring that everybody, including us, has this essential life skill, because if you cannot read—if you cannot read what is it says on the can in the supermarket, if you cannot read a newspaper, if you cannot read a bus timetable—then life is going to be very difficult. I think, if everybody in this place encouraged people to read and to make sure they can read adequately, we should be able to become a nation of readers very easily. Australian Securities and Investments Commission 3376 12:59 Senator JOHNSTON 00AON Western Australia I want to talk today about the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. ASIC is a problem as an agency. Its administration and management have been of very serious concern to many in this parliament and particularly in this Senate chamber for some time now. The minister is clearly not up to the managerial or public policy challenges which the maladministration of this agency presents. There is very little distinction to be drawn between his capacity and that of the wider mayhem and incompetence of his ministerial colleagues. I wanted to take these matters up at Senate estimates but the queue to question the ASIC officials was so extensive and the government's desire and intent to shut down estimates so obvious that I could not get a chance to ask my questions. So here I am today. I want to draw the Senate's attention to a recent prosecution of a number of defendants for a breach of the insider trading laws of the Corporations Act, specifically section 1043, for which the penalty for a breach is 10 years' imprisonment. Before I deal with the specific facts I draw the chamber's attention to, firstly, the 'model litigant' rules which set out that the Commonwealth must be a model litigant. It requires that the government, as a party to litigation, acts with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards. This applies to courts and tribunals. The expectation that the Commonwealth and its agencies will act as a model litigant has long been recognised by the courts. The rules set out what some of those criteria and principles need to be: making an early assessment of the Commonwealth agency's prospects of success; not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks resources; and apologising when the agency is aware that it has acted wrongfully or improperly. I also draw attention to the prosecution policy of the Commonwealth, which in paragraph 2.5(a) sets out that a prosecution should not proceed if there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction being secured. In other words, there must be sufficient evidence before the prosecution should proceed. Secondly, in paragraph 2.8, consideration must be given to whether in the light of the provable fact and the whole of the surrounding circumstances, the public interest requires the prosecution be pursued. There we have it: sufficient interest and public interest tests for a prosecution by this Commonwealth. I will come back to the public interest test in a moment. The facts in this particular case are that four defendants were charged with a number of offences. There were three Western Australians and one Victorian. The Victorian was charged with five offences; one Western Australian was charged with 20 offences, another with 13 offences and the last one with four offences. As I have said, these offences carry a 10-year imprisonment penalty. The case was based upon the fact that the defendants had heard a rumour of a takeover of a specific corporation. One of the defendants was a resident of Victoria and Victoria has a preliminary hearing structure in its law, such that the evidence required to prove this case is put to a test before a magistrate—in this instance, magistrate WJG O'Day. I will set out what his ruling was. He said, in dismissing the case, that he was satisfied 'on the material that is before this court that a properly instructed jury could not convict the accused, Mr McKenzie'—who was one of the four defendants. He ruled that the case was a circumstantial one and on the material presented before him, both by way of oral evidence, witness statements and exhibits, there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for the offences for which Mr McKenzie was charged. Mr McKenzie was therefore discharged in relation to the five charges he faced. The magistrate found that it was a circumstantial case; the alleged inside information could not be traced to the source either within the relevant company or an organisation advising that company; the company had adopted a confidential regime to keep details of any proposed takeover secret; there was no evidence that the particular defendant was in any way associated with the company that was the target of the rumour; there was the evidence of financial analysts—three of whom said there was clearly identified information in the public domain that identified the company as a potential takeover target and the reports were available in the industry and available to all publicly. Given that the financial analysts reached their conclusions from publicly available information, the Crown was not capable of excluding the reasonable possibility that the information in the defendant's possession was the result of his deductions, conclusions or inferences made or drawn from publicly available information. What we have is a magistrate exploring the full extent of the ASIC prosecution and saying 'the evidence is insufficient'. You would think that ASIC would have appealed that finding. They did not. Notwithstanding, the prosecution had the right to go to an indictment with the Victorian defendant. You would think that they would do that; they did not. So they did not appeal and they did not take the matter any further. However, with respect to the Western Australians, on precisely the same facts that this magistrate threw out, they proceeded to conduct a three-week Supreme Court trial. It was a three-week Supreme Court trial on precisely the same facts that the magistrate in Victoria threw out because of a lack of sufficient evidence. During the time of the alleged insider trading, there were 2,500 trades in this company. Having been told of this insufficiency, they persisted with a most expensive exercise in prosecuting—or should I say, persecuting—three defendants in Western Australia. The jury trial concerned two of the three Western Australians. The third was a 75-year-old retired stockbroker in very bad health. It comes as no surprise that the jury did not convict either of the two who went all the way through the three-week Supreme Court trial. Indeed, on all of the charges, save for two in each, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty. The prosecution subsequently decided to discontinue further prosecution of those two charges. They flew a QC to Perth from the eastern states. On one occasion they flew a QC to Perth for a five-minute directions hearing. Nice work if you can get it! Having been told the evidence was insufficient by a judicial officer in Victoria, the three-week trial went on with all its glory, everybody singing and dancing. What on earth was the cost of that? The 75-year-old former stockbroker in bad health did a plea bargain with them. He had been charged with four counts but pleaded guilty to one count and negotiated with the Crown. Judge Corboy set out the nature of the agreement in his sentencing remarks. The Crown agreed that a fine was appropriate, despite having maintained that imprisonment was suitable for the other two defendants, as this 75-year-old defendant did not actually know that the information giving rise to the offence was not in the public domain. So it is almost an absolute offence. Judge Corboy found that the offence was actually a negligent breach of the section. He said, 'I consider that your offending is the least serious category of insider trading cases.' So we have had a three-week all-singing, all-dancing trial on what has been adjudicated pretty accurately by Judge Corboy as one of the least serious categories of insider trading cases. The public interest test that a prosecution should be pursued with talks about the seriousness, or conversely the relative triviality, of the alleged offence. These facts clearly fit that mould. It goes on to talk about the antecedents of the offender's background. None of these defendants had any previous convictions. So it goes on. Clause 2.10 of the prosecutions principles regarding how the Commonwealth should proceed with a prosecution sets out so many matters that cause concern as to why this matter went on. Indeed, it is a very sorry saga of a vindictive waste of Commonwealth money. They also took the security dealers licence from one of the three Western Australians. They took that licence before they conducted the trial. So they deprived him of a livelihood. He had not even been tried, had not been found guilty of any offence—and to this day has not been found guilty of any offence—and they have taken his licence from him. You would think they would return it. No. They are happy for him to be left high and dry. Who is running this kangaroo court? Who is spending this Commonwealth money with no good reason? Who is doing all of this? I have here some information regarding exactly what was going on with this. The first thing I found out is that the person who is running ASIC is a man called Greg Medcraft. In researching who this person is and wondering whether he had any legal qualifications, I found that he was running the New York division of the French bank Societe Generale. Surprise, surprise, I found that this bank is being accused by the US government of breaking some corporate laws and engaging in some misconduct. How on earth would a person such as this be put in charge of ASIC, I ask myself. The answer is that the Prime Minister granted an exemption from her government's policy promising an open, merit based senior public sector appointments test to allow the former banking executive to head the corporate regulator without advertising the role. There is a queue a mile long of senators and members of this parliament with complaints against this agency. This is because the Prime Minister decided to give the job to a mate without going through the open, merit based public sector appointment process. Treasurer Wayne Swan has refused to answer questions on the process. It is a $700,000-a-year job that was not advertised and was given to a mate. The Prime Minister has confirmed that she approved an exemption from the open and merit based appointment policy. Mr Medcraft confirmed to a Senate committee in May that he had been appointed as chairman without the job being advertised. In February 2008, John Faulkner released a policy to strengthen transparency and merit-based selection when appointing senior public servants. Under the policy, 135 public sector positions and 65 agency heads were to be advertised, based on merit, oversighted by the relevant departmental secretary and the Public Service Commissioner. The commissioner, Mr Stephen Sedgwick, has said that he was not involved in Mr Medcraft's selection. That is where the problem lies. This man has had a relationship with this particular bank which the US housing agency alleges was negligent, did shoddy due diligence and seriously misled American loan providers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What on earth is going on here? The corporate regulator is run by someone who has a cloud over him. Surprise, surprise, they were given an exemption, and this is an appointment under the carpet by the Prime Minister. This kangaroo court that is ASIC needs to front a parliamentary inquiry. These matters need to be put on the table. We need to get to the bottom of what on earth is going on when a case is struck out in Victoria for no proper evidence and ASIC then spend three weeks in the Supreme Court in Western Australia with precisely the same facts. This is a kangaroo court of the worst possible type. These are vindictive public officers who have been put in place surreptitiously and who have a big black cloud over them, over their integrity and their capacity. Yet they are in charge as corporate regulators. This is a disgrace, and I want to see this parliament and this chamber conduct a detailed inquiry, because I am not the only one who stands up here and complains about this agency. There is a queue a mile long. Something has got to be done about it. Refugees 3379 13:14 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak on the issues of immigration and refugees. Refugee Week is being celebrated right around the world this week and tomorrow is World Refugee Day, which is supported and promoted by the United Nations. The theme for Refugee Week this year is Restoring Hope. It is very pertinent to think about what that means for those who arrive here in Australia looking for the hope to rebuild their lives, the hope of safety and the hope that finally their children will be able to start learning, as they settle into a new country and start to rebuild their lives together as a family. When Australia signed up to the refugee convention some 60 years ago, we did so very proudly. In fact, Australia was one of the leading nations in the drafting of this convention; we led the debates on the international stage and we drafted the provisions side by side with other nations who wanted to see this important protection acknowledged in international law. We drafted the words for this convention—we drafted the rules that countries would abide by, because there was a consensus that never again should vulnerable people who are fleeing persecution be turned away at the borders of countries that could offer them sanctuary. Of course, this was a reflection on what had happened to thousands of refugees who had fled Germany and Europe during World War II. The consensus of nations signing the convention was that there needed to be a set of rules that signatory countries would abide by and would hold each other accountable to—so that they would stand up and say: 'Where somebody is in need, we will give them that protection. We will ensure that they are given safety, so that we do not have to see unnecessary human suffering.' Australia has much to be proud of: not only how we led that debate on the international stage some 60 years ago but also how we have implemented our commitment to that protection over the decades. Unfortunately, we have less to be proud of in recent times. Even just this week—despite the international promotion, support and celebration of the contributions that refugees have made in newfound homes and lands through the World Refugee Day celebrations—we have seen commentary here in Australia that Australia should no longer abide by the refugee convention. Thankfully, I do not believe this is a view that is held or promoted by very many. But there are other things here in Australia, in government policy, that have not been part of that proud tradition of how our country has engaged, protected and supported refugees. We have more children than ever before locked in immigration detention, and their only reason for being here in Australia is that they had to flee persecution, torture or brutality, at the hands of repressive regimes. These children have committed no crimes; they are here asking for our help and for sanctuary. Yet almost 2,000 children remain in immigration detention today in Australia. We are the only country which detains refugee children indefinitely. We are the only country that has a legislated policy that is in direct conflict with our obligations under the refugee convention as to how we treat children. After what has been a toxic debate over immigration and refugees in this country for over a decade, we now see a suite of policies that are inflicting more pain and suffering on people who have fled some of the world's most brutal regimes—policies such as the government's no-advantage rule, which was supported both in this place and in the other place less than 12 months ago, and supported by the coalition as well as the government. After the Houston panel handed down their report in August last year, we were told—the Australian public, senators in this place, members in the other place—that if we wanted to stop people coming to Australia by boat, we had to implement what is called the no-advantage rule. The Houston report outlined this as the key plank of the policy of stopping people coming here to Australia by dangerous boat journeys, and that it would do more to help refugees than to hinder the support of them. Well, that has unfortunately been proven to be an utter failure. Not only has the no-advantage rule failed to stop people coming by boat, it has failed to care for them as well. It has failed to stop people's lives being lost at sea. It has not offered the protection that we know, from right down in our history pages, is so important among the reasons why we are signatories to the refugee convention the first place. It has not made children safer, it has not offered them sanctuary; what this no-advantage rule is doing, however, is stripping much of the hope that refugees had when they arrived here in Australia. It continues to strip them of that hope. We have thousands of refugees living in the Australian community who are not able to work under this no-advantage rule. They have been pushed into poverty, because they are not allowed to work and only after a certain amount of time do they get any financial support. We now see families of refugees being pushed into these circumstances. It is not just cruel politics, it is actually dumb politics. We know overwhelmingly that the numbers of people who are coming here to Australia—and we can lose perspective here—are greater than they have been before, but they are tiny in comparison to the numbers of people fleeing over borders in other parts of the world. Yet these people are overwhelmingly found to be in need of protection. They will end up becoming Australian citizens, and yet we have made them suffer even more through this no-advantage rule and no-advantage policy. People who are more than willing and able to be productive members of our community—and to give their skills, their time and their dedication—are being stripped of the opportunity to do that. The Houston report needs to be called for what it is: it is a sham. It has been a sham and it has been a failure. It is time that the authors of that report explained why this report has not delivered what they said it would, based on that key plank of the no-advantage rule. There has been a lot of debate. As we know, this toxic debate about immigration and refugees does nothing to help build us up as a nation. In fact, it tears at the very fabric of our communities. I would argue that the rhetoric around refugees and asylum seekers—particularly in the last 12 months, but increasingly as we get towards an election—is becoming nastier, dirtier and even more dangerous. Dog-whistle politics is what we have in relation to this issue. We have seen it before. We saw it when John Howard—the former prime minister—was desperate to win the 2001 election. We saw how he used the issues of refugees and played politics with the lives of people who had already suffered so much and had committed no crime, other than to try to flee brutality and torture. In 2001, John Howard used the lives of refugees to win an election. Here, in 2013, we see history repeating itself. Dog-whistle politics may win votes from some quarters, but it actually demeans us all. It tears at the very fabric of our nation, which has had a proud history of migration. We are a multicultural country, and I believe it is one of the things that makes our country the luckiest place to live on earth. We have generosity that is shared amongst neighbours and has been fostered by learning of each other's experiences, cultures and values. Dog-whistle politics drives a spear through that generosity, that goodwill and that basic Australian value of giving each other a fair go. Three years ago, when Julia Gillard took over the leadership of the Australian Labor Party, Kevin Rudd warned that there would be a lurch to the right on refugee policy. Sadly, that is exactly what we have seen. Julia Gillard and the Labor Party have shown no courage and have not stood up to Tony Abbott's fearmongering on refugees. They are locked in a race to the bottom on immigration policy. The question that lingers in my mind is: if there were a leadership change in the Labor Party, what would happen? Would Kevin Rudd lift the work ban that currently exists on refugees? Would Kevin Rudd say that it was time that the Labor Party returned to a humane policy that treated refugees as people, not as political footballs? I do not know the answers to those questions, but what I do know is that, as we get closer to election day, we need more voices from this place to stand up and call out the demeaning, nasty and cruel beating up on a minority group for no fault of their own, except that they have fled a brutal regime. We should be standing up for what Australia is known as—as the caring and lucky country. Refugees are here to make our country great. Anzac Day Remembrance Tour 3382 13:29 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia It is a great privilege to make a 15-minute contribution on a matter of public interest. I have the pleasure of being the patron of the Darling Range Sports College in Western Australia, which is out in Perth's eastern suburbs. For those of you who are not from WA, the eastern suburbs do not have streets lined with Mercedes Benz or BMWs—although there is nothing wrong with that; I wish I had one, but I do not, and neither do the residents Forrestfield and surrounding suburbs. Last year, I was invited to—and made sure I turned up for—the Anzac Day service that the school holds in its brand-new gymnasium. When I saw the commitment and dedication of the school population through the songs being sung, the wreaths being laid and the respect being given to our fallen diggers, I approached the Principal, Mr Peter Noack, about it. Peter supports me in the leadership programs that I run through the college and that predominantly involve tracking through the Kimberley. I said to Peter, 'What if we divert from that program and do something different? If I go out and put in my best effort to tap the business community—put on the big sad eyes, put out a good speech, put on a dinner—and raise a few bob, we could take a group of students on a World War I Anzac remembrance tour on the Western Front.' He emphatically supported me on this idea. So, to cut a very long story short, after numerous phone calls and me pestering as many people as I could, we raised nearly $70,000. This gave me the opportunity to accompany Peter, his able deputy Ms Kaye Valencia, and another teacher Lyndall Andrews in taking 21 students—predominantly 17-year-olds, with a sprinkling of 16-year-olds—on a tour to France and Belgium. Very quickly, so that I can put some context to this, when I was a kid at school, back in the sixties, my knowledge of Australia's involvement in World War I was sadly limited to Private Simpson and his donkey at Gallipoli. I never knew of or learnt about anything else about World War I. I will give my teachers the opportunity—because they are not here to defend themselves—to say whether or not I was paying attention to anything else they said. That is another argument; but I do not recall learning anything else about World War I. For those out there listening to this discussion, at the time of World War I, Australia's population was four million and 416,809 Australians enlisted for service in World War I. This number represented 38.7 per cent—it is hard to imagine—of the total male population between the ages of 18 and 44. Approximately 300 Australians served on the Western Front. By the time the war ended, 46,000 of those boys had died or were lost; 131,000 had been wounded. The Australian casualty rate was the highest in the war, which sat at about 65 per cent. Australian soldiers are honoured at over 500 cemeteries and memorials around the world, which feature the names of no fewer than 1,000 Australians who have a 'no name' grave. We visited a number of sites. For the majority of the students, this was their first venture out of Australia, let alone to Europe at the end of a very cold winter! Our travels took us to many war graves and sites, but I will name just a few. Our first visit was to Fromelles; the Pheasant Wood there is the actual memorial and VC Corner is the cemetery. It honours the 5th Australian Division. Sadly, there were 5,533 casualties over 48 hours of fighting in July 1916 at Fromelles. It brought home to the students that, here they were, thousands of kilometres from home, on foreign soil and for our boys there is no good story; there is no great story immediately. There is a great story later on the contribution that the Australian soldiers made here. I made sure that the students got off the bus. It was freezing cold, but I said to them: 'Let's get off the bus. You've got to walk. You've got to experience this. You've got to look at the headstones'—and they did. These are Commonwealth war graves, which are an honour to the Commonwealth and to our Belgian and French counterparts who look after them. The students went through them, looking for family names. The students had programs and projects to do. They had to find some soldiers, and they had to find some family—it was all part of the tour. I made sure that the students got to see the headstones that had the very pointed words inscribed at the bottom of them: it was an Australian soldier 'known unto God'—meaning, we did not know who that was; the family did not know. I found a particular headstone, and said to the kids, 'Come and have a look at this one.' It was the grave of a 16-year-old soldier. This brave young man, Private Cecil Morgan, also known as Colin Meyers, from the 31st Battalion Australian Infantry. He died on 19 July, 1916—aged 16. These students were aged 16 and 17, and so this was very moving for them; it sunk in. We followed the tour and went on to other military cemeteries like Ploegsteert. We went into VC Corner, as I said. We went to Messines Ridge. We went into the St. Symphorien Military Cemetery, through Belgium. We also went to one called Hill 60, where we were met by a wonderful human being, Mr Didier Pontzeele. Didier was provided to us by the Belgian war graves commission. He was to be our tour guide. To have Didier with us was just magnificent, because he was a walking encyclopaedia of World War I. Didier's role is that of a military man, but he looks after Australian war graves. Didier refers to these graves as 'his boys'. He goes around Belgium day in, day out—that is his job—checking the graves to make sure that they are in good shape. I acknowledge Senator Cormann in the chamber. May I tip my hat to you, mate, because your government were brilliant. They were a fantastic help. Senator Cormann, although you and I may exchange a few barbs in jest and sometimes not so much in jest, the friendship and relationship between our two countries is magnificent, is long and will not be broken. This gives me the opportunity to say to you that you and I might disagree on a few things, but isn't it a wonderful thing that our relationship as countries goes back that far? Didier took us to Hill 60. It is an amazing place. Hill 60, to cut a long story short, was where about 1,000 Germans were in a perfect position to see across the fields. They had a brilliant position to, unfortunately, get to our soldiers before we could get to the hill. But the Australian tunnelling division, predominantly boys from Kalgoorlie, came in and used their skills in mining to dug some 20 or 30 tunnels. They put massive amounts of ammunition in them and eventually blew up Hill 60. Didier gave us this tour that captured the attention of the kids for the hour or so we were there. He said that there were 19 bombs that went off all at one time of the 21 that were set. He said it was reported that the shock waves were felt as far away as England and Ireland. He also told us that two of the bombs did not go off. He said that one was set off back in the 1960s when they found it and the other one has a farmhouse on it. The old Belgian gentleman who lives there says it is not worrying him. He has no intentions of putting a swimming pool in, so he will leave it there. We also spent time, with Didier escorting us, in that wonderful town of Ypres. Ypres has a really sad World War I history. Three times it was attacked and three times the Australians came to their aid, as did other Commonwealth armies, to save them from German invasions. We visited the Flanders Fields Museum. We also went to the Somme and visited the Somme museum. I could talk underwater with a gob full of marbles for an hour on this, but I know I have to get moving. The highlight of the tour, the kids told me, was the privilege of attending the Villers-Bretonneux dawn service. When you sit in Villers-Bretonneux and it is about two degrees and freezing cold honouring our soldiers it is a great feeling because the crowd of some 4,000 people are predominantly people from all over Australia who have headed to Fromelles. There is nothing better than seeing the Australian flag and also the odd Geelong Football Club hat. There were also North Melbourne hats, some Eagles hats—they were all there. Their wearers were proudly honouring our fallen soldiers. The students also had the wonderful opportunity to work at the dawn service, handing out pins and guiding people to their seats. Everywhere you go in Villers-Bretonneux there are Australian flags. Australians are loved, and why wouldn't we be? We are always welcome, to the point where there is even a Victoria school and a Victoria cafe. I think maybe the Victorians played a big role in Villers-Bretonneux. After there, we were invited to attend the French memorial in Bullecourt where once again we had the privilege of standing with the French and honouring their fallen. Then we walked about 1.2 kilometres to the Australian memorial once again for a service and to lay wreaths. This could not have happened without the fantastic support of the wonderful human beings who did not knock me back. They realised that if they said no, I would be back again next year! To those sponsors, on behalf of the students and their parents, I cannot thank you enough. Your generosity to kids you do not even know is heart-warming and I thank you for that. I would also like to acknowledge some very special people with the short time I have left. I thank the Ambassador of Belgium, His Excellency Mr Patrick Renault, for his fantastic assistance to us. As some people might know, the King of Belgium—have I got that right?— Senator Cormann HDA The Crown Prince. Senator STERLE e68 Thank you, Senator Cormann. The Crown Prince of Belgium visited Australia last year and was kind enough to provide a couple of people for me to meet with to talk about our tour. I would like to thank Mr Jean Corleone, the director of remembrance and communication at the Belgian National Institute for Veterans and Victims of War, and Mr Paul Breyne, the commissioner general for the coordination of the commemoration of World War I and former mayor of West Flanders. They were absolutely fantastic to us. You can take this back, Senator Cormann: the Belgians were wonderful. They are wonderful people. Their memories of and thanks to Australia are not forgotten. They treated us like royalty, I can tell you. They escorted us around Ypres. They could not do enough for us. I warned them. I said, 'If you get too good at this, I will be back next year.' Hence that is what is happening. I am going back. I am just giving a heads up to the sponsors. I will be back, knocking on your doors, saying, 'Here we go again.' I must say a very special thankyou to Didier Pontzeele. I have invited Didier to come to Australia. I will be funding the trip for Didier. I am going to do a function with Didier so that Western Australians can hear of the fine work that he does. Didier has a wonderful story to tell about his family in World War I. I am not going to spoil that. You will have to buy a ticket and come to the function. Didier will also explain his role. As I said, he refers to those fallen soldiers as 'his boys'. We were with Didier on the last day in his hometown of Ghent where we had a couple of hours to explore that wonderful town. Didier and I were talking when his phone rang. He took the phone call, spoke for about three minutes and then hung up and said, 'Sorry, I had to take that. We have just found another set of remains. I'll let you know.' A couple of days later he said, 'It is a British soldier.' About a week or so later when we were back in Perth, he rang and said, 'You are not going to believe this: we have just found another Australian.' So Didier will be coming. To Didier I say, 'Mate, we can't wait to have you out here. We will spoil you. We will show you the same hospitality that you afforded us. You will be directing us around Belgium again next year I can guarantee you, mate, because we will be there.' I would also like to make a very quick plug for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I have sat through senate estimates where I have heard the Public Service attacked for going off to ceremonies overseas. If it were not for the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the 4,000 Australians who were at Villers-Bretonneux would not have received the fantastic service they did. Congratulations to the department. I want to thank the minister, Minister Snowdon, for his assistance too. I congratulate the department. When it was three degrees in Villers-Bretonneux, that cup of coffee was very warm, and there were 4,000 on the day—thank you. (Time expired) Parliamentary Privilege 3385 13:44 Senator BOSWELL YE4 Queensland As a member of the Senate for 30 years, I appreciate that members of parliament are given considerable privileges, but with those privileges come great responsibility. Nowhere does this responsibility need to be exercised more judiciously than in statements about the actions and character of others. In the Australian parliament, we can speak on the record without fear of the redress available through action for slander or libel or defamation that would be available if we were to make those same statements outside parliament. We are, indeed, in a privileged position. However, we must use this privilege wisely, responsibly and not maliciously—not, for example, to damage our political opponents or those we may dislike to gain personal advantage or settle a score with an old adversary and not, for example, by repeating unfounded, damaging rumours with not a shred of evidence to support them. Yet this is exactly what the member for New England did in the House of Representatives on 28 May. Tony Windsor made statements about rumoured donations to the campaign of his opponent, Barnaby Joyce, suggesting that Senator Joyce might receive up to $700,000 from Gina Rinehart. However, when challenged about his statement, Mr Windsor admitted he had no proof and that he was just repeating a rumour. That is not the standard of behaviour Australians expect from their members of parliament. Sadly, Mr Windsor has form in this area. He has a habit of making unsubstantiated claims about people he considers political opponents. In the most recent example, Mr Windsor, under parliamentary privilege, said this: In the seat of New England, there are significant rumours that the National Party candidate for New England … is to receive a quite substantial donation—some hundreds, perhaps even $700,000—from mining magnate Gina Rinehart. He went on to say: That is an easy statement to make, but I would like Ms Rinehart to clarify her position on how many hundreds of thousands she is giving to a candidate in New England. She does not reside in New England and I do not think she has any interest in New England. One has to ask why she is providing that sort of funding to a candidate in New England. We all know that Mrs Rinehart in fact has not provided that funding to Barnaby Joyce. Mr Windsor could have discovered that, had he really wanted to, with a simple telephone call to Mrs Rinehart's office. Mr Windsor achieved his real aim, which was to generate publicity he felt may be damaging to Barnaby Joyce. Mrs Rinehart was forced to publicly defend herself. She issued a statement that said, in part: 'It has maliciously been suggested that I have donated some $700,000 or hundreds of thousands of dollars to Barnaby's campaign, when a simple inquiry by the current member to me or my office, would have found that I have not done so, and have never been asked to do so.' Mr Windsor went on to imply a motive for Mrs Rinehart's rumoured donation—a donation we all know she did not make and was never been asked to make. Mr Windsor said: I would suggest to Ms Rinehart that she clarify her interest in the seat of New England. Does it have anything to do with coal seam gas on the Liverpool Plains? Here Mr Windsor implies a motive—to buy influence in relation to possible interests in gas deposits under the Liverpool Plains—a motive concocted from an unfounded rumour. Again, Mrs Rinehart was forced to publicly defend herself. Her statement said: 'My companies and I do not have any commercial interests at this time in the New England electorate, as has been mischievously suggested. Again, a simple enquiry to me or my office would have identified this but, instead, Mr Windsor stated misinformation under the protection of the parliamentary chamber to further his desperate campaign against a good Australian, Barnaby Joyce.' It was interesting that Mr Windsor should be asking about coal seam gas on a day that the Australian newspaper was reminding readers that Mr Windsor's family farm at Werris Creek was sold to Whitehaven Coal in February 2010 for $4.6 million—about three times more than the average price per hectare paid for neighbouring farmland. After his 28 May statement under parliamentary privilege, Mr Windsor was interviewed on 30 May on the Sky News AM Agenda program by journalist Kieran Gilbert. This was part of their exchange about the supposed donation: Mr Gilbert: What proof do you have of that suggestion? Mr Windsor: I don't have any proof ... Mr Gilbert: So it was rumour? Mr Windsor: Yeah, my word. I've said it was rumour. It was rumour—and innuendo—Mr Windsor's stock in trade. In that same speech on 28 May, Mr Windsor referred to former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson as having 'come out of the woodpile' to head up Barnaby Joyce's campaign in New England. It is no secret that Mr Windsor dislikes John Anderson, dating back to a preselection contest for the Nationals in the seat of Gwydir in 1988, which John Anderson won and in which Mr Windsor was placed a poor fourth. Locals still recall Mr Windsor's shocking display of bad temper after that loss. Mr Windsor referred to both John Anderson and former Nationals senator, Senator Sandy Macdonald, who, like Mr Windsor, lives in the Tamworth region. As a loyal member of the Nationals, Sandy Macdonald is another on Mr Windsor's list of least favourite people. In his speech on 28 May, Mr Windsor linked both John Anderson and Sandy Macdonald with allegations that he, Mr Windsor, made back in 2004. The 2004 allegations concerned an alleged inducement for Mr Windsor to vacate his seat in parliament. Mr Windsor reminded parliament and the press gallery that this matter had been referred to the Australian Federal Police, and he left it at that. This is more innuendo, more of Mr Windsor's stock in trade. What Mr Windsor did not remind parliament and the press gallery of was that the allegations were dismissed by the Australian Federal Police and by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. After an investigation, neither the Australian Federal Police nor the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that there were any grounds for further action. Something else Mr Windsor did not remind parliament and the press gallery was that a subsequent Senate inquiry also found his allegations to be groundless and not worthy of further attention. Yet here is the current member for New England trotting out references to this issue once more, once more telling barely half the story, once more trying to gain some political mileage from a baseless allegation, just the same as he did before the 2004 election with the original claim. In September 2004, less than three weeks before the 9 October federal election, he splashed in the media claims that he had been offered an inducement to leave federal parliament and not to run again for the seat of New England, which he later described as an attempt to bribe him. Although Mr Windsor alleged the supposed inducement had occurred in May 2004, it was not until September of that year, four months later—and in the middle of the election campaign—that he chose to make it public. Straightaway, Mr Windsor's mates in the Labor Party took up his claims and referred them to the Australian Electoral Commission and on to the AFP for investigation as a breach of the Electoral Act under the bribery provisions. Remember, this was just weeks from an election, so there was no time for the claims to be investigated before the election, but there was time to get plenty of sensational publicity. The Australian Federal Police duly investigated and found no-one had a case to answer. The Federal Police even referred the claims on to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in case they had missed something, but the DPP could not find any grounds for prosecution either. So what happened then? Clearly suspecting the AFP and the DPP would determine there were no grounds for any prosecution, Mr Windsor chose to use the privilege of parliament and place his allegations on the record. In the House of Representatives, on 17 November 2004, Mr Windsor attacked both then Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson and then Senator Sandy Macdonald, claiming they were behind the alleged inducement in May for him to leave parliament. The Australian Federal Police announcement came less than one week later, on 22 November. The AFP stated there was no evidence to sustain a charge in relation to the alleged inducement to Mr Windsor and that no charges would be laid. The Director of Public Prosecutions concluded that: … none of the versions of the conversations related by any of the witnesses can amount to an 'offer to give or confer' a benefit. Further, the DPP said there was no evidence in the material of anyone having conspired to make an offer to Mr Windsor. It was a complete rout of Mr Windsor's allegations. However, less than a fortnight later, on 29 November, despite the Australian Federal Police and the DPP having announced there was no case to answer, Mr Windsor again raised the issue in the House of Representatives. This time, he made more allegations and called for a parliamentary inquiry, preferably a Senate inquiry, into the various allegations that he had made in the House and into the broader implications of government funding and political preconditions he claimed were being placed on various packages of government funding, particularly the Regional Partnerships program arrangements. In fact, there was a parliamentary inquiry. Senators may recall that the then Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown, lobbied very strongly on behalf of Mr Windsor for this inquiry to be conducted. Senator Brown even announced the inquiry's terms of reference in December 2004. It was conducted by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, with a majority of Labor senators. Mr Windsor repeated his claims there. However, the Senate inquiry found no evidence to support an adverse finding against John Anderson or Sandy Macdonald. Furthermore, the committee report said this: There were … issues identified during the hearing that were not explained to the complete satisfaction of the Committee and which go to the credibility of some of the evidence given by Mr Windsor … So Mr Windsor's allegations were dismissed by the Australian Federal Police, by the Director of Public Prosecutions and by the Senate inquiry that he wanted—dismissed by all of them. But here he goes again, nine years later, still harping back to his 2004 allegations. And, once again, he is trying to gain media attention with rumour and innuendo. This time the target is Barnaby Joyce, who is contesting the seat of New England against Mr Windsor. It is easy to understand why Mr Windsor would attack Barnaby Joyce this way, hoping if he throws enough mud some will stick. Mr Windsor wants to distract the voters of New England away from focusing on his dismal record. Mr Windsor put Labor and Julia Gillard in power. His support for Labor allowed them to form government three years ago. Everything that this government has imposed on the Australian people since then Mr Windsor is partly to blame for. If the voters of New England had wanted the Labor Party to run Australia, they would have voted that way. They did not. But Labor is what they got, thanks to Mr Windsor. Mr Windsor turned out to be, effectively, the Independent-Labor member for New England. And he has served Labor well. They have been able to count on his vote, time and time again, supporting the Labor government and the Greens as they introduced the carbon tax, ran up a national debt heading for $300 billion, caused chaos in cattle markets throughout Australia by banning the live trade to Indonesia and lost control of our borders. Mr Windsor helped create the carbon tax, and last year he told an ABC interviewer that he was 'proud' of it. Who can forget the image of Julia Gillard, Bob Brown and Tony Windsor standing on the steps of Parliament House, all smiles, announcing they had agreed on how to impose a carbon tax? Time and again, Mr Windsor has backed Labor and the Greens in deals that have hurt people in regional and rural Australia, not just in his electorate of New England but throughout the country. He has voted against the timber industry. He has voted against the fishing industry. He has supported wind farms across the countryside. He has consistently let down rural and regional Australia in supporting Labor and the Greens. In the end, it comes down to a question of character. Mr Windsor lacks character. He has abused the great privileges we parliamentarians are given to speak freely. As I said, with those privileges comes great responsibility. But Mr Windsor has not behaved responsibly. Once again, in the run-up to the September election—as he has done before—Mr Windsor has raised rumour and innuendo to try to damage a political opponent or someone he simply dislikes, this time Barnaby Joyce. With his attack on Barnaby Joyce, Mr Windsor has demonstrated that he continues to be someone who uses grubby personal attacks, without a shred of evidence, against his opponents. The people of New England deserve better. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3389 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Asylum Seekers 3389 14:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. Does the minister agree with media reports yesterday which described former Prime Minister Rudd as 'the master and commander of the influx of boat arrivals under Labor'? If not, will the minister now accept that it is Prime Minister Gillard who is responsible for Labor's historic border failures, including more than 44,000 people arriving illegally, more than 1,000 drownings and 724 illegal boats? 14:00 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria I completely reject the premise of the question. If those opposite want to ask a completely political question with no factual substance, they are going to get a completely political answer back. Those opposite are an absolute shambles on this issue. The coalition's two frontbenchers responsible for border protection policy are at each other's throats about what to do with asylum seeker boats found in international waters. The customs and border protection spokesman, Michael Keenan, claims that the coalition will direct naval personnel to take asylum seeker boats back to Indonesian shores. Just a few days ago, he told Sky News— Senator Cash I0M On a point of order, Mr President: I raise the issue of relevance. I asked the minister whether it was the former Rudd government's policies or the current Gillard government's policies which were responsible for the grotesque failures of border protection. The minister is giving me a critique of what he believes is coalition policy. I ask you to direct the minister to the question. The PRESIDENT 7L6 The minister is addressing the question. Senator CONROY 3L6 You can see from that bogus point of order that there is no substance to the question. Those opposite are seeking to avoid having to explain what Mr Keenan said on Sky News. This is what he said: And remember, when it comes to turning these boats back around, it would be sending Indonesian flagged boats with an Indonesian crew back to the Indonesian port from which they’ve left, and there’s absolutely nothing from stopping that. But the immigration spokesman, Mr Scott Morrison, claimed the coalition will direct naval personnel to leave asylum seeker boats at the edge of Indonesian waters—expecting them to make their own way to shore. You cannot have it both ways. Mr Morrison went on to say: Well that is not what he said and you should stop verballing members of the Coalition. You should focus— (Time expired) 14:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain the difference between the Rudd government's policy on border protection and the Gillard government's policy on border protection? 14:03 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria It is very simple. The government's policy is to adopt the Houston report, including the Malaysia solution, which those on the other side have so callously and cravenly, for their own political ends, decided to oppose. Those opposite have no credibility whatsoever. They send the message to people smugglers, 'Come on down!' They send that message to them every time they vote against the Malaysia solution in this building—every single time. They are the lead hypocrites on this. If those opposite want to stop the people-smuggling rackets, if they want to put the people-smuggling rings out of business, they should adopt the Houston committee report in full. They should not come in here and pretend they are remotely interested in anything other than short-term politics. 14:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the minister clearly cannot explain any difference between the former Rudd government's policies and the current Gillard government's policies on border protection, both of which continue to fail to stop the boats, why will the government not reintroduce the border protection policies of the former Howard government, policies which did stop the boats, the tragedy and the chaos? 14:05 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria The world moves on and those opposite simply seek to take cheap political shots. Lives are at risk on the high seas. Those opposite could choose to support the 22 recommendations of the Houston report. They could support putting a stop to those people-smuggling rings. But they are not interested in that; they are interested in their own short-term political 'stop the boats' campaign. Those opposite have moved away from 'we will stop them immediately.' They have moved away from that. That is not their position anymore. When put under pressure, they have to admit, 'Oh no, it might take a little while.' Why do they not just admit that they have been wrong in not voting for— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 3391 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:06 The PRESIDENT 7L6 I welcome the former President of the Senate, Paul Calvert. Welcome to question time. We trust that you will enjoy your stay here today. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3391 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Older Australians 3391 14:07 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Senator McLucas. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Australian government's budget is supporting older Australians to live better in a stronger, smarter and fairer Australia? 14:07 Senator McLUCAS 84L Queensland I thank Senator Polley for her question. Our Labor government is continuing its strong record of supporting older Australians with a number of initiatives in this year's budget. This includes $112.4 million for a pilot program to support pensioners who are over age-pension age who want to downsize their home without it immediately affecting their pension. From 1 July 2014, eligible pensioners will be able to downsize their home and invest a minimum of 80 per cent of the excess proceeds, to a maximum of $200,000, in a special account. The funds invested in the special account and any returns would not be counted under the pension means test for 10 years or until a withdrawal is made. It is expected that around 30,000 pensioners could benefit from the exemption through the trial period between 2014 and 2017. This initiative will support older Australians to find the right housing option for them. It will ensure that there are not unnecessary pressures on the housing market and it will be fairer for older Australians, giving them greater choice and control over their retirement. Initiatives like this build on our government's record of improving the lives of Australians. We have delivered the biggest ever dollar increase to the pension, worth more than $5,000 a year to a single maximum rate pensioner. We also introduced the seniors Work Bonus, worth up to $6,500 a year, to make sure age pensioners can keep more of their income while they are working. We have delivered another pension increase as part of the household assistance package, worth $350 a year for single pensioners and more than $530 a year for pensioner couples. After almost 12 long years of neglect under those opposite, pensioners know they can trust Labor— (Time expired) 14:09 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister update the Senate on the Broadband for Seniors kiosk program? 14:09 Senator McLUCAS 84L Queensland Our Labor government is making it easier for older Australians to stay connected to family and friends and to access information by providing a further $9.9 million to upgrade the popular Broadband for Seniors kiosks across the country. More than 250,000 older Australians have already benefited from the Broadband for Seniors program and access more than 2,000 internet kiosks for seniors around the country. The Keeping Seniors Connected program will provide every Broadband for Seniors kiosk in the country, if they apply, with a new computer and touchscreen monitor. This initiative will also provide $2,000 in grant money to seniors kiosks to boost training and information sessions for older Australians, particularly on the importance of cybersecurity and personal security. (Time expired) 14:10 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Mr President, I have a further supplementary question for the minister. Minister, can you detail to the Senate how the government is supporting older Australians through the seniors Work Bonus. 14:11 Senator McLUCAS 84L Queensland The Gillard Labor government continues to support older Australians in the workforce. We are building a stronger, smarter and fairer future for all Australians, including older Australians. As part of the historic pension reforms in 2009, the Gillard government introduced a seniors Work Bonus scheme to ensure older Australians kept more of their income when they worked. The reform means that a single age pensioner with no other income can currently earn up to $10,452 a year from employment while still receiving the maximum rate of pension. Over the past 12 months around 147,000 age pensioners have been able to work while keeping more of their pension under the seniors Work Bonus. Since September 2009, the maximum rate of pension has increased by $207 a fortnight for singles and $236 a fortnight for couples combined. We are focused on delivering jobs and growth in our economy. (Time expired) Asylum Seekers 3392 14:12 Senator RONALDSON xt4 Victoria My question is addressed to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. I refer to the letter sent by the South Eastern Melbourne Medicare Local to the Prime Minister seeking urgent injection of resources to help cope with the effects of the government's decision to release asylum seekers into the community. I also refer the minister to the fact that in their letter the Medicare Local described the situation in the south-eastern Melbourne community as 'a simmering time bomb.' They warned of their concerns about 'increasing violence and crime, including gang related brawls and increasing drug and alcohol issues.' Why has the government chosen to pass the buck onto the states to deal with these problems rather than take responsibility for the effects of its border protection failures? 14:12 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria It will not come as a shock to you, Senator Ronaldson, but I have not seen the letter. On the general issues that you raise, I say again that it is hard to take you seriously when you do not want to support legislation that can put a stop to the people-smuggling rings. If you are not prepared to vote in this chamber to put a stop to the people-smuggling rings, to take away the incentive for those rings to use Australia as a target, if you will not support that, do not come in here and think you have any credibility whatsoever to mount an argument about the plight of these people. With the way refugees were treated under the Howard government, when they were demonised in language and demonised in the way they were treated, when your own back bench forced a revolt on you to take children out of detention— Senator Abetz N26 Nonsense! Senator CONROY 3L6 Your back bench joined with us to force you to take them out—good members like Ms Moylan and others joined with many in the community and many in this building to force the Howard government to change its policy position. Do not come into this chamber and continue to pretend that you have the remotest interest in the genuine position of people in these circumstances—people who have been fleeing from persecution, fleeing from all sorts of horrors, surviving trips that they should not have been taking. They are taking these trips because you do not have the courage to stop playing politics. That is what this debate is about. Those opposite will not stop playing politics with this, and they stand shamed by their irresponsible behaviour and their willingness to keep those people-smuggling rings alive. 14:15 Senator RONALDSON xt4 Victoria Clearly, the minister is shocked by the South Eastern Melbourne Medicare Local letter. Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to the government's commitment during budget estimates this year to respond by mid-June to the request by state and territory police for access to the address details of thousands of illegal boat arrivals released into the community, especially in Western Sydney. Has the government provided this information to state and territory police so they can do their job? If not, why not? 14:15 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria Once again, the low road. Once again, cheap politics. The department is committed to working closely with the AFP and state and territory police to assist with the discharge of their community policing responsibilities. Discussions have been held with the commissioners and the deputy commissioners about information that DIAC might provide to support police and manage any issues that may arise whilst asylum seekers reside in the community. It should be remembered that less than 0.2 per cent of IMA BVE holders have been involved in any allegations of unlawful conduct. Information relating to the location of IMAs in the community will be provided to all state and territory police forces shortly and more detailed address information will be provided once we receive undertakings regarding the security of the data and its use. (Time expired) 14:16 Senator RONALDSON xt4 Victoria Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, what will it take for the government to admit that Labor's 'no care, no responsibility' bridging visa policy is dumping the clear consequences of their border protection failure out into communities with no regard for the impacts on health, law enforcement, state budgets or the resources of charities and other non-government organisations? 14:17 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria It will come as no surprise that I utterly reject the assertions in that question. Before they are released into the community, asylum seekers are assessed and only those with no security, health, identity or significant behavioural issues who might present a risk to the community are granted bridging visas. Bridging visa holders are eligible for 89 per cent of the equivalent Centrelink special benefit and rent assistance, and the Commonwealth covers the cost of Medicare and other services, including case management and psychological counselling. State governments are simply playing politics over the issue of asylum seekers, raising their concerns in the media rather than engaging in constructive dialogue with the Commonwealth. While there is a genuine need identified for more resources to meet the needs of asylum seekers in the community, the Commonwealth works proactively and cooperatively with states and territories to ensure the necessary arrangements are in place. (Time expired) Parent and Community Engagement Program 3394 14:18 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Senator Lundy. My question refers to the Wyndham Early Learning Activity centre, called WELA. It is a highly regarded community centre in the Kimberley. The community run initiative has been built up over a number of years and delivers programs that are helping to close the gap in Wyndham. In fact, the Prime Minister was so supportive of it she opened a brand new $1.7 million centre this time last year. However, is the government aware that as of next month this service will be reduced from five staff to just two part-time staff, delivering just 11 hours of programs a week and that this is largely due to the fact that the Parental and Community Engagement Program, PaCE, has not been refunded? Could the government please explain why this program has not been refunded and what they are doing to support this very important community centre? 14:19 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory The Parental and Community Engagement Program is a community-driven program for parents and carers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. Contrary to Senator Siewert's question, as announced in the 2014 budget, the Australian government will continue to support a number of programs at national level, including programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people. We have decided to continue the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) program for a further five years and from 1 January 2014 funding will be provided through an annual appropriation. Senator Siewert, I will take on notice specific information about the centre that you mention. But, in doing so, I would like to remind my Senate colleagues of the nature of the program, as it supports families and communities to be involved in their children's education by helping them connect with schools to get the best results for their children, helping them build relationships with principals and teachers and supporting them to help children and young people to learn at home. Indeed, since the program started in 2009, over $100 million has been provided by the Australian government to support 583 diverse projects across all states and territories, aimed at approximately 53,000 parents and carers and a further 28,000 community members. Parents play a vital role in their children's learning and development and the PaCE Program continues to make a real difference in this area. I have a number of examples of the effective operation of the PaCE Program. I am unable to respond to the specific centre raised and I have already said that I will take that part of the question on notice. 14:21 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As of yesterday, the centre still did not know if it was going to get funding and be able to continue this very important program after 30 June. They will be losing the majority of their staff and a program that has won awards at the state and the national level. What is happening with Wyndham? Why don't they know if they are being refunded? Why haven't they had a response from the Prime Minister, who has been written to about this specific issue? 14:22 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I think I have already made clear that I will take the specifics of the Wyndham centre on notice with respect to this program. But I am very pleased to reiterate that this is a program we are continuing, to the point where, from 1 January next year, it will continue as an annual appropriation. It is a remarkable program and it is flexible as well. One of the attributes of the PaCE Program is that a project can vary from a one-day workshop to one that may go on for one or two years, depending on what the community is seeking, what they are looking for and what they are trying to achieve. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents and families are encouraged to put forward ideas for funding to support projects that align with their local needs, to build those relationships between families, their communities and their schools. I can only reiterate that we have continued the program and we are very pleased about that. I think Senator Siewert has acknowledged the value of the program and perhaps was not aware that we announced this in the budget— (Time expired) 14:23 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. This centre is going to have no staff as of the end of June. It is likely that other centres around Australia, given what you have just said about the funding gap, will be in exactly the same position. How many other early learning centres around Australia are going to have this gap in funding and may not get their funding renewed? Because there is no guarantee that they will. 14:23 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I have already said I cannot address the specifics, but perhaps I can give some relevant contextual information about the nature of the projects that PaCE does continue to fund. One example is the Ipswich PaCE project, where parents and carers have been supported through a successful elders education support group. The group plays an active role within the school and associated community events by empowering parents and carers— Senator Siewert e5z Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The minister has already outlined the value of this program, which is why I am asking the question: how many centres are in exactly the same position? If the minister has information on the value of this program, she should also know how many centres are funded. The PRESIDENT 7L6 There is no point of order. Senator LUNDY 7G6 I do not have that information at hand. I am happy to take that information on notice also, but the point remains that Senator Siewert is obviously not familiar with the budget announcement that we made and the fact that we are continuing this program as an annual item for the next five years. Senator Siewert interjecting— Senator LUNDY 7G6 Senator Siewert, if you listen to my answer, you will understand that we have continued this program, contrary to your statement that it was discontinued in the federal budget this year. Budget, Asylum Seekers 3396 14:25 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. Given that yesterday, when asked, the minister was not prepared to stand by her expenditure estimates in relation to illegal arrivals by boat in the government's budget released just last month, can the minister today confirm that the government will need to make a significant upward revision of its expenditure estimates in relation to those illegal arrivals by boat, just like it had to do for last year's budget? 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Cormann for the question. It is the case that variations to budget estimates are made, and they occur across a range of programs. The senator has mentioned one. There are others, from memory, in higher education and in some areas of the FaHCSIA portfolio, where we had higher expenditure than expected and, in some cases, lower expenditure. The senator would know that it is a normal part of budgeting to update estimates as and when further information comes in. I think one of the suggestions or implications in the question is that somehow that is untoward. Every government updates its estimates at every budget update in line with information which is received by departments. In relation to the IMA costs, or irregular maritime arrival costs, as the senator knows—and I would refer him to my answer yesterday—the government is being perfectly transparent about the assessment of these costs. Senator Abetz N26 Oh, please! Your transparency is ludicrous. Senator WONG 00AOU We for the first time— Senator Abetz N26 Ludicrous! Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Abetz, maybe you could wait until you know something about something before you say something, because the reality— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU The reality is— Senator Abetz N26 I am so hurt! The PRESIDENT 7L6 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU I am being good today, Mr President. This is me being good. See, I am smiling—so I am being good! The PRESIDENT 7L6 Order! Senator Wong, Ignore the interjections. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU No, I am being kind today. Senator Abetz, you may like to know that this is the first time, in my memory—and I could be wrong—that these methodologies have actually been published in the budget papers, and we did so because we thought it was important that we laid out the methodology for the assessment, and that is what we have done. 14:27 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the minister has just conceded that the government will incur significant additional costs as a result of yet another blow-out in illegal boat arrivals, can the minister confirm by how much its expenditure estimates for illegal arrivals by boat will blow out—given that she relied on a prediction that illegal arrivals by boat would reduce from about 3,000 a month right now to about 1,000 a month in less than two weeks from now? Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— 14:28 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There are a lot of subclauses in that question, but I think the first point I would make— Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 The old senator couldn't manage at Copenhagen but she might be able to handle this. The PRESIDENT 7L6 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU It is so tempting, when Senator Macdonald says things like that. But I am not going to give him the benefit— The PRESIDENT 7L6 Order! Senator Wong, ignore the interjections— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 7L6 Ignore the interjections and address the chair. Senator WONG 00AOU I am trying, Mr President. I am trying. Senator Abetz N26 You are very trying. Senator WONG 00AOU The first point I would make is that I do not believe that the senator's articulation of what he believes I said is correct and I would like him to consider the Hansard. The second point I would make is to refer back to my first answer, which is that it is perfectly normal for governments to update any estimate, whether it is this or any other, and we have set out the methodology in the budget papers. 14:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. How could the government possibly ever rely on a 10-year average trend in illegal arrivals by boat for its expenditure estimates in the budget, when that period clearly covers the successful Howard government border protection policies which stopped the boats? Does the minister not realise that as a result of the actions of the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, the trend significantly changed and further accelerated and deteriorated under current Prime Minister Gillard? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The lie that the opposition keeps peddling is that there is a slogan solution to this public policy problem. That is the lie they keep peddling, and it is a lie. It is deeply irresponsible. The continued assertion that they somehow have a magic solution ignores both the advice of the customs and navy personnel— Senator Brandis 008W7 Mr President, on a point of order of direct relevance: both the primary question and each of the two supplementary questions were directed to the methodology exposed in the budget papers. The second supplementary question from Senator Cormann directly challenged how that methodology could result in a downward reduction in the number of estimated boat arrivals at a time of an increasing upward trend. That was the substance of the question. It is not being addressed in this very, very general answer. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 Mr President, on the point of order: once again, Senator Brandis has not actually been listening to the questions that have been asked. You will be aware that I highlighted with respect to the first supplementary question that the minister was being verballed. Senator Cormann was putting his own interpretation on the answer that had been provided. It was quite different to the facts and he is encouraged to have a look at the Hansard there. He has asked for a broad political spray and that is what he is getting. The PRESIDENT 7L6 Order! The minister has 36 seconds remaining. The minister, I believe, is addressing the question. The minister has 36 seconds. There is no point of order. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you Mr President. The opposition might believe that the facts are not relevant. I understand that that is their position. But responsible parliamentarians know that the facts are relevant and the facts of this are that naval and customs personnel have advised about the dangers of your policy and Indonesia has said that they will not accept boats being turned back. All you are peddling is a lie and a slogan in the face of what is a difficult public policy question, about which you only want to play politics. Education 3398 14:32 Senator CROSSIN 7Y6 Northern Territory My question is to the minister representing the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Senator Lundy. Can the minister explain to the Senate why it is so vitally important that all states and territories sign up to A National Plan for School Improvement? 14:33 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Crossin for her question and her ongoing commitment to education. As we know, Australia has great schools but we can do a lot better. An independent review by the Gonski panel found the current school-funding system is too complex and lacks transparency. NAPLAN results show that one in 12 of our kids is not meeting minimum standards in reading, writing and maths. These kids are in danger of leaving school without the skills they need for adult life. The result of this is that the gap between students is widening, with our disadvantaged students struggling to keep up, particularly our Indigenous students in the Northern Territory in years 7 and 9, who were found to be about four years below the performance of non-Indigenous students in reading and numeracy. This is why we have the National Plan for School Improvement. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to resource schools properly for future generations. Our plan for better schools will make sure that every kid reaches their full potential. Our plan includes more attention and support in the classroom for every single child; specialist literacy and numeracy programs for those children in danger of being left behind; greater assistance for those students with disabilities or special needs; and, finally, building the skills and knowledge of teachers and providing mentoring support for new staff. All of these points are attributes of our plan for improvement in schools. We believe as a government that this is truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for investment in our education system. If we are to prepare Australia for the significant challenges of the 21st century then it starts here in our education system, in our schools. 14:35 Senator CROSSIN 7Y6 Northern Territory I have a supplementary question, Mr President. I have taught in the Northern Territory and it is disappointing to know that the NT is yet to sign up to the National Plan for School Improvement— The PRESIDENT 7L6 You need to ask a question, Senator. Senator CROSSIN 7Y6 so can the minister now inform the Senate of what signing up to this plan will mean for students and schools in the Territory? 14:35 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Crossin again. And, again, it is good to see her focused on the Northern Territory with her longstanding interest in education policy. As the Prime Minister and Minister Garrett released today, under A National Plan for School Improvement government schools in the Northern Territory will receive a boost of around $205 million while nongovernment schools will receive an extra $95 million in funding over the next six years. The national plan will particularly help Indigenous students in the Territory through specific funding loadings for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and small, remote schools. As such, from the total public funding provided to the Territory over the next six years, 41,000 students will benefit from the $921 million in funding through location loadings across 190 schools in total. 14:36 Senator CROSSIN 7Y6 Northern Territory I have a further supplementary question, Mr President. I wonder if the minister could inform the Senate and myself of any objections she might know as to why the national school improvement plan is not being signed up to, particularly in the Territory? 14:37 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory Unfortunately, it appears as though, once again, the Liberal and National parties are putting petty politics before the future of our children. We saw it in the Territory budget in May. Today, the Prime Minister has provided solid figures and facts to put the case once again to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory that this funding will benefit all students, teachers and parents in the Northern Territory. You only have to listen to the words—and I suggest those opposite listen carefully—of the Northern Territory education minister, Peter Chandler, who is on the record saying on 10 May 2013 on ABC Darwin radio: There is a line out there—I give a Gonski—and yes I certainly do because I like what I see in Gonski—I like the outcomes that have been promised. Just to remind you, that was the Northern Territory education minister, Peter Chandler, saying those words. (Time expired) Television Sports Broadcasts 3399 14:38 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Mr President, my question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. I refer the minister to his media release of December 2010 regarding antisiphoning reforms, which states: In early 2011, details on these quality guarantees for free-to-air coverage of AFL and NRL matches will be announced and legislation to amend the anti-siphoning scheme will be introduced into the Parliament. Can the minister now outline why, two years past his self-imposed deadline, he has failed to pass legislation and will he finally confirm that, after creating significant uncertainty for stakeholders and stringing this process out for 2½ years, he has given up on legislating these reforms? 14:39 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria I thank the senator for his question, because the answer is very simple: you and those opposite. You have voted and ensured that this bill cannot pass the chamber. We brought forward a package of reforms that we have enacted in practice. You opposed it in the House of Representatives, and you have indicated you will vote it down in this chamber. You will vote it down with the Greens. Those opposite are once again demonstrating they do not understand what they are talking about. I will take this opportunity to congratulate the Socceroos for their fantastic win last night in qualifying for the World Cup and give you some evidence of how the policy is working in practice. Last night, because of all the deals that we put in place that you are opposing and will not let pass in this chamber, over 500,000 Australians watched it on Foxtel, and 1.7 million Australians—that is more than 2 million Australians—got to watch the Socceroos qualify for the World Cup because of this government's policies. As you would all know if you live in Sydney and Brisbane, or in Canberra particularly, you now get to see live AFL matches in non-AFL states. If you live in Victoria, Western Australia or Tasmania you can watch matches— Senator Heffernan C16 I rise on a point of order. The senator realises, because he is a tech-head, that we do have technology and microphones. I can only turn my hearing aids down so much. Could he stop shouting? The PRESIDENT 7L6 That is not a point of order. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 7L6 Order! Just wait a minute, Senator Conroy, you have not got the call. When there is silence we will proceed. Senator CONROY 3L6 People in Victoria, people in South Australia and people in Tasmania are able to watch live NRL matches because of the reforms that we have enacted and because of the policy we have announced. We have more Australians watching all of our major sports on both platforms than ever before. (Time expired) 14:41 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister of his on-again, off-again antisiphoning legislation fiasco in September last year, when he withdrew the bills humiliatingly before even bringing them to a vote in this place. I note though that the antisiphoning bill was scheduled on the House of Representatives draft legislative program for debate this week. Will he inform the Senate what changes to the legislation he was proposing, what consultation there had been, why it was listed in the House this week and why it will now apparently not be proceeded with? 14:42 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria Mr President, once again, those opposite are blocking the passage of the bills. Then they stand up and say, 'It's a disgrace. You haven't passed the bill.' Do not block it! We have introduced reforms that see more Australians watching live sport than ever before. We know exactly what your position is. It has been communicated many times. The issue that has been at debate is that you and the Greens have decided to block the entire package on the basis of an agreement reached between the AFL and other sporting codes about reducing the number of matches that would be on the antisiphoning list, and, despite the front page of the Australian, which as always you take as your mouthpiece, as your propaganda vehicle, and which completely and utterly misrepresented the position, there is currently an antisiphoning list that protects these sports. We were seeking, with agreement, to reduce that. That has not been possible because you— (Time expired) 14:43 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Does the minister acknowledge his Conrovian record of repeatedly failing to implement policies and reforms that he announces, with these failed antisiphoning reforms joining his failed internet filter, his failed media reforms and, of course, his failing NBN rollout? Can the minister confirm that he has abandoned antisiphoning reform because he could no more pick the best footy game of the week than the Labor Party could pick its best leader of the week? Honourable senators interjecting — The PRESIDENT 7L6 Order! We will continue when there is silence on both sides. 14:44 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria Let me repeat again: more Australians are watching live sport today than ever before, as with the Socceroos. We have just seen a record AFL sports rights deal, we have just seen a record NRL sports rights deal, and just in the last few weeks we have seen an absolute record cricket deal, not to mention a record tennis deal. Here is a policy in full failure: a record sporting rights deal; more Australians watching live sport. There were 1.7 million Australians watching the Socceroos last night on SBS because of this government's policy. Your government took the Socceroos off the antisiphoning list and put them on pay TV. Last night, 1.7 million Australians watched it because of this government and the policies that we have been putting forward. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 7L6 Order! I remind honourable senators that the time to debate this is after three o'clock. Mt Gellibrand Wind Farm 3401 14:45 Senator MADIGAN 217571 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Senator Conroy. Minister, in light of the imminent construction of the Mt Gellibrand wind farm—a project originally approved under Minister Ian Campbell in 2005—in the environmentally sensitive Ramsar listed Western Lakes area, which is home to numerous critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable species listed under the EPBC Act, and in light of the 2011 admission under oath in court by the environmental consultant for the proponent that a significant population of growling grass frogs had been overlooked and where he also questioned whether the original project should have been approved, can the minister advise what action has been taken to stop construction and reassess this project as per the requirements under the EPBC Act? 14:47 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria I thank the senator for his question. The senator may be aware that responsibility for wind farm approvals, including health impacts from noise, rests primarily with the states and local governments. The Commonwealth is involved only where wind farm proposals are likely to significantly impact on matters of national environmental significance. The Mt Gellibrand wind farm was referred to the environment department and was determined to not require approval, on 15 June 2005, as I think you indicated—some eight years ago. Minister Burke is aware of recent calls to call in the project or withdraw approval. Minister Burke has advised that these options are not available under national environmental law in the current circumstances. A reconsideration of the original decision could be made under section 78 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. However, any application for reconsideration must provide substantial new information that would warrant reconsideration of the original not-a-controlled-action decision. 14:48 Senator MADIGAN 217571 Victoria Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, what are the details of the expert other checks conducted by the department during the four-week period in 2005 when the department was in possession of the environmental consultant's original referral documentation and site assessments were undertaken? 14:48 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria That question, as I am sure the senator understands, requires quite a detailed answer. I will take it on notice on behalf of the minister. 14:48 Senator MADIGAN 217571 Victoria Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. In light of the fact that in January 2013 the department was formally notified of the error in the original environmental site assessment, can the minister explain why this information was ignored for four months and has still not been acted upon, risking a serious breach on the site? 14:49 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria I am advised, Senator Madigan, that you have had a response on this matter from the Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water. I refer you to that letter. Farm Finance 3402 14:49 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I refer the minister to the government's announcement that it would provide concessional loans of up to $650,000 to farmers in financial need at an interest rate of 4.5 per cent. I also remind the minister that at the last round of budget estimates Treasury officials admitted that the government's average cost to borrow these funds—and on his advice I asked that question—is at an interest rate of around three per cent. When asked about the 1.5 per cent difference, a Treasury official stated: 'Well, it goes into consolidated revenue.' Why is this government seeking to make money from the plight of farmers in this country, many of whom are struggling precisely because of this government's inept decisions—such as shutting down the live cattle trade to Indonesia? 14:50 Senator LUDWIG 84N Queensland This does give me a good opportunity to talk to the Senate about farm finance and 4.5 per cent. I absolutely welcome the opportunity to speak about the government's farm finance package at 4.5 per cent. In April I announced $420 million in concessional loans for farmers doing it tough. Farmers are struggling under the weight of a high dollar and reduced land values. We have listened to the concerns of our farmers. That is why we announced the Farm Finance package. Our package of concessional loans will give farmers the breathing space they need to focus on growing and improving their farm businesses. These loans will provide real relief for our farmers. An eligible farm business could save around $100,000 if they wanted to consolidate an existing loan using the 4.5 per cent interest rate. Our plan for agriculture is to strengthen the foundation and tackle farm debt head-on. But we do need the cooperation of the states to deliver this. One thing Senator McKenzie could do is encourage the Victorian government to come on board and ensure that we can deliver this package to help farmers, particularly in the electorate where Senator McKenzie lives. It is clear that farmers are crying out for this assistance. What we want to do is deliver this assistance in the field for farmers so that they can use the 4.5 per cent to reduce and consolidate some of their loans, to give them the ability to deal with some of the headwinds and provide that really needed assistance. What we are getting is no help from the coalition—to help and put a bit of pressure on their state governments to deliver. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 7L6 Order! I just remind senators that shouting across the chamber is disorderly and they should cease doing it during an answer. 14:52 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain why the government on one hand is making money on its so-called concessional loans to struggling farmers but on the other hand is demanding that state governments pay for the administration costs of providing these loans? 14:53 Senator LUDWIG 84N Queensland What is clear here is that those opposite do not want to allow farmers to have a 4.5 per cent concessional loan. That is what we are providing: a concessional loan at 4.5 per cent for five years, for $420 million in total. It is a real boost for farmers to deal with some of those headwinds in the field. We have asked the states to look at how they could provide assistance in delivering those 4.5 per cent concessional loans for farming—a reasonable request for them to look at how they could provide that assistance. The 4.5 per cent concessional rate does give a generous discount against commercial rates and at the same time manages the risk of default and represents responsible use of public money. What we have asked is that the states then give us a little bit of assistance. (Time expired) 14:54 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister explain why, two months after the government announced the concessional loans package, not one state—not even a Labor state government—has signed up to provide the so-called concessional loans? Why can't this government approach these matters in a fair and cooperative way that is focused on delivering results to people rather than playing the political blame game between state and federal governments? 14:54 Senator LUDWIG 84N Queensland I will say that I am fair in this. This is a good opportunity for states to use some of their state instruments—such as, in the case of Queensland, the QRAA—to provide these concessional loans to farmers. Farmers right across Australia—in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland—are doing it tough. If you look at what state governments have done in this area in agriculture, they have withdrawn regional— Senator McKenzie 207825 Mr President, a point of order on relevance: the question was about the Labor state governments' response to the farm concessional loan package. The PRESIDENT 7L6 There is no point of order. Senator LUDWIG 84N We are in discussions with Labor states and we are in discussions with Liberal states. We do not pick any favourites here. We want the states to be able to provide these concessional loans to farmers who need them. But my door is open. I will continue to consult and discuss with states to see if we can find a way forward to get the 4.5 per cent concessional loans on the ground. What we will not do is give up, as the states look like they have. (Time expired) Human Rights 3404 14:56 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr. Can the minister outline to the Senate Australia's approach to global human rights concerns? 14:56 Senator BOB CARR wx4 New South Wales The deprivation of human rights remains a global challenge—an acute one. According to estimates by organisations such as the UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, over 700 people were executed in 2012, torture was carried out in more than 100 countries and 140 million girls and women suffered genital mutilation. Australia has been at the forefront of international efforts to improve human rights. We were one of eight nations to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after World War II. The declaration in fact was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 under the presidency of former Australian foreign minister Dr HV Evatt. Our human rights tradition is one that we are proud of. I am pleased to announce today, therefore, Australia's candidacy to serve on the Human Rights Council for the 2018 to 2020 term. Australia has not served on the council since it was established in 2008. The council is the UN's pre-eminent human rights body, responsible for promoting universal protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is mandated to consider violations of human rights, including in the DPRK, Syria and the Central African Republic. It is a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator BOB CARR wx4 Don't they show their contempt for human rights? Nothing gives them away like that. But, for our part, we are proud of the Australian record, and we want to enhance it and enhance our contribution. In that spirit we are seeking a place on the Human Rights Council, and we see it as complementing our term on the UN Security Council. It reinforces our commitment to the universal protection of human rights. (Time expired) 14:58 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate of Australia's human rights efforts in our own region? 14:58 Senator BOB CARR wx4 New South Wales As foreign minister I regularly discuss human rights with my counterparts from countries such as Myanmar, Laos and Malaysia. Just today I discussed human rights issues with the visiting foreign minister of Sri Lanka. This week Australia hosted our 10th human rights dialogue with Vietnam. The 14th annual human rights dialogue between Australia and China took place in Canberra in July last year. Last month I was pleased to congratulate eminent Australian jurist Michael Kirby on his appointment as chair of the UN commission of inquiry to investigate human rights violations in North Korea—an inquiry we actively sought and persuaded others to support. With a Pacific Islands forum we are working to protect the rights of women through a 10-year $320 million initiative on domestic violence, economic empowerment and political participation. We are working to strengthen human rights institutions from Myanmar to Afghanistan. (Time expired) 14:59 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate of how Australia's aid program is supporting human rights priorities? 14:59 Senator BOB CARR wx4 New South Wales We are striving to tackle the root causes of human rights programs, such as poverty and instability, through our aid program. Next year Australia's aid budget— Senator Milne interjecting — Senator BOB CARR wx4 I welcome all the support from Senator Milne; I thank her for those supportive noises. Next year Australia's aid budget will be $5.7 billion, up by more than $2.5 billion since 2007. Australian aid directly funds practical human rights initiatives. Senator Brandis interjecting— Senator BOB CARR wx4 And I thank Senator Brandis for his support. Excitement ripples through their benches as we talk about human rights; they cannot contain themselves, and neither can the Greens. By 2015-16 our aid will have supported 40,000 women survivors of violence and helped train attendance at more than one million births. We are helping over 100 organisations pursue this agenda. By 2015-16 we will be providing education for half a million boys and girls. (Time expired) 15:01 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria Mr President, I ask that all further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr President, I just add for the chamber that SBS had 1.5, rather than 1.7, million viewers. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 3405 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Broadband 3405 15:01 Senator CONROY 3L6 Victoria Mr President, for the information of senators I table additional information on two questions asked of me in the Senate yesterday by Senator Birmingham. I seek leave to have this additional information incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows— MINISTER FOR BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY Senate Question without Notice 18 June 2013 Question No: 1 Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (14:30): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has any reprofiling or adjustment to the planned schedule for the handover of Telstra pits to NBN Co. occurred as a result of asbestos concerns? If so, in which states and on how many sites has this occurred? Again, can the minister indicate on how many sites Telstra has delayed work and whether this has delayed handover of any NBN rollout sites as yet? Answer: NBN Co. will not compromise safety for speed. The upgrade of national infrastructure is required. At some point this will involve interaction with material containing asbestos. It is not an issue of stopping the rollout, but ensuring work is done safely and responsibly. NBN Co is working with the government, the unions, the national health and safety regulator Comcare, and the independent asbestos taskforce to examine closely the asbestos safety regime being applied across all aspects of the rollout. The steps are unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall rollout timetable. The entire project remains on track to be completed by June 2021. NBN Co is currently assessing what impact these measures may have on the pace of the rollout in the short term. Question No: 2 Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (14:32): I thank the minister for taking that aspect of the question on notice. My final supplementary is: has NBN Co. made any changes to the contractual expectations or policies it expects its NBN Co. contractors to adhere to as a result of asbestos concerns? If so, what changes has NBN Co. made in relation to its expectations of its contractors? Answer: A new national standard for dealing with asbestos in pit and pipe infrastructure is being developed. Until such time as the new national standard is agreed and the training course is up and running, NBN Co will transfer the important task of handling and removing asbestos in pit and pipe, and disposing of asbestos waste, from its Tier One contractors to specialist asbestos removal firms. This is already happening in the Northern Territory where NBN Co is managing the rollout directly. From day one of the rollout, NBN Co has required its contractors to develop and implement certified safety management systems, work procedures and detailed safety management plans that are required to be compliant with contractual and legislative requirements. These include, but are not necessarily limited to: The Work Health and Safety Act 2011(Cth) and the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011 (Cth); Code of Practice on How to Manage and Control Asbestos in the Workplace; and Code of Practice on How to Safely Remove Asbestos. NBN Co has implemented a system of regular audits as a means of satisfying itself that its contractors' and their sub-contractors are meeting their legal and regulatory obligations. To date NBN Co has conducted some 2,947 audits and inspections of its contractors for the purposes of assessing their compliance with health and safety requirements. NBN Co also implemented a series of additional safety measures. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 3406 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Farm Finance 3406 15:02 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKenzie today relating to farm finance concessional loans. If there was ever any doubt about the Labor government's issues and understanding of the regional economy and regional people, we had it on display today. We have had numerous examples: live cattle, the impact of the carbon tax on our food production systems, the dairy industry et cetera. Two months ago, with no consultation with the states, the government announced—like it has done right throughout its history—packages that have financial implications for others and about which it had not sought to actually consult with them before going about the announcement. The government announced the concessional loans at 4.5 per cent. You saw from the minister's answers today, and it could be seen from the evidence given in estimates, that he had no clue what he was actually talking about. I asked the minister a question in good faith during estimates. A 4.5 per cent concessional loan is going to be a significant benefit to our farmers, to the struggling northern cattlemen right across Queensland and the Northern Territory, to the dairy farmers in western Victoria, to the fruit growers in central Victoria and to the WA sheep and wheat farmers, who are all struggling with the realities of farming in this nation. They need this concessional loan. But the 1.5 per cent difference between what the government is setting it at and what the government is lending it out at adds up to $100,000 a year. That money could be going into farmers' pockets if it was not going into consolidated revenue, as was the evidence that was given. Senator Wong, Treasurer Swan and Prime Minister Gillard are always very keen to quote that revenue is down. But this takes the cake in terms of a new revenue measure, the $6.3 million that will be raised per annum if this differential of 1.5 per cent is applied. As I found out, they have not done the modelling on the administration costs. My understanding is that the typical amount that is allowed for this is around the one per cent mark. But they could not even confirm that during estimates. This is basically taking money that should be going to farmers and putting it into consolidated revenue. It is actually burdening the states even more, who right now are working very hard at paying back ALP government debt. I might say that there are a few who are working extremely hard and extremely well at that. Victoria was left with $7.9 billion and New South Wales was left with $9.2 billion. They are doing a damn good job of paying it back, but it requires that they stick to their budgets. It requires carefully considered and strategic planning for contingencies. But for this federal government and its poor decision-making you cannot plan. You cannot plan for the contingency of Joe Ludwig standing up one day and announcing that you are going to have to find additional money in your budget for the administration of the farm concessional loans program and then going on a PR campaign with struggling farmers groups to apply the pressure. We should not have been surprised. That is out of the ALP playbook of the moment in how to treat our states. We can see that if we look at the health funding issues from last year and the Gonski negotiations that we are watching play out right now. Then there is environmental regulation: the Prime Minister stood up and said, 'We're going to streamline all this environmental legislation and work cooperatively with the states.' We all breathed a sigh of relief. Kevin said he was going to end the blame game. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5v Order! Senator McKenzie, I let you go the first time when you did not refer correctly to Senator Ludwig and I was going to pull you up at the end. But please refer to members of the other place, ministers and senators by their correct titles. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I apologise, Mr Deputy President. I should know better. Mr Kevin Rudd, when he was Prime Minister, was going to end the blame game between states and the feds, and that has not happened—if anything, it has gotten worse. Prime Minister Gillard saw a jump in the polls late last year when she took the premiers on, and that has become her modus operandi. This week, we have been trashing and we continue to trash our Federation as the ideology of the Greens and their lack of respect for the place of state governments in our Federation is being subsumed into ALP ideology. We know have a toxic relationship. That relationship needs to be restored so that it functions effectively for all, and especially for those struggling farmers in regional Australia, across every single state. The minister is right that they need access, but you cannot keep expecting state governments to pick up the can for every harebrained idea that you have, because when you actually have a good one they cannot afford to make it happen. (Time expired) 15:07 Senator STEPHENS 00AOS New South Wales I too rise to take note of the answers to Senator McKenzie's questions today in question time. I am a bit perplexed, I have to say, because prior to being in this place I spent quite a long time as a member of the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority and I remember many stories of distressed property owners seeking to have some kind of access to farm finance. Many of those people have welcomed the farm finance package that was announced by the government in April this year. In fact, I am even more confused because I recall that at Senate estimates Senator McKenzie admitted that this was a very good deal. But unlike those others of us who acknowledge that it is a good deal she—like the rest of the National senators here and the National members of parliament—has been very quiet on convincing the states to provide this assistance to farmers. I spend much of my time in regional New South Wales talking to farmers, farmers' groups, farmers' wives and rural producers of all shapes and forms, and I know that the concessional loans that are being outlined in this package are going to provide breathing space so that people can focus on growing and improving farm businesses. It is pretty unfair that Senator McKenzie has come into this place, supported by her National colleagues, to play mischief with the fact that the delay in all of this is with the state and territory governments. They are the ones who are playing hardball on signing up to this assistance package. To be perfectly frank, 4.5 per cent is a very good rate. It is a significant loan. In terms of farm management deposits and concessional loans, 4.5 per cent is very good access to the finance supporting our farm businesses. As someone who works with them quite closely, I know that the farming community is pursuing and appreciating these issues, and the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority and the Rural Finance Corporation of Victoria have been meeting to work out the arrangements that will come into place. The starting concessional rate of 4.5 per cent will apply nationally, and it will be reviewed to make sure that it remains relevant. I have to say that any one of us seeking finance for a business enterprise would be very pleased to be able to borrow at that generous rate of 4.5 per cent. It is at least one per cent below what you would get from a commercial lender. It is all about the government's intention to assist in relieving debt pressure and allowing eligible farm businesses to grow and improve. If you support the concept of a reconstruction bank—as Mr Katter might propose, and I know many people in rural Australia might consider it—then you need to get behind the work that is being done now. A reconstruction bank in the future might deliver something, in Mr Katter's world, but farmers need the money right now. Until our state and territory colleagues get behind this proposal, it is the farmers who will be missing out. The Farm Finance package includes additional rural financial counsellors. They are the people who are talking to me and asking me to see what can be done to escalate the issue and get these farm packages, these concessional loans, in place. We want this funding to be ready to go from 1 July. That is the week after next. It is our state and territory governments who are playing hooky on this and preventing it from happening. So let's just call it what it is: a stalling tactic by Liberal-National governments. (Time expired) 15:12 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I have to say that was a very disappointing presentation by Senator Stephens. I think—and I think Senator McKenzie sees this too—that she misrepresented the situation in her contribution. I was present when Senator McKenzie was asking questions at both the DAFF estimates and the Treasury estimates as part of this process, and Senator McKenzie, along with the rest of us, has cause to be concerned about the way the government has approached this particular measure. Let's take the way that the measure was started. On 27 April, Minister Ludwig writes to the states, without any prior consultation, and tells them in the letter that they will be responsible for administering the loans, for applicant assessment costs, application processing costs and delivery of the loans. No consultation and no discussion—'You're paying the bill.' That is the way that this government has approached this process. We start asking questions at DAFF estimates, some time later, about this particular measure, and Minister Ludwig says, 'But I've written to the states again to tell them what the details of the loans, the conditions of the loans, were.' So we ask when he wrote to the states. The answer is 'last Friday'. He is trying to blame the states for slowing the process down, which happened because they did not understand the terms and conditions of the loans, they did not know the interest rates, until that letter went to them, on 24 May—almost a month after his initial letter went out to the states advising them of the package that was going to be launched. So a month later he writes to them and tells them that the rate will be 4.5 per cent and that, at the end of five years, it will revert to commercial rates. So they are not 4.5 per cent across the life of the loan; we accept that 4.5 per cent is a good deal for farmers, but the rates are 4.5 per cent for a period of time, five years, then they revert to commercial rates. You talk to the banks and they had no idea this was coming. How did these loans interact with their existing loans? Were they on top of existing debt? Did they replace existing debt? The banks did not know that. Senator Stephens talks about the rural financial counsellors. I was talking to rural financial counsellors only weeks prior to this announcement: they did not even know if their funding was going to be continued, let alone if there would be new rural financial counsellors. They found that out when Senator Ludwig's press release came out to advise them of this magnificent new package. There was no consultation with any of the stakeholders in this process, yet now the minister expects the states to pick up the bill when they find out that the Commonwealth is making $6.3 million a year on the interest rate. Don't you think it is reasonable that they might ask a question about that? Minister Ludwig, Senator Stephens and, I am sure, others on the other side will try and blame all the Liberal states. How come none of the Labor states have signed up? What about the Tasmanian government? They have not signed up. What about the South Australian government? They have not signed up. I have a joint statement from New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia: 'The Commonwealth should not profit from farm loans'—and yet we know that it is. We asked at estimates about the numbers in the budget and we were told as part of that process that they were effectively the opportunity cost of the loans. The numbers in the budget, we were told at estimates, were the opportunity cost of the loans. Yet we now find out that the Commonwealth is making $6.3 million a year on the interest rate. So how is the calculation of the interest rate of the opportunity cost made? The officer quite correctly said, 'I'm not an accountant, but I'm happy to provide the details.' We have not received any of that back yet from the government. We have not received any answers to questions on notice from estimates yet, so we do not have that information. We do not know how the calculation of the opportunity cost has been made in the budget. I would seriously love to see the answer. As Senator McKenzie quite rightly said, this is indicative of the way that this government has treated agriculture. The budget for the portfolio used to be $3.8 billion; it is now only $1.6 billion. This portfolio has been hollowed out. I put on the record that part of that was EC payments, but this issue is indicative of how the government continues to treat agriculture and the states. (Time expired) 15:17 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I rise to take note of answers from Minister Ludwig on the issue of assistance for farmers. Our government has a plan for Australian agriculture. Contrary to what we have heard from the other side, this plan was brought to life in the last federal budget delivered by our government. That was an investment of $1.9 billion in our farmers and our food. Part of that was a plan for agriculture that will include a whole range of people: farmers, fishers, foresters, industry leaders, researchers and officials. The aim of that is to ensure that Australian agriculture can continue to grow from strength to strength into the future. We know that, while many are able to succeed in agriculture, not everyone is feeling the benefits of this strong economy. I absolutely welcome the opportunity to speak about the government's Farm Finance package. In April, $420 million in concessional loans for farmers was announced, particularly for those farmers doing it tough. There are lots of reasons why farmers are doing it tough. There are lots of fires; there are droughts; there is the high dollar—there are a whole range of issues as to why farmers in this country are doing it tough. Even viable operations are still struggling under the weight of that high dollar and, of course, reduced land values and other issues. But we have listened to the concerns of the farmers. That is why this government announced that Farm Finance package. The package is one of concessional loans that give farmers breathing space so that they have time to focus on growing and improving their own farm businesses. They are a relief for the farmers. That is what the loans are; they are to provide relief for farmers in a tough time. Eligible farm businesses can save anywhere around $100,000 if they want to consolidate an existing loan. Our plan for agriculture is to assist our farmers and strengthen the foundation for them to be able to tackle debt head on. But this support requires cooperation and partnership with the states. We want the state and territory governments to make the loan products available across the country as soon as possible so that the farmers can access the assistance they need at a time when everything is tough for them. The state governments have the infrastructure and the expertise on the ground to do this. However, as yet they have been very slow coming to the table. The only contribution we have asked them to make in this agreement is to deliver the loans and cover the administrative costs. It is not a huge ask for the states to come forward and provide this assistance for the farmers, who are doing it tough for many reasons. This is real money for our farmers. It is about real money to assist them in the process of getting on with the business they are out there doing every day, which is to grow product, wheat, sheep, beef or whatever it is they grow. This is about helping them. As my colleague Senator Stephens indicated, the starting concessional rate is set at 4.5 per cent, and that would apply nationally. That is a very reasonable rate—of course, it is going to be reviewed, but it is a reasonable rate. We are bearing the entire risk of these loans. The government is doing this to assist people when times are tough. Our No. 1 priority for farmers is to get this rolling, and to do this we need to have the state governments onside to make sure we get this out to those who need it most. We know there are lots of benefits in this. The farm finance consists of four measures: concessional loans to help restructure debt and invest in productivity; additional rural finance counsellors to work directly with farm businesses; progressing a nationally consistent approach to debt mediation; and to enhance the Farm Management Deposits Scheme— (Time expired) 15:22 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I, too, rise to take note of answers given by Senator Ludwig to questions from Senator McKenzie and to the responses we have heard from senators Urquhart and Stephens. Regarding the comment about the 4.5 per cent loan being at a reasonable interest rate, I do not think anyone is disagreeing with this. But this is actually not the point. The point raised is that 4.5 per cent is actually 1.5 per cent over the interest rate at which the government can borrow this money. So we have a situation where the federal government are crowing about helping out our farmers by providing them with concessional loans, while they are actually profiting from it. That is the crux of the issue. It is about profiteering on something. They have gone out there and made it sound like they are jolly good chaps because they have put these concessional loans in place, but it is really just a revenue measure. Those opposite then have the audacity to say that it is the fault of the state and territory governments for not taking this up. But it is they who have been left with the actual cost and expense of administering these loans, while the federal government are making money out of it. I think this shows extraordinary hypocrisy and it is something the government need to be called to account on. It is a complete and utter outrage. The other thing Senator Urquhart crowed about is the fact that it is a plan for farming and a strong economy. When you announce a policy there are two things you do: you announce it so that people know what you are doing and then you have to put the policy implements and actions in place to support the policies. But, when it comes to agriculture across the whole of Australia and how this government is dealing with our primary producers, what we seem to be seeing is that they talk about lots of things. They talk about things like the national food plan. They talk about Australia being the food bowl of the world. They talk about the Asian century and the opportunities that this all gives to our farmers and to our country. But at the exact same time as they are out there trying to convince people that they are the party looking after rural and regional Australia they are enacting other policy mechanisms and instruments that are destroying our agricultural and farming sectors. We have heard time and time again about the impacts of the knee-jerk reaction of the government to the live exports situation. We have heard time and time again about the implications on the sovereign risk of this country from the reaction to the Margiris, the ship that had legitimately collected fishing quotas—but, no, the government decided on a knee-jerk reaction from a GetUp! campaign that this particular thing could not go ahead. The government talk about cost recovery. This is another example of the government saying, on one hand, 'Yes, we're going to do all these wonderful things to assist our farming and agricultural sectors,' but on the other hand taking the money back. They are clawing back and putting things in place that are detrimental to or an encumbrance on our farming sector. The AQIS cost-recovery situation and charges we have been talking about in this place recently is a classic example. When we went to cost recovery there was supposed to be a suite of cost-saving measures that went with it, but we have gone to cost recovery and have not seen any of the cost-saving measures. I say to the government: if you are going to announce these sorts of policies and talk about how you are supporting rural and regional Australia, you cannot just say it; you have to do it, too. Talking the talk does not pass muster; you have to be able to walk the walk. Unfortunately, this suite of packages to which the questions are referring today is just another classic example of talking the talk and not putting the things in place that will enable these sorts of projects to be implemented. Back to the states: the states have been asked to implement these projects, but none of the states, apart from Queensland, had in place a mechanism by which they could deliver the money to the farmers. Now we have big brother, the federal government, smacking the state governments because they have not done something that the government thought was a great idea, but the government did not give the states the time and did not consult with them. The states had no capacity whatsoever to deliver this package because they did not have the things in place. This is a real outrage. I also take offence at concessional loans on the basis that they are just bandaids on the cuts that have been inflicted on the rural sector by this government. Let us stop sticking bandaids on things. Let us stop making the cuts in the first place. Let us address rural and regional policy so that we can give the opportunity to our rural sector to be successful, instead of just propping it up by these pathetic means. Question agreed to. Parent and Community Engagement Program 3412 15:28 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Sport (Senator Lundy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the Wyndham Early Learning Activity Centre. I asked this question on the day that we had people from NACCHO, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women from Straight Talk and people from the Aboriginal Indigenous Leadership Centre in this place. These are excellent examples of Aboriginal organisations that are all working to close the gap in life expectancy and life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Yet here we have a government represented by Minister Lundy, who could not answer my question about the future of the Wyndham Early Learning Activity centre. This is a classic example of what we should be doing and should be funding so that we can close the gap. The Wyndham Early Learning Activity centre was established by a group of Aboriginal mothers to benefit their children. It was established over seven years ago and has become a community hub for families in the East Kimberly region. Its culturally appropriate environment allows children to develop social and cognitive skills in a safe environment, engages parents in learning and provides a range of social functions for men and teens as well. The centre was listed by the Commissioner for Children and Young People in WA as an excellent example of a best practice program in her 2012 report Building Blocks: Best practice programs that improve the wellbeing of children and young people: Edition one, along with being a two-time winner—not just once but twice—of the Department for Communities Outstanding Children and Families Service or Project: Regional Service, Children's Week Award—in other words, they do a very good job. Less than a year ago, this government thought that this service was doing such a good job that the Prime Minister opened their brand new centre, around $1.7 million worth, to support this excellent work. This is an excellent example of a community involvement and development project, yet at the end of June it will lose more than half of its staff. It will go down from five staff to two half-time staff, who I am told will only be able to deliver about 11 hours of support. They are currently funded through a range of programs, but particularly through the Parental and Community Engagement Program—and Senator Lundy has outlined the values of that project and the funding for that program—and obviously, this program is accessed by many other centres as well. The minister said: 'Oh, but Senator that program is going to be re-funded on 1 January 2014.' Well what happens to the centres that are being funded up to 13 June 2013 between 30 June and 1 January 2014 when the funding recommences? And, as we all know, it takes a long time for funding applications go out, for them to be renewed and for the money to flow, so it could be 6 to 9 months, or 12 months, without funding. Has the government not thought what that means to centres such as WELA, and to the provision of that service? On top of that, they have not yet been told whether or not they will have funding under other funding programs that exist. The only funding they will retain at this stage that they know is certain—this is less than a month away; this is just on two weeks away—is a relatively small amount of funding that they get from the Communities for Children programs. So far, WELA has not been given or told of any other funding options. They have no transition arrangements into other funding. They are reliant on this funding to provide what I have already outlined are these excellent services—and it is not just the community saying they are excellent, it has in fact been recognised by both the Department of Communities in Western Australia and the Commissioner for Children and Young People. This will have a very significant impact on the delivery of services in Wyndham and to the communities in the East Kimberley region that depend on this type of funding. It should be a matter of priority for government to ensure that this service can continue, and that this centre can continue to deliver these excellent services. Is the government committed to closing the gap or not? I have heard several speeches—rather good speeches, in fact—by government ministers today at various functions today—at NACCHO this morning, at Straight Talk, and at the lunch for the Indigenous Leadership Centre—all about needing to close the gap, and about valuing the work that Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal community driven projects do. The WELA centre is a classic example: why is the government not engaging, and ensuring that this program does not lose its staff and continue to do its excellent work? (Time expired) Question agreed to. NOTICES 3414 NOTICES Presentation 3414 BUSINESS 3415 BUSINESS Withdrawal 3415 15:34 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I move: That Business of the Senate order of the day no. 1, standing my name for today, be discharged from the Notice Paper. Question agreed to. NOTICES 3415 NOTICES Postponement 3415 BUSINESS 3416 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 3416 15:35 Senator McEWEN e5e South Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senators Singh and Sterle on Thursday 20 June 2013 on account of personal reasons. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 3416 MOTIONS Treaties Committee 3416 15:36 Senator KROGER G1N Victoria I ask that General Business notice of motion no.1269 standing in Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Senator McKenzie's name relating to a committee matter be taken as formal. I move: That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 24 June 2013, from 10 am, followed by a public hearing. Question agreed to. Human Rights: Iran 3416 15:36 Senator STEPHENS 00AOS New South Wales by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Bernardi, move: That the Senate— (a) supports freedom of religion as a universal human right; (b) does not support the imprisonment or persecution of individuals on the basis of their religious belief; (c) calls on the Iranian authorities to release Pastor Saeed Abedini who was sentenced to 8 years in prison because his Christian faith and activities were deemed a national security threat by the Iranian Government; (d) recognises that this action is a breach of Iran's international obligations, its own constitution and stated religious values; and (e) stands in solidarity with Pastor Abedini, his family and all those who seek to practise their religion without fear of persecution. Question agreed to. Foreign Affairs 3416 15:37 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) recognises: (i) the signing of the Charter of the Commonwealth by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia and Head of the Commonwealth, on 11 March 2013, and (ii) That the Charter reaffirms the core values and principles of the Commonwealth as being: (A) democracy, (B) human rights, (C) international peace and security, (D) tolerance, respect and understanding, (E) freedom of expression, (F) separation of powers, (G) rule of law, (H) good governance, (i) sustainable development, (J) protecting the environment, (K) access to health, education, food and shelter, (L) gender equality, (M) importance of young people in the Commonwealth, (N) recognition of the needs of small states, (O) recognition of the needs of vulnerable states, and (P) the role of civil society; and (b) encourages the Australian Government to further demonstrate its support for the values contained in the Charter by working to ensure all Commonwealth nations abide by its commitments. Question agreed to. Iraq 3417 15:38 Senator McEWEN e5e South Australia At the request of Senators Moore, Williams and Cameron, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes the concerns about the security of the residents of Camp Hurriya in Iraq which was subject to a mortar attack on 15 June 2013; (b) recognises that individual refugee status assessments are underway in Camp Hurriya, with more than half the determinations completed to date; and (c) urges the international community to continue to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Government of Iraq on finding a durable solution for camp residents, including resettlement in third countries. Question agreed to. Indigenous Affairs 3417 15:38 Senator McEWEN e5e South Australia At the request of Senator Crossin, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 2013 is the 50th anniversary of the Yirrkala bark petitions, and (ii) these petitions were: (a) from the Yolngu people of Yirrkala and the first documents bridging Commonwealth law as it then stood, and the Indigenous laws of the land, (b) the first traditional documents recognised by the Commonwealth Parliament and are thus the documentary recognition of Indigenous people in Australian law, (c) extraordinary in nature as they were the first petitions to use traditional forms and combine bark painting with text typed on paper, and (d) painted designs proclaiming Yolngu law, depicting the traditional relations to the land and the typed text incorporating both English and Gumatj languages; and (b) recognises: (i) the national appreciation of this anniversary, and (ii) that NAIDOC Week 2013 will be aptly themed 'We value the vision: Yirrkala Bark Petitions 1963'. Question agreed to. Health 3417 15:39 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I ask that General Business Notice of Motion No. 1274 standing in my name for today, relating to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into unpaid carers be taken as formal. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5v Is there any objection to that motion being taken as formal? There being none, I call Senator Hanson Young. 15:39 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that unpaid caring work being undertaken by Australian individuals is leading to inequality over the life-cycle of women and the emergence of gender-based disparity in retirement incomes; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) direct the Productivity Commission to conduct an inquiry into mechanisms for recognising and valuing unpaid care which might reduce the gender gap, including, but not limited to, options and models for superannuation and tax offsets, carer's leave, child care, aged pension supplements, and additional paid parental leave measures, and (ii) specify That the inquiry examine the merits and feasibility of a system of 'carer credits' in the form of direct credits to the superannuation accounts of individuals with parent care responsibilities or carer responsibilities. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5v The question is that that motion be agree to.

The Senate divided. [15:43]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

10 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC Ludlam, S Milne, C Rhiannon, L Siewert, R (teller) Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wright, PL Xenophon, N 34 NOES Bilyk, CL Bishop, TM Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Collins, JMA Cormann, M Farrell, D Feeney, D Fifield, MP Furner, ML Gallacher, AM Joyce, B Kroger, H (teller) Lines, S Ludwig, JW Lundy, KA Marshall, GM McEwen, A McKenzie, B McLucas, J Moore, CM Parry, S Pratt, LC Ruston, A Singh, LM Smith, D Stephens, U Sterle, G Thorp, LE Urquhart, AE Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Tibet 3418 (South Australia) (15:46): Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) the current visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Australia, and the visit of the Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile, Mr Penpa Tsering, to Australia's Parliament House, and (ii) the ongoing tension and repressions in Tibetan regions, leading to nearly 120 deaths of Tibetans by self-immolation, and the continuing surveillance and violent crackdowns on Tibetans; and (b) calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) to escalate diplomatic arrangements for a visit by the Australian Ambassador and an Australian parliamentary delegation to Tibetan regions for the purposes of fact-finding and observation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:17]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)

10 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC Ludlam, S Milne, C Rhiannon, L Siewert, R (teller) Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Wright, PL Xenophon, N 36 NOES Bilyk, CL Bishop, TM Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Collins, JMA Cormann, M Farrell, D Feeney, D Fifield, MP Furner, ML Gallacher, AM Joyce, B Kroger, H (teller) Lines, S Ludwig, JW Lundy, KA Marshall, GM McEwen, A McKenzie, B McLucas, J Moore, CM Nash, F Parry, S Pratt, LC Ruston, A Singh, LM Sinodinos, A Smith, D Stephens, U Sterle, G Thorp, LE Urquhart, AE Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 3419 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 3419 15:50 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5v I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, Senators Fifield and Siewert each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order 75 proposing a matter of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Fifield: "The failure of the Gillard Government to commit to equal resources for a "YES" case and a "NO" case for the proposed Referendum question on the Constitution and Local Government." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5v I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 15:51 Senator JOYCE e5d Queensland In one of the more difficult times for dealing with such a contentious issue as a constitutional referendum, when people are rightly questioning and wanting to make sure that they get a fair hearing and have the capacity to ensure that the views that they earnestly hold are able to be ventilated in a way that is not inhibited to an extent by problems of the other side, it is very important that fair funding is given to both sides of the debate. It was a disappointing but great surprise to me when I found out on Monday that the two sides to this issue had vastly different access to resources to mount their cases. It might be that the circumstances of next week mean that there is no referendum. If Mr Rudd challenges Ms Gillard, as we believe he is going to, and becomes the new Prime Minister and we go off to an early election we will not get to the prescribed period. You then have to ask the question: what is going to happen to the $75 million or so that was put aside for this referendum? Or will that be another fiasco of this current government? But on the presumption that this manic approach to this referendum is pursued then there has to be a fair capacity for both sides to engage with the Australian people on their well-held views as to why there should or should not be support for this referendum. It is also worth noting that at a time when the contentious views for and against this referendum can live happily side by side in the same chamber and at a time when the Taliban is negotiating with the United States, we still cannot get a proper negotiation between Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd as to who will be the Prime Minister of Australia. Why that is pertinent to this is that it is extremely relevant to this referendum and how it goes. If we head to an election early then there is no need for any money because we will not have the proper passage as prescribed by section 126 of the Constitution. In making sure that we have a vessel to hold the funds for the yes and the no cases, we need proper and transparent mechanisms to ensure that organisations on both sides have the capacity to be audited so that when the funds turn up we feel they are going to the appropriate purpose. That would stand to reason. We also acknowledge that in the constitutional referendum debate there were two well-established camps—the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy and the Australian Republican Movement. They both had well-respected organisations where money could be delivered and spent. But, most importantly, they each received equal funding. So I think it is incumbent somewhat upon the government that on the delivery of an organisation that passes the audit test for the no case—and that is a hair's-breadth away; it could happen tomorrow or tonight or it might already have happened, I am not sure—there should be parity of funding between the two. Otherwise you will build up a natural form of suspicion amongst the Australian people as to exactly where this funding is going. For me, the overwhelming frustration is that the local government representatives who have been continuously, one after the other, coming into my office are really talking to the wrong person—because I am on side. They have to start lobbying the people who are not on side. Convincing me of a requirement I agree with is probably a waste of time. But I am happy to see them anyway. I think it is extremely pertinent that one of them said, 'This issue only raised itself up in the last couple of days.' I said, 'No, this issue has been on the boil for about a year.' In fact, one of my good staff members, Samantha, informed me that it has been going for longer than that. That just goes to show that the transparency and ventilation of the debate is not wide. If those in the centre of the debate do not know about it, then what hope do we have for those on the periphery of the debate? What hope do we have for those in Johnson Street, Smith Street or Betty Street knowing about the debate? We know what happens if they do not. If there is a sense of suspicion or they do not have a complete comprehension of the issues, they will do what most people do—when in doubt, vote out. If we want to succeed with this—and obviously I am pushing the barrow that I want it to succeed—then we have to have four things. We have to have a diligent process, which is not in place. We have to have time, which we do not have. We have to have key stakeholders on side, which are not there. And we have to have a sense of fairness. If there is not a sense of fairness in the delivery of the proposition then people will think—and most of the time they would be right—that there is something tricky going on and they will move away from it. For the yes case to prevail, I plead that the no case be equally funded because it helps both cases. I have said that I want a referendum to win on its merits, not on its finances. The merits of the case will be well thought out with well-instructed camps from both sides. You will have two different views within this chamber. You will have state governments that are overwhelmingly against it and you will have local governments that are overwhelmingly for it. In that environment, the nation will go to a referendum on the same day as an election that will be sucking the oxygen out of any possible ventilation of this issue. This also goes back to the fact that supporting a case on either side is going to require a campaign like anything else. Just as there are 150 seats that will determine the outcome at a general election, there are 150 seats that have to be lobbied and that have to participate in the appropriate politics throughout the nation for the referendum. For that process and coordination to take place, it is going to require substantial funds. It will require substantial funds just to get one mail-out to one electorate. If you are looking at 110,000 to 120,000 voters in an electorate, it is going to cost you around $110,000 or $120,000. When you think of the cost of an envelope, a stamp and the other bits and pieces that go with it and the content, you would be doing very well to get out of it for less than a dollar a letter. That means that, with the $500,000 there at the moment, you would probably get about four electorates done, and there are 150 electorates. This is where the costs rack up. Any person who has ever been engaged in a marginal campaign will understand that concept perfectly well, will understand the actual cost of running a campaign. The people whose views are evolving now on both sides of the debate seem to be people who are immensely decent and driven by views that are ardent but well thought out, including former Senator Nick Minchin and others for the no case and other people for the yes case. It would seem peculiar that I would stand up and say this, but I think it is a vitally important issue. The Australian people will naturally be suspicious if they think the fix is on. They have an inherent desire to always support the underdog. Especially of late, they have held that the verdicts—(Time expired) 16:01 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia I rise to make a contribution to this discussion and perhaps to put on record a few of the facts of the matter. The department of local government is funding a $10 million non-partisan civics education campaign to ensure that people are fully informed of the basis of the amendment to the Constitution. Further, the Electoral Commission will spend approximately $40 million on preparing for the referendum. This includes disseminating the official yes/no campaign pamphlet drafted by the parliament. The Electoral Commission will also develop referendum-specific advertising, particularly dealing with informing electors how to cast a formal vote. The partisan funding campaigns, totalling $10.5 million, will form only a small part of the overall information going to voters on the proposal. It is the government’s prerogative to fund campaigns. Contrary to Senator Brandis’s comments, it has always been the prerogative of the government whether, how and how much to fund partisan campaigns. This is separate from the official yes/no pamphlet. Mr Howard may well have equally split costs for campaigns, but at no point did he concede this was anything other than a decision of the government. And, importantly, members have voted in the House 133 to two in favour of including local government in the Constitution, and this should affect the funding. Any voter or anyone interested in this matter, upon making a cursory investigation, will find some excellent resource work done by the Local Government Association of South Australia, in a very interesting document entitled 'Referendum myths': Myth 1: This is Julia Gillard’s referendum. This referendum is the result of six years of work by Local Government through the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). The concept was agreed formally in documents signed by the Greens and Independents as a part of arrangements to secure Government in 2010. An expert panel considered it in 2011 and a Parliamentary Select Committee set up in 2012 recommended it. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce have publicly supported it since 2011. Myth 2: This referendum has been rushed. After significant preliminary work the ALGA ran a Summit in Melbourne in 2008. Following the Pape case in the High Court in 2009 the ALGA formalised its position aimed at securing funding for communities through Councils. The LGA of SA formally endorsed the proposed wording change recommended by Professor George Williams in October, 2010 and all 68 SA Councils formally endorsed this position in the first half of 2011. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce gave a commitment to support financial recognition of Local Government in 2011 at the ALGA Conference in 2011. Myth 3: There is no need for this referendum. Specific legal advice indicates that since the Pape case in 2009, the High Court has no support for direct funding of Local Government. Programs such as the Howard Government’s “Roads to Recovery” program (worth $28m a year to SA communities) will fall at the slightest challenge. Even if not challenged directly, no Commonwealth agency will now recommend a direct funding model for fear it will be challenged. Myth 4: The referendum is about “recognising” Local Government and entrenching it as a level of government. No, this is about financial recognition. The ALGA sought specific legal advice in order to craft an amendment to the Constitution which would address the direct funding problem but not open the confusion surrounding the 1974 and 1988 referenda. The advice indicated that our objective could be achieved by amending Section 96 of the Constitution (a funding section). The High Court has previously found that Section 96 provides no power to make laws. As a result of the change, the Federal Government will only be able to offer funding to Councils, which may be refused. Indeed our advice is that the State, if it wished, would be able to prevent Councils receiving funding by passing laws to that effect. Myth 5: It is a power grab by Canberra to control local Councils. Through this amendment, the Commonwealth can not make laws about Local Government. The amendment makes clear that Local Government is created by, and accountable to State Parliaments. Indeed subject to requirements of State Constitutions, State Parliaments will continue to have the power to abolish Local Government without recourse to the Commonwealth. Myth 6: The Coalition is opposed to recognising Local Government in the Constitution. There is bipartisan support for this referendum. The vote was 133 to two in the House, so there is clearly bipartisan support for this referendum. The document continues: Prior to the Hawke referendum of 1988, the Liberal Party adopted a position in support of recognising Local Government in the constitution—through a committee chaired by Bob Katter Senior. Liberal Leader Tony Abbott and Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce have indicated their strong support for confirming the power of the Commonwealth to fund Councils directly as in the Howard initiated Roads to Recovery Program. Both gave a clear commitment to recognition in front of 900 Council delegates at the ALGA National General Assembly in 2011. Myth 7: This question has been rejected twice before by the public . It's the same question as posed in 1974 and 1988. In 1974 the Whitlam referendum proposed amending Section 51 of the Constitution—the Commonwealth's law-making powers. In 1988 the Hawke referendum proposed establishing a new section in the Constitution to recognize Local Government. Both created confusion about the extent of the change being sought and both were proposed by the Commonwealth. The current referendum has been sought and designed by Local Government only to confirm Federal funding powers. There you have a very salient case put by the Local Government Association of South Australia, an organisation representative of the councils of South Australia. This question is wholly supported by all those councils. It is very clear that there is a lot of political mischief being played in this argument. I have been receiving emails quoting amounts of funding that I have no evidence to suggest are the actual amounts. I have received considerable numbers of emails that appear to be based on misinformation. They are consistent in form. The only thing that changes is the name and the address at the bottom, although you may get six of them at one time from the same address. It appears as if, as usual, there is a touch of political mischief afoot, with people taking any opportunity to muddy the waters and malign the motives of those who are pressing forward with a fairly modest agreed position. The Local Government Association of South Australia say that all 68 of their councils are in agreement. I enjoyed a very fine meal with a number of mayors from South Australia on Sunday night. I detected no antipathy towards this proposal. In fact, it appeared as if they were going to get on with the job and disseminate the information necessary, Senator Joyce has said, to get the convincing position for the affirmative supported. That is going to be a matter for the electors, but the facts are quite clear. 16:11 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania Thank you, Senator Gallacher, for your contribution, but I think you spent about the first minute actually addressing the subject matter of the MPI—the failure of the Gillard government to commit to equal resources for a yes case and a no case for the proposed referendum question on the Constitution and local government—and the remainder of your time arguing for the yes case. I guess that is your prerogative, but that is quite a separate issue to the matter that we have raised here today. Senator Gallacher said—and this was about the extent to which he got into it—that the funding should reflect the vote in parliament. If he is correct, I think that would have very interesting results for all other areas of government funding, when you look at the proportionality of the votes that take place here. Senator Gallacher pointed to the $10.5 million that has been allocated by the government for the partisan campaigns. He said that all the rest would be equal—the yes/no booklet and all that would be funded equally. But the $10.5 million is the partisan part, and that is where the disproportionality exist. The decision to disproportionately fund the yes and no campaigns and the extent to which it will be done is undoubtedly one of the most extraordinarily appalling decisions of this Labor government. Given the litany of broken policies and disastrous policies of this government, that is really saying something. In an almost inexplicable decision, this Labor government has decided to provide $10 million to the yes side yet just one-twentieth of that sum, $500,000, to the no campaign. This is despite the fact that, during the cross-party discussions, there was no mention whatsoever of a disproportionality in funding or, further, that it would be based on the parliamentary vote. All Australians, whether they were born here or chose to live here, are incredibly lucky to have inherited an incredibly robust and balanced document in the form of our Constitution. We are one of only a handful of nations which remained democratic throughout the 20th century and into this one, one of the very few nations whose citizens have continuously enjoyed the liberties and freedoms that we now take for granted. We are incredibly lucky. But that luck has been greatly assisted by the fact that the document we now refer to as the Australian Constitution was thoughtfully and carefully drafted over 110 years ago and delivered exactly what we needed as a young nation to survive in our early years and mature into what is now one of the world's oldest democracies. As such, Australians are rightly very cautious when it comes to changing this document fundamental to our democratic success. I acknowledge that, despite its great robustness, the Constitution does need to be changed from time to time to reflect circumstances our forebears could not or did not foresee, but it is right and correct, given the importance it plays in underpinning our democracy and the balance it achieves, that such change is approached carefully, cautiously and in a considered manner by Australians. Past practice shows it is usually also approached in the same manner by governments when putting up proposals for constitutional change. But, to the great shame of this government, that is not what we are seeing here. Ignoring for the moment the motivating factor behind Labor's decision to proceed with this referendum—that is, the deal done with the Greens and Independents after the last election to retain government—the process followed by Labor has shown a total disregard for a suitably careful, cautious and considered approach to this change. In the end, it is the people who should decide on change and, in doing so, it is right that they should fully understand the issues and the arguments for and against the proposed change. I do not support the proposal, but I would not necessarily have been opposed in principle to the passing of the enabling bill if steps had been taken to ensure that the Australian people were as well prepared as possible to make a fully informed decision. This clearly will not be the case, both because of the failure of the government to act in a timely manner over the past 2½ years and, now, because of the government's attempt to make up for this failure by what looks awfully like trying to buy the outcome through grossly disproportionate funding of the two sides of the question—a partisan campaign, as Senator Gallacher referred to it. As deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, I enjoyed the opportunity of hearing from constitutional experts, bureaucrats, local governments and other interested parties throughout the inquiry process, which ended earlier this year. What was patently obvious to me from that inquiry is that the government has seriously mishandled the process leading up to the announcement of this referendum. I would have thought it obvious that no proposal to change our Constitution should be put to the people unless all practical and reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the Australian people are as equipped as possible to make their decision on a fully informed basis. Witnesses at the joint committee's hearings all supported that position. I suspect many who are opposed to the passage of the bill to enable the referendum would be far less stridently opposed if the process leading up to its consideration had been properly handled by the government. As it was not properly handled, I have far less confidence that the Australian people will have the necessary exposure to, or the necessary understanding of, the arguments for and against to allow them to make a fully informed decision on 14 September—or any earlier date which may transpire. The government's failure to act on the recommendations of its own expert panel, particularly the recommendation for early engagement with the public on the issues, is only exacerbated by the decision announced this week to grossly disproportionately fund the yes case relative to the tiny amount made available for the no campaign. This can only be an attempt to skew public information and engagement towards an understanding of the issues from the yes perspective and away from the no. Such a move is entirely unprecedented, is dishonest and is unfair to all Australians. The chamber is aware that the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, has written to the Prime Minister on this subject. I associate myself with the remarks he made in his letter. He said: The Coalition believes that it is not up to the Government of the day to pre-determine the outcome of any referendum question: a referendum is a decision for the Australian people to make. … … … Any bid to change the Constitution should succeed on the strength of a fair and well-argued case, not on the weight of advertising. We should not lightly change our Constitution. Argument, not money, should determine the outcome. … … … It is the first time that any notion of public funding based on parliamentary votes has ever been raised with the Coalition, or publicly. That is the dishonest aspect of what the government are doing. The letter goes on to say: The fact that this grossly disparate funding split was never raised with the Coalition at any time during a process where bipartisanship was sought makes a mockery of so-called consultation. You will recall that at the last referendum, the Government funded both the 'yes' and the 'no' case on the question of a Republic equally. Rightly, Mr Howard determined that the choice to support a change to the Constitution was a choice for the Australian people and government's role was to merely put up a sound question and ensure that the arguments could be put and a genuine community debate could be conducted. He then calls on the Prime Minister to do the same and concludes: Anything less than equal funding for the 'yes' and 'no' cases puts at risk the fairness of this process. It is bad enough that the government has entirely inappropriately decided to fund the yes and no campaigns disproportionately, but what does it say about the minister's—or indeed the government's—view of the Senate when he says that the decision made was to fund the campaigns in accordance with the vote on the floor of parliament? Here is some news for the minister: the Senate is part of the parliament. (Time expired) 16:19 Senator MADIGAN 217571 Victoria When the Constitution Alteration (Recognition of Local Government) Bill, which is what today's MPI is about, originally came up, I intended to support it. Generally, the DLP and I support any call for a referendum, because there is no better example of democracy than giving the people a direct voice in the running of their country and the shaping of their Constitution. It is for this reason I introduced the Citizen Initiated Referendum Bill, which is currently before committee. A democracy cannot function properly if the political representatives of the nation usurp all power to themselves. Quite frankly, we have seen some incredible examples of that with recent governments. Unfortunately, I find myself in the position of not supporting this call for a referendum, because to do so would be to become complicit in eroding the democratic rights of the Australian people. How can we accept that the funding of the yes and no cases for this referendum should be determined by how many parliamentarians voted for it in the House of Representatives and by how many local councils support it? The only people who are entitled to change the Australian Constitution are the Australian people. It is not up to local government, it is not up to state parliaments and it is certainly not up to the Senate or the House of Representatives. If you are trying to say that we are the people who were elected to represent the Australian people and are therefore capable of deciding everything for our constituents, you are kidding yourselves. If you want to argue that, why not go back and count what percentage of the vote each parliamentarian and councillor received and apportion the funds according to that? Yes, that is a nonsense argument, but it is infinitely fairer than the undemocratic and, more to the point, despotic attempt to skew the debate we have before us. If the funding were fairly apportioned as it should be, I would support the call for a referendum. But, with this unbelievable infringement of the democratic process as the only option, I simply cannot accept it and will vote against it. However, if the government were to decide against this ridiculous position and grant equal funding I would gladly support the democratic process of putting the question to the people. That should not be misconstrued as my support for the intention of the referendum. Neither I nor the Democratic Labor Party agrees with the constant attack of successive federal governments on the rights of the states. This deliberate attempt to further undermine the powers of the states should be seen for what it is—one step further along the road to the removal of state governments and the consolidation of all power in the federal government. This has been a platform of the ALP since the 1960s and is one that the DLP has never agreed to. I will not vote in favour of this referendum at the election, and the DLP will campaign against it. But the question here is the fairness of the funding and, as I have said, I cannot support the bill unless that is improved. The only people who can change the Australian Constitution are the Australian people, and we are kidding ourselves if we think it is up to us. We had better stop eroding the rights of the Senate and the job it is supposed to do as the true house of review that represents the States. 16:23 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to speak on the important referendum question of the constitutional recognition of local government. Again, unfortunately, we have seen in this matter of public importance discussion in the Senate a misrepresentation of the facts by those opposite in an attempt to score political points. As those opposite would be aware, the Department of Regional Development, Local Government, Arts and Sport is spending $10 million on a non-partisan civics education campaign to ensure that people are fully informed of the basis for the proposed amendment. The Australian Electoral Commission will spend around $40 million in preparing for the referendum. This includes circulating the official yes/no pamphlet, which will be drafted by the parliament. The AEC will also develop referendum-specific advertising, particularly to inform electors on how to cast a formal vote. So the partisan or yes/no campaign funding, which totals $10.5 million, will only form a small part of the overall information campaign on the proposed referendum change. It is worth noting that the constitutional recognition of local government did enjoy bipartisan support at the federal level. I am not sure of the current position of those opposite, but of course we do know that Mr Abbott did indicate his in-principle support, I think was the term he used, for the yes case but that appears not to be the position of his party any more. Whether it is still his own personal position I do not know. The recent vote in the House of Representatives was 133 to two in favour of the proposed amendment to include local government in the Constitution. This vote formed the basis of providing funding for each of the cases. It reflected the proportion of members in the other place who voted for and against this constitutional change. Over 98 per cent of members voted for the change and less than two per cent voted against the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill. In fact, the no case actually attracted proportionally less compared to the $500,000 the government is providing for proponents of the no case. The two members who voted against constitutional change will be asked to determine the distribution of this funding. Let us examine what the proposed constitutional change is and what impact it will have. The proposed change to the Constitution is quite small and involves the addition of 17 words to section 96. The Constitution would be updated to read: 96 Financial assistance to States and local government bodies During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State, or local government body formed by a law of a State ... The insertion of these 17 words does not diminish the role of the states in the administration of local government. This is a practical change to the Constitution that recognises what is the modern reality of the way the Commonwealth and local government already interact. The Commonwealth already partners with local government on a range of programs, including road funding under the Roads to Recovery Program, which is a highly successful program. Together the Commonwealth and local government have been able to work together to upgrade and repair 16,000 road sites across the country. The Commonwealth has also partnered with local government to deliver other local roads, sporting facilities, libraries, childcare and community services. This is already taking place and the constitutional change will do nothing more than acknowledge this fact. This strong partnership is already delivering significant benefits in my home state of Tasmania. In particular, the Glenorchy City Council in the electorate of Denison, one of 29 councils in Tasmania, is benefiting from Commonwealth funding through the KG5 sporting precinct redevelopment, the CCTV cameras program, the Glenorchy Art and Culture Park stages 1 and 2, and many other infrastructure projects. I will take a moment to talk about these projects to demonstrate exactly how this relationship between the federal government and local government is already working. Under the Regional Local Community Infrastructure Program—from memory a $250 million program—each council across the country has received funding. From the funding Glenorchy City Council received in that first round, we saw irrigation systems upgraded at Montrose Bay and Claremont recreational grounds, childcare centre upgrades, electric barbecues installed at Tolosa Park, landscaping at Tolosa Park and landscaping at the Katoomba Crescent reserve. Also, we also the upgrade of the Glenorchy skate park, work done at the Wellington Park mountain bike trails and the Barossa Creek stormwater litter traps. Just in one council area in the first round of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program we saw eight projects that benefited the local council and the residents who live in that area. It was a very successful round of that program. In Hobart city, where my office is, the Hobart City Council has received Roads to Recovery funding as well as support to replace old lighting around the city with LED lighting, upgrade the soccer pitch for the South Hobart Soccer Club and upgrade the Lenah Valley RSL community hall. So we can see that a strong working relationship already exists between the federal government and local governments. As I have demonstrated, that relationship acknowledges that local government is the tier of government closest to the community and it provides many of the services and infrastructure projects that affect the local community. This level of support being provided to local government has been reiterated today with the announcement of $150 million to be shared between all local councils and shires across Australia to help build and renew community infrastructure. This funding has been delivered through round 5 of the Regional Development Australia Fund and the Liveable Cities Program as part of the federal government's commitment to supporting jobs and growth as well as investing in regional and local communities. This boost will mean councils and shires will share in funding based on the current financial assistance grants distribution. Protections will be put in place to ensure that the smaller councils, of which there are many in Tasmania, will receive a base payment of at least $30,000. Seventy per cent of the funding, about $105 million, will be directed to rural and regional councils through the Regional Development Australia Fund. The other 30 per cent of funding, $45 million, will be delivered to urban councils through the Liveable Cities Program to make our cities more productive, liveable and sustainable. The funding is for councils and shires to build and renew community infrastructure with sporting facilities, town halls and playgrounds. Essential community services are expected to benefit from this funding. Back home in Tasmania I know local councils will be very happy with Minister Albanese's announcement today. I have read out some of the projects that were funded through a similar program that was delivered through— (Time expired) 16:33 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia I have a great deal of sympathy for Senator Brown from Tasmania and Senator Gallacher from South Australia. To have been dragged into this chamber to defend the indefensible this afternoon took great courage. I have never heard a more lacklustre, more lazy, more lame or more loose defence of any government decision than this decision— Senator Carol Brown F49 Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, I raise a point of order. I object to Senator Smith's comments. He is misrepresenting my contribution today. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOS There is no point of order. Senator SMITH 241710 I have never heard a more lame, lacklustre, lazy or loose defence of any government decision in the 13 months that I have been in this Senate than I have heard this afternoon. Unless I heard incorrectly, I do not think I heard the words 'fairness', 'fair go', 'democratic values' or 'integrity' from any of the speakers on the other side with regard to this matter. That was a shameful exercise in our democracy. We heard Labor senators talk about the government's prerogative to fund the campaign. I want to hear about the government's responsibility to fund the campaign equally. We heard about Labor senators defending the decision to allocate funding based solely on the decision of the House of Representatives. Labor senators could not even defend their own role in the democratic process. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 That is not true. That is a misrepresentation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOS Order! Senator Collins, you are aware that under standing order 197 it is disorderly to interrupt except to call attention to a quorum, privilege or a point of order. Senator SMITH 241710 Labor senators also talked about facts and myths. Let me share one fact and it was reported in The Australian on Tuesday, 18 June, by Christian Kerr. It said: The row erupted as a brief by the West Australian Local Government Association emerged, containing the admission that 'Refining the Constitution will create a slightly broader head of power for the federal government' but omits to mention grants would be tied. Let me share another myth. The first chapter in this deceit is the decision not to fund equally the yes and no campaigns. The second chapter in this deceit is to set up the referendum task force unit using $1.6 million of Australian taxpayers' money—not a secret, it was in the Senate estimates process. When I challenged the government to give me a guarantee that this $1.6 million sub-branch of the yes campaign would not be used to promote just one side of the argument, this is what I was told. The official said: We would be providing the normal support to the minister on a range of tasks. I said: But you are the referendum taskforce unit. To an outside observer it could look like you are becoming an advocate for the referendum proposal. Is that true? So is $1.6 million being allocated to advocate for the referendum? The official said: The taskforce is there to provide support to the government to deliver the referendum. She said, further on: The taskforce, as I said, is a part of the department, so in the same way as the department is established to serve the requirements of the government, so is the referendum taskforce. We in the taskforce will implement government policy, which is to facilitate the running of a referendum. This deceit does not have one chapter; it has two. That is what we know today. What will we know tomorrow? I think it is worth considering for a moment what the government's decision earlier this week means. We know there is $10 million for the yes campaign and $500,000 for the no campaign—and I add that money does not necessarily mean you have the most convincing argument. If we look at the 1974 referendum on the same issue and at the national vote that was achieved for both the yes and no campaigns, we see the funding allocation looks much fairer, with $4.6 million for the yes campaign and $5.3 million for the no campaign. If we look at the 1988 referendum result, we see there was $3.3 million for the yes campaign and $6.6 million for the no campaign. Integrity and fairness must be integral to this process. But, when I asked the government at Senate estimates, 'Can you guarantee that the process will be fair,' this is what Senator Lundy had to say: It is certainly our intention to have a fair process. I cannot be any more specific than the officers, but we will do what we can and make it as fair a process as possible. I said: Great, so fairness means that you will guarantee that the activities of the referendum taskforce— Senator Lundy interrupted: No, I will not say anything specific, but I am telling you it is the intention of the government to make this a fair process. This was the exchange at estimates on 30 May. It continued: Senator SMITH: So you cannot specifically— Senator Lundy: No. Senator SMITH: You cannot specifically guarantee fairness? Senator Lundy replied that she was happy to take that on notice. So she took it on notice on 30 May and, at the beginning of this week, Australians found out that what the government was doing was not enshrining fairness but damaging the fabric of our democratic process. There is much for this Labor government to be ashamed of, but surely this must be the most shameful moment of all. But there is a redeeming feature. This particular element of this particular debate means the referendum secret is no more, and Australians will now be forced to examine the facts, which speak for themselves: Labor cannot be trusted to govern our country; Australians should not trust them to change the Constitution. That is as clear as it can be, as clear as it can get. The bipartisanship that has often been talked about is close to being in tatters, and it should be. The good faith of many people has been breached, including the good faith of the Leader of the Opposition and the good faith of the Senate. I think it is time for the Australian Local Government Association and the Western Australian Local Government Association to distance themselves from this particular element of the campaign and call for equal funding of the yes and no campaigns. That is the right thing to do, that is a fair thing to do and it is in keeping with the Australian character. 16:41 Senator FURNER I0P Queensland In rising to contribute to this matter of public importance this afternoon, I want to reflect on one point that has not been touched on during the debate, and that is: of the three levels of government we have in this country, who should be the beneficiary of the outcome of the referendum proposed for 14 September this year? As a Queensland senator I can say, hand on heart, that from my travels around the state and my consultations and involvement with local councils I know there is great need out there. The care of our roads, parks and all those services that are provided by local councils need some recognition. There needs to be greater transparency and the delivery of some funds to those areas without the ordeal of going through state government processes. Fundamentally, I think that is the purpose of this referendum—to deliver for those councils around the country that require funding in the right place. I think they are the best level of government to consider where that funding should be delivered. I was privileged to be the deputy chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation. Senator Back was also a very active participant in that committee as well and knows the evidence we as a committee received, having heard it firsthand. There are a number of parts in the report of that committee that I wish to refer to—because there is no doubt that one of the roles of the Senate, and it does it very well, is to report on matters for consideration and of importance, and this is an extremely important issue. It is an issue that has been taken to the Australian public on two occasions now but, unfortunately, has not been accepted. But, as with most referendums, we know that that is the case historically: most referendums are rejected by the Australian public. The government has set out the question that is to be put on 14 September in a manner that ensures that most people will understand not only its importance but also why this referendum is required. I refer to paragraph 6.21 of the select committee report, which states: Evidence was presented to the committee arguing that the Commonwealth's constitutional authority to fund local government rested on two heads of power. First, Section 96 of the Constitution— and we have heard deliberations and evidence on that today in the chamber from both the opposition and the government— which allows the Commonwealth to provide financial assistance to the States 'on such terms and conditions as the Parliament sees fit.' We know that is the process at present. Also, it was in evidence provided by Professor Brown in this particular area that assistance to the states was on such terms as seen fit. They are examples of such funding. The committee's report states: As the Hon. Christian Porter MLA, Western Australian Attorney-General, noted, section 96 grants cannot go directly to local government as the section 'requires Commonwealth funds to be provided only to the states… This is where the hurdle is. This is where there needs to be acceptance of local councils recognised in the Constitution. Surely they have a right to have an opinion and have a say in the manner that funding is delivered to them as local councils. The report went on to refer to further evidence in regard to the history of local government referenda. As I have indicated, a proposal has been made twice for the Constitution to recognise local government. On both occasions it has been rejected. We go back to the first occasion in 1974 when the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Act proposed to enable the Commonwealth to borrow money for, and to grant financial assistance to, local government bodies. That referendum considered a proposal for additions to the Constitution and suggested a new section 51(IV)(a) to provide that the Commonwealth may make laws for the borrowing of money by the Commonwealth for local government bodies. The main issue that is being debated this afternoon is equal funding. The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government is funding a $10 million nonpartisan civics education campaign to ensure people are fully informed of the basis of the amendment. This is an example of the appropriateness of ensuring that people have the understanding and the education to make their democratic choice on 14 September—when they go to the ballot box for the election of the next federal government—to also make a decision on this referendum about the Constitution. They will decide on whether this aspect of the Constitution should be amended. This is a particularly important area and one where education is to be provided so those who are making their choices at the ballot box can make an informed choice in deciding which way they vote, whether it be yes or no—that is the democratic process we have in this country. It is an amazing process; it is a process that many countries would envy. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, that in your travels around certain parts of the world you would also have been informed that it is process that makes us the envy of many countries. We have an amazing Constitution. We have an amazing democracy under which people can have a choice in deciding to vote yes or no in an amendment to their Constitution. The Australian Electoral Commission also will spend approximately $40 million preparing for the referendum. This amount includes disseminating the official Yes/No pamphlet drafted by the parliament and developing referendum-specific advertisements informing electors how to cast a formal vote. We know, when it comes to the AEC, of the wonderful task they do and the wonderful role they perform at times of an election, preparing for those elections in an orderly and informed manner. People can turn up to the ballot box on the day being fully aware of what they are doing when making an informed and democratic decision. The partisan funding campaigns totalling $10.5 million will form only a small part of the overall information going to voters on the proposal. We must reflect and remind ourselves that it is a government's prerogative to fund campaigns. Contrary to Senator Bernardi's comments, it has always been the prerogative of governments as to how and how much they fund partisan campaigns. This is separate to the official Yes/No pamphlet case. Under the Howard government, John Howard might have had an equal split cost for campaigns but certainly did not concede that this was anything other than a decision of government. It falls back to the decisions of the government of the day when it comes to a referendum to amend the Constitution. It falls back on our decision-making persons to decide as a government whether that is the case. We also need to reflect that when this matter was before the other House, members voted 133-2 in favour of including local government in the Constitution. That should affect the funding. That sort of substantial vote clearly demonstrates that members of the House of Representatives—I am only assuming this—have regular contact with their local councils and understand the importance and the need for this type of funding to assist those local councils. I know for certain that the local council where I reside—the Moreton Bay Regional Council—is 100 per cent supportive of this referendum. If those opposite and others who have made contributions here today would have some sort of involvement with their councils, I am sure they would form the same opinion if they consulted with them. Only about four or five weeks ago I was in Gladstone discussing matters that the Gladstone Shire Council raised with me. No doubt they are supportive of this type of assistance for a referendum to make sure, for the first time in its history, that this matter is corrected so that local councils can have a say in how their funding is delivered. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! The time for this discussion has expired. COMMITTEES 3432 COMMITTEES House Committee 3432 Report 3432 Scrutiny of Bills Committee 3432 Report 3432 16:52 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I present the sixth report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 6 of 2013, dated 19 June 2013. Ordered that the report be printed. 16:53 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland The report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has been tabled and, as always, I urge all senators to have a look at it. The report goes through most of the bills that come before the parliament and highlights those aspects of the various pieces of legislation with which the Senate deals that come within the ambit of the terms of reference of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee—that is, the committee alerts the Senate to particular aspects of bills that offend against the provisions that are important in the bills that we deal with. The committee looks at those aspects of bills that either by express words or otherwise trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers; make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions; inappropriately delegate legislative powers; or insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny. These reports that are tabled regularly each sitting highlight where bills do offend against those particular provisions. As always, I urge senators to have a look at the work done by the committee that does highlight where those bills do offend against those provisions. Today's report is, for example, contains very detailed provisions in quite a lengthy document totalling not quite 237 pages. The work that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee does is, I have always thought, undervalued by the Senate and by most senators. One of the reasons is that it is a fairly difficult document to read, it is a lengthy document on many occasions, and it does go into things in some detail. So the committee thought that it would be a good idea if we could provide a summary document to let senators know in a much more succinct way what is in the committee's reports and to highlight to individual senators why these bills need to be looked at. I emphasise, as always with the Scrutiny of Bills Committee from time immemorial, it is not a committee that deals with the partisan political aspects of bills. It simply points out to senators who might be debating the bills where those bills offend against those principles that I previously spoke about. The committee, in wanting to make a more readable form available to senators, has decided to issue a document which is called Scrutiny News. It is a one-page document that very briefly highlights particular bills that senators might like to refer to in considering whether these principles have been followed or, if not followed, the reason they have not been followed. I know senators get lots of paper and really do not have the opportunity to fully scrutinise all of the paper they get, but I would urge senators to have a look at this one-page document called Scrutiny Newsthat is coming out. It is brand new. No-one would have seen it before, and it will be starting in operation tomorrow. When the red and the Notice Paper are delivered to senators' offices tomorrow, on a once-only basis, Scrutiny News will also be delivered so senators can have a quick look at it and see what this Scrutiny News, this summary document, does. Subsequently, Scrutiny News will be distributed electronically to all senators, usually on the Wednesday afternoon or Thursday after the Scrutiny of Bills Committee reports. It is an attempt to let all senators have easy access to some of the aspects of the work of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee so that, in debating these issues in the parliament, all senators will have an easy reference to where bills before the parliament have conditions that trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties et cetera. It will allow senators to more usefully and more intelligently debate some of these bills where concerns have been raised about these principles of personal rights and liberties, reviewable delegated legislated, insufficient scrutiny of legislative power—all of those things that we all hold dear in Australia and, indeed, in the Australian parliament. Of course, that is the purpose for which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee was established. So starting tomorrow the Scrutiny News, a one-page summary, will be issued to all senators. Tomorrow it is coming in a hardcopy with your red and Notice Paper, but it will come to you every week. It will allow senators an easy way to have a quick glance through any particular bills that offend against those principles, which will allow senators then to make further investigations and to debate these bills fully when they come before the chamber. Question agreed to. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 3433 Report 3433 17:00 Senator STEPHENS 00AOS New South Wales On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the eighth and ninth reports of the committee. Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator STEPHENS 00AOS I move: That the Senate take note of the reports. The eighth report of 2013 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sets out the committee's consideration of 37 bills introduced in the House of Representatives between 27 May to 6 June 2013. The committee has identified 28 bills that do not appear to give rise to human rights concerns. Some of these bills do not engage human rights; some engage and promote rights; and a number engage and limit rights but they are accompanied by statements of compatibility that set out an adequate justification for each of these limitations. In addition there are two private member's bills which may engage rights, and the committee leaves open the option of examining these bills further in the event that the bills proceed to further stages of development. Two bills were introduced without statements of compatibility, and the committee will write to the proponents of these bills seeking clarification of this. The committee will also seek further information in relation to the remaining seven bills. In this eighth report of 2013, the committee sets out its understanding of human rights law positions on civil penalties. Since commencing its work in August 2012, the committee has noted a number of bills containing civil penalty provisions and has sought clarification regarding the consistency of these provisions with the guarantees related to criminal proceedings contained in articles 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this report, the committee has set out its comments on the civil penalty provisions in four bills, indicating the type of analysis that it considers may be appropriate to include in statements of compatibility accompanying bills that introduce or incorporate civil penalty regimes. The committee thanks the ministers concerned for their detailed responses to the committee's comments, and for their forbearance while the committee gave detailed consideration to this issue. The committee has concluded that the civil penalty provisions in two of the bills are unlikely to be considered criminal. The remaining two bills contain civil penalty provisions that the committee considers may properly be characterised as criminal in nature under international human rights law. As such, the committee has expressed concerns that where a person may be subject to a pecuniary penalty for a civil penalty contravention in addition to the punishment under a criminal offence for the same or substantially the same conduct, this may in fact be inconsistent with the right not to be tried twice for the same offence, as set out in article 14(7) of the ICCPR. To those involved in policy development, drafting and human rights scrutiny of these types of provisions, the committee has developed an interim practice note setting out its understanding of the human rights law positions. Practice Note 2 (Interim) forms appendix 2 to the committee's report and is available on the committee's website. The ninth report of the committee sets out the committee's examination of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012 and related legislation. The committee initially wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship seeking information about the human rights compatibility of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and related bills on 22 August and again on 31 October 2012. The committee subsequently held two public hearings and accepted a number of submissions on this and related legislation. The committee does not underestimate the scale of the challenge facing the government. The committee is in no doubt that the risks faced by people seeking Australia's protection by irregular maritime travel are significant. The committee recognises, too, that under international law every state has the sovereign right to determine who may enter its territory. However, the exercise of this right is subject to any obligations that the state accepts under international treaties, including human rights treaties, or by which it is bound under customary international law. The committee acknowledges that the setting of immigration policies may involve judgements about the national interest, and that these national interest considerations may properly be taken into account in determining whether any restrictions on human rights resulting from the implementation of immigration policy are justifiable. The committee has approached its consideration of the human rights implications of the policies implemented through this package of legislation using the same analytical framework that it consistently applies to the assessment of limitations of rights in any bill or instrument that comes before it. I draw the attention of the Senate to the analytical framework applied by the committee in its interpretation of the underlying human rights obligations and principles engaged by this legislation. Throughout its considerations of the measures in this legislation, the committee has focused on three key questions: (1) whether the measures are aimed at achieving a legitimate objective, (2) whether there is a rational connection between the measures and that objective, and (3) whether the measures are proportionate to that objective. The committee considers that it is a legitimate and pressing objective for the government to explore all reasonable solutions to reduce the risks associated with irregular maritime travel. Nevertheless, in order to be justifiable under human rights law, such measures must be demonstrated to be rationally connected to the achievement of that objective and must be proportionate to that objective. On the basis of the evidence before it, the committee considers that the regional processing measures as currently implemented by this legislation carry a significant risk of being incompatible with a range of human rights. To the extent that some of those rights may be limited, the committee considers that the reasonableness and the proportionality of those limitations have not been clearly demonstrated. In closing, I would like to emphasise that this is a consensus report. It reflects a careful and considered response to the human rights issues raised by this legislation and, as such, I encourage senators to read the committee's comments on this legislation in their entirety. Not to do so diminishes the work of the committee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chair of the committee, Mr Harry Jenkins MP, for his leadership on these complex and contentious issues, and to wish him well in his retirement. I thank my committee colleagues for their principled and collegiate approach to the committee's considerations of them. I commend the committee's eighth and ninth reports of 2013 to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 3435 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No.48 of 2012-13, Independent Auditor's report 3435 17:07 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 48 of 2012-13: Performance audit – Management of the Targeted Community Care (Mental Health) Program: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I also present the report of the Independent Auditor on quality control around financial statements audits. DOCUMENTS 3436 DOCUMENTS Tabling 3436 COMMITTEES 3436 COMMITTEES DisabilityCare Australia 3436 Membership 3436 17:08 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOS The President has received a letter from a party leader, seeking variation to the membership of a committee. 17:08 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That Senators Fifield and McKenzie be appointed as members of the Joint Select Committee on DisabilityCare Australia. Question agreed to. Broadcasting Legislation Committee 3436 Membership 3436 BILLS 3436 BILLS Charities Bill 2013, Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 3436

Charities Bill 2013

Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013

Consideration of House of Representatives Message 3436 First Reading 3436 17:09 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 3436 17:10 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— CHARITIES BILL 2013 The Charities Bill 2013 introduces a statutory definition of charity that applies to all Commonwealth legislation. The Gillard Government is dedicated to supporting a strong, vibrant, diverse and independent not-for-profit sector. As part of this commitment, in the 2011 12 Budget the Government announced that it would introduce a statutory definition of charity. The meaning of charity and charitable purpose has not been previously comprehensively defined for the purposes of Commonwealth law. It has been administered on the basis of principles derived from the common law. The common law meaning has developed over 400 years, largely based on the Preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses, which is an English statute from 1601. The development of the definition of charity and charitable purpose through case law since that time has resulted in charity law that is in some areas unclear, inconsistent, or does not adequately address matters relevant to the contemporary Australian charity sector. A statutory definition of charity and charitable purpose is a reform with a strong evidence base. It was first recommended in the report of the 2001 Inquiry into the Definition of Charities and Related Organisations and in later reports including Australia's Future Tax System Review in 2010. The Productivity Commission recommended in its 2010 report, Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, the introduction of a statutory definition in accordance with the recommendations of the 2001 Inquiry. Charities are such an important part of the Australian community and deserve a modern regulatory framework which will support them as they grow into the future. Having a definition of charity set out in legislation will provide greater clarity and certainty for charities, the public and regulators in determining whether an entity is charitable. It will cut down on compliance costs for those wishing to establish charities and make the definition more accessible to the community. The definition aims to preserve common law principles, with some minor variations. The definition is informed by the 2001 Inquiry, which identified principles underlying the common law. The definition also takes into account the findings of more recent judicial decisions that further clarify the meaning of charity, including the Aid/Watch decision which extended charities' ability to advance public debate. Importantly, the definition retains the flexibility inherent in the common law that enables the courts, as well as Parliament, to continue to develop the definition within the statutory framework. This will ensure that the definition remains appropriate and reflects modern society and community needs as they evolve over time. The Bill sets out the key principles for an entity to be a charity, including that it must be not-for-profit and have only charitable purposes except for any ancillary or incidental purposes that further or aid the charitable purpose. The charitable purposes must be for the public benefit. A purpose that an entity has is for the public benefit if the achievement of the purpose would be of public benefit, and the benefit from the purpose is available to members of the general public or a sufficient section of the general public. The nature of the benefit may be tangible or intangible. In limited circumstances there are exceptions to this principle. These apply to the purpose of relieving the necessitous circumstances of individuals or small numbers of individuals. It also applies in the case of open and non-discriminatory self-help groups and closed or contemplative religious orders. One departure from common law principles relates to entities with native title or other traditional rights in connection with the land. These entities might fail a public benefit test because they provide benefits only to indigenous individuals who are related, or have some other special relationship with the other potential benefit recipients, are treated as being for the public benefit in particular circumstances. Consistent with the common law, the statutory definition retains presumptions of benefit for certain charitable purposes. These purposes are the relief of poverty, distress and disadvantage of individuals or families; preventing and relieving sickness, disease or human suffering; the care and support of the aged and individuals with disabilities; advancing education; and advancing religion. The Bill extends the presumption to the whole of the public benefit test for these purposes. Also consistent with the common law, the presumption ceases to apply where there is evidence to the contrary. The Bill lists categories of charitable purposes. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather identifies purposes that have strong recognition in the common law. The Bill reflects the Aid/Watch decision that charities may have a purpose to generate public debate about a charitable purpose. It allows for an entity to have a charitable purpose, including a sole purpose, of promoting or opposing a change in the law or government policy relevant to another charitable purpose. Another area where the Bill extends common law principles relates to the purpose of assisting rebuilding, repairing or securing assets after a disaster, in furtherance of the purposes of exempt entities within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. This purpose is included within the charitable purpose of advancing social or public welfare. The effect of this is to extend existing charitable purposes to include re-establishing not for profit community assets after a disaster, independently of the relief of individual distress. Any benefits of a commercial or private nature must be only incidental or ancillary to re-establishing the community assets and the assets must not be government assets. Given the destruction we have witnessed in recent years caused by natural disasters, this is a timely change to support rebuilding and reconstruction after a disaster. Under the Bill, a purpose of engaging in, or promoting, activities which are unlawful or contrary to public policy is a disqualifying purpose. The Bill clarifies that public policy in this context refers to matters such as the rule of law, the constitutional system of government of the Commonwealth, the safety of the general public and national security. Political parties are not charitable and a purpose of promoting or opposing a political party or candidate for political office is a disqualifying purpose. This relates to direct partisan political engagement, and the Bill provides that this does not apply to the purpose of distributing information or advancing debate about the policies of political parties or candidates for political office. By their nature, policy debates involve engagement with the political process and the Bill makes clear that charities are free to engage in policy debates by assessing, critiquing, comparing and ranking the policies of political parties and candidates for political office. The not-for-profit sector has been widely engaged in the development of the definition with over 200 submissions on a public consultation paper in 2011 and further consultation on the draft Bill. The Government has been very responsive to issues raised during the consultation process, including in the most recent consultation on the draft Bill. The Government appreciates the extensive and significant contribution of the sector to the development of the definition and thanks all stakeholders for their valuable input. Their contribution will help ensure the definition supports and facilitates the important and significant contribution that charities make to the Australian community. Further details are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. I commend this Bill to the Senate. CHARITIES (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2013 The Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 accompanies the Charities Bill 2013. It gives effect to the expanded number of categories of charitable purpose, includes transitional arrangements for streamlining registration of the subtypes of entities with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, and makes clear that the charitable status of certain entities that were charitable before the introduction of the statutory definition is preserved. The Bill also makes consequential amendments to other legislation to ensure that the Commonwealth law operates as intended when the Charities Bill takes effect. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Senator LUNDY 7G6 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013, Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013 3439

Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013

Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013

Returned from the House of Representatives 3439 First Reading 3439 17:10 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 3439 17:11 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES) BILL 2013 This is the sixth tranche of anti-dumping legislation introduced by this government into the Parliament in the past two years. We are well advanced in implementing tranches one to five. The final reforms contained in that legislation will be proclaimed in the coming weeks. In the second tranche of legislation, we established a new Review Officer Panel—to provide timely and appropriate merits review of anti-dumping decisions. I can announce this morning my decision to appoint three eminent Australians to this panel: The Honourable Michael Moore, former Federal Court judge; Ms Joan Fitzhenry, a lawyer specialising in anti-dumping cases; and Mr Graham McDonald, former Presidential Member of the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Stephen Skehill, the outgoing Trade Measures Review Officer, for his dedication to this role over the past two years. He has set the precedent for thorough and reasoned review that is inherent in a truly independent review process—and I expect the panel to follow his good work with their own. In the fifth tranche of legislation – passed in March this year—we established the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission. The commission will start work on the first of July this year. I expect to be in a position to announce the appointment of the Anti-Dumping Commissioner in the coming month. The new Anti-Dumping Commission will start work with significantly more funding. Last December the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry and Innovation and I announced an additional $24.4 million for the administration of our anti-dumping system. This was outlined in the budget – with the first $8.2 million being rolled out in the next financial year. I am pleased to present the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2013 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013, which represent the next step in the government's anti-dumping reforms. Together these bills do three key things: They remove, in certain circumstances, the need for the Minister to consider the lesser duty rule; They clarify the application of existing retrospective duties provisions; and They introduce a new type of anti-circumvention inquiry to address 'sales at a loss' cases. I will now step through each of these in detail. Removal of the mandatory consideration of the lesser duty rule Firstly, these bills will remove, in certain circumstances, the Minister's mandatory consideration of the lesser duty rule. This means that the Minister will have discretion to consider the desirability of fixing a lesser duty, in certain circumstances. These circumstances are where: In dumping cases, there is a finding of a particular market situation for the goods in the country of export; In subsidy cases, the country of export has not complied with obligations to notify subsidies, as established under the World Trade Organization; and In any type of case, the Australian industry producing like goods consists of at least two small-medium enterprises—whether or not that industry consists of other enterprises. In these complex cases, where injurious dumping or subsidisation has been found, the Minister will be given the discretion to impose the maximum permitted duties. Clarification of the application of retrospective duties Secondly, this bill will make changes to the retrospective duties provisions to align the legislation more closely to the relevant World Trade Organization agreements. The amendments also make it clear that the relevant Minister is the 'decision maker' for certain elements required to be established in the process of applying retrospective duties. The bill will also make a number of amendments to existing retrospective duties provisions to improve their structure and consistency. The retrospective duties provisions are currently very difficult to understand, indeed, they have never been used. We are making these reforms to improve the accessibility of the retrospective duties provisions—and clarify their application. We are also revising the guidelines on the application of these provisions—to make their operation clearer. Introduction of a new type of anti-circumvention inquiry to address 'sales at a loss' cases Thirdly, this bill will introduce a new type of anti-circumvention inquiry to address 'sales at a loss' cases. Last year we passed legislation to introduce an anti-circumvention framework into Australia's anti-dumping system. The reforms in this bill will take that framework one-step further by addressing situations where anti-dumping measures have been ineffective. A new type of anti-circumvention inquiry will be able to be conducted faster than other anti-circumvention inquiries, taking only 100 days, instead of 155 days. This type of inquiry can be initiated following an application from Australian industry where there is evidence that prices of the imported goods have not increased in line with the imposition of the duties. The Minister will also have the power to commence this type of inquiry. The bill will also make a complementary change to the present provisions of the legislation that will allow more rigorous treatment of transactions where evidence suggests that the price is influenced by a commercial or other relationship between the parties. This will allow 'sales at a loss' situations to be addressed at the outset, in both establishing the existence of dumping, and in setting an appropriate level of measures. Conclusion In developing these reforms, the Government has consulted closely with members of the International Trade Remedies Forum. This Forum has played a substantial role in providing advice to the Government on the operation of Australia's anti-dumping system – and on options for reform. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the Forum members for their input to date, much of which has found its way into these tranches of legislation. I will continue to work closely with the Forum and I expect it will continue its vigorous discussion and input into policy development. I make it clear that this bill will not be the last word on anti-dumping reform. There is more work to be done—and I look forward to working with members of the International Trade Remedies Forum, and others, on this important task. CUSTOMS TARIFF (ANTI-DUMPING) AMENDMENTS BILL 2013 I am pleased to present this bill, the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Amendment Bill. This bill, together with the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2013, will give the Minister discretion to consider the desirability of fixing a lesser duty, in certain circumstances. The legislation sets out the three circumstances where the Minister is not required to, but may, consider the desirability of fixing a lesser amount of duty. In these complex cases, where injurious dumping or subsidisation has been found, the Minister can impose the maximum permitted duties. Senator LUNDY 7G6 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013, Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013 3441

Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013

Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013

Returned from the House of Representatives 3441 First Reading 3441 17:11 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 3441 17:12 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (CELEBRANT ADMINISTRATION AND FEES) BILL 2013 The Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 will help to improve the services celebrants provide to couples and their families on their wedding day. It implements a 2011 Budget decision to introduce cost recovery for Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants in Australia, and makes minor amendments related to the administration of the Marriage Celebrants Program. We all know that a couple’s wedding day is one of the most important moments in their lives. Marriage celebrants are an essential feature of many modern weddings, and their numbers have significantly increased as many people move away from traditional religious marriage ceremonies. Recent ABS figures show that 71 per cent of marriages in 2011 were conducted by a civil celebrant. The Commonwealth has constitutional responsibility for marriage matters, including the Marriage Celebrants Program. The Program, established in 1973 under the Marriage Act 1961 seeks to provide marrying couples who do not want to have a mainstream religious ceremony with a meaningful alternative to a registry wedding. The great majority of celebrants perform this role to a very high standard. However, the quality of services provided by marriage celebrants does vary. Their important role carries significant legal responsibilities and the community is entitled to expect that Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants are suitably equipped to discharge their functions. The implementation of cost recovery will enable the Program to improve education and training services provided to Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants, while also effectively regulating ensuring quality control for those celebrants. It will also provide the Program with resources to better scrutinise aspiring celebrants prior to registration. These measures will in turn ensure professional and legally correct services are delivered to marrying couples in Australia. The administration of the Program includes assessing and authorising new marriage celebrants for registration, reviewing celebrant performance, resolving complaints about celebrants, handling a large volume of enquiries from celebrants, producing information and guidance materials, managing ongoing professional development arrangements and engaging with celebrants and their peak group. Many of these functions are carried out by the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants, a departmental officer with specific authority under the Marriage Act. From 1 July 2013, Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants and celebrant applicants will meet cost recovery requirements. Exemptions will be made available from the fee in certain circumstances, including for celebrants in remote areas to ensure continued access to celebrancy services for those communities. During the extensive consultation process, celebrants have been advised of the structure and quantum of the fee. Subject to the passage of this, from 1 July 2013, there will be: a $600 registration application fee for prospective celebrants seeking registration, a $240 annual celebrant registration charge imposed on all Commonwealth-registered celebrants, and a $30 application processing fee for seeking an exemption from the annual celebrant registration charge, the registration application fee, or annual ongoing professional development obligations. The Celebrant Administration and Fees Bill provides legislative authority for some of the cost recovery arrangements, as well as outlining the operation of the system. This Bill also makes some minor administrative amendments to enhance the operation of the Program. This includes the introduction of an Australian passport as an additional identity document that a celebrant may use to establish a marrying parties’ place and date of birth. These amendments will allow the Attorney-General’s Department to provide a stronger regulatory and information service to existing and aspiring Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants. This will in turn ensure that marrying couples are legally and validly married through a professional service, as they should rightfully expect on their wedding day. MARRIAGE (CELEBRANT REGISTRATION CHARGE) BILL 2013 The Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013 specifically implements the 2011-12 Budget decision to introduce cost recovery for Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants from 1 July 2013. The celebrant registration charge will enable the Attorney-General's Department to administer the marriage Celebrants program and deliver important services to Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants. Under the Government's Cost Recovery Guidelines, the celebrant registration charge is a cost recovery levy. It is therefore necessary to introduce this separate bill. The bill allows the amount of the charge to be set by the Minister by legislative instrument up to a statutory limit which is set at $600 in the year commencing 1 July 2013. We have indicated that the amount to be set will be lower than $600 in the introductory year. This may be amended by the Minister in future years, to reflect the costs of administering the Program. The bill allows for indexation for future financial years, capped to reflect Consumer Price Index increases over time. This will reduce the need to amend the primary legislation in the future. For people who become marriage celebrants later than 1 July in any financial year, a determination may provide that different amounts of the celebrant registration charge are payable in respect of that year. This is to reflect the costs incurred by the program in administering newly appointed celebrants until the following 1 July. It also acknowledges that people registered close to 1 July in any given year are not disadvantaged by paying a full celebrant registration charge twice in a short period of time. Conclusion The Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill will provide legislative authority to charge Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants an annual celebrant registration fee. Senator LUNDY 7G6 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013, Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013, Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants' Support) Bill 2013, Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013 3443

Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants' Support) Bill 2013

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013

Returned from the House of Representatives 3443 First Reading 3443 17:13 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013. I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 3444 17:14 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY WATER MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013 The Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 is another step in the improvement of water governance in the Murray-Darling Basin. This Bill will allow the ACT government to manage water abstraction on national land in the ACT, enabling the Commonwealth and the ACT to fulfill their obligations under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which was made in November last year. The management of water on national land in the ACT is currently a Commonwealth function. The Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 facilitates the implementation of the Basin Plan, and will enable the ACT to prepare a Basin Plan compliant water resource plan. Under the Basin Plan the ACT is required to prepare a water resource plan that covers all the Territory's water resources, as well as the Googong dam. Googong dam water resources, while managed by the Territory for the purposes of supplying water to the Territory, are a Commonwealth water resource located on NSW land. Through amendments to the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 (PALM Act), the Water Act 2007 and the Canberra Water Supply (Googong Dam) Act 1974, this Bill provides the appropriate legislative backing for the ACT to prepare a Basin Plan compliant water resource plan. For over a century, the Murray-Darling Basin has not been managed with a basin-wide plan. This has resulted in environmental degradation, a lack of resilience and an ongoing layer of uncertainties to basin communities. Murray-Darling Basin reform has relied on a number of steps being taken; the National Water Initiative, the development of water markets, the Water Act 2007 and the making of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan last year. The Basin Plan will restore the health of our rivers, support strong regional communities and ensure sustainable food production. This Bill amends the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 (PALM Act), which regulates the management of land in the ACT, so the abstraction of water on national land is no longer managed by the Commonwealth government and can be managed by the ACT consistent with the Basin Plan. Into the future, the abstraction of water on national land, as well as the abstraction of water by Commonwealth agencies throughout the ACT, will be managed by the ACT government under its Water Resources Act 2007. This will be achieved by amendments to associated Commonwealth legislative instruments so that all the take of water is covered by the ACT's Water Resources Act 2007. This Bill also amends the Water Act 2007 to enable the Googong dam area to be included in a water resource plan area for which the ACT has responsibility to prepare a water resource plan. These amendments, along with those being made to provide the ACT the power to plan for all water resources managed by the Territory, will provide the legislative backing required for the ACT to prepare a Basin Plan compliant water resource plan. This Bill amends the Canberra Water Supply (Googong Dam) Act 1974 to ensure that the ACT executive has the necessary powers to fully manage the surface waters of the Googong Dam under the ACT Water Resources Act. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that all water resources under ACT control are managed under a consistent framework. This change will not affect any agreements reached by the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory governments on the supply of water to Queanbeyan. National water reform is an ongoing process and the making of the Basin Plan was a critical step forward in this regard. The reforms to water governance arrangements set out in this Bill are another small but important step to help maintain the momentum towards improved water management outcomes and ultimately resource sustainability through the implementation of the Basin Plan in the ACT. Cooperative, consistent and efficient management arrangements of water extraction within the ACT will have long-term benefits on the sustainability of water resources within the ACT. I commend this bill to the Senate. CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (LAW ENFORCEMENT INTEGRITY, VULNERABLE WITNESS PROTECTION AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill delivers on the Gillard Government’s continuing commitment to combating corruption and to protecting and supporting the victims of serious Commonwealth offences such as slavery and human trafficking. The Bill also includes a range of measures which strengthen existing laws and ensure that the criminal law in this country is responsive to emerging threats. This Labor Government is committed to a safe and secure Australia. That means making sure that we have the right laws and processes in place and that law enforcement agencies have the right tools to fight crime and corruption. The Bill will improve and clarify aspects of Commonwealth criminal law including: amendments to support victims and witnesses in proceedings for federal offences during prosecution and sentencing amendments relating to the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of people smuggling offenders amendments to ensure the effective operation of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity amendments to facilitate assistance to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals procedural amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, to facilitate the provision of services by the AFP in the external territories and ensure that proceeds of crime proceedings are not impeded in particular circumstances, and amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to reflect the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 and the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011. I will address each of these measures in turn. This Labor Government is committed to looking after the vulnerable in our society. We understand that victims of crime are among the most vulnerable and they need support and assistance to seek the justice they deserve. That is why we established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and passed legislation earlier this year so that people could share their experiences with Commissioners in private sessions. The Government recognised that relating these traumatic experiences is difficult and that special provisions need to be put in place so that the voices of these individuals can be heard. In the same way, the Government recognises that victims of particular Commonwealth offences need to feel properly supported to give evidence of the horrific crimes that have affected their lives so deeply. Historically, Commonwealth offences were, for the most part, offences where the victim was the Commonwealth, such as social security or tax fraud. However, more recently, Commonwealth offences have come to encompass some of the most inherently traumatic offences against the individual - slavery, slavery-like and human trafficking offences. In addition, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act, passed by the Government earlier this year, introduced new slavery-like offences with individual victims, including forced marriage and forced labour. While the Crimes Act currently provides vulnerable witness protections for children in proceedings for sexual offences, there are no similar Commonwealth protections for adult victims of slavery, slavery-like and human trafficking offences, nor any specific protections for witnesses who may be vulnerable due to a particular characteristic (for example, a witness who requires support or alternative arrangements to effectively give evidence due to a disability or their cultural background). This Bill will provide protections for vulnerable witnesses giving evidence in proceedings for Commonwealth criminal offences and provide a scheme for the use of victim impact statements in the sentencing of federal offenders. These protections will ensure that witnesses can present their best testimony in court, without intimidation, re-traumatisation, fear for their safety or undue public embarrassment. A scheme allowing the use of victim impact statements will benefit victims by providing catharsis, vindication and healing. It will also promote the rehabilitation of offenders by confronting them with the impact of their offending behaviour. This Bill also contains measures to strengthen the ability of the Integrity Commissioner to prevent, detect and investigate corruption. The Government is committed to fighting corruption. Even though Transparency International consistently rates Australia as one of the ten least corrupt countries in the world, we must not be complacent. The Government has already introduced a number of measures to make law enforcement agencies a more hostile environment for corruption. These measures include targeted integrity testing for Australian Federal Police, Australian Crime Commission and Customs officers suspected of engaging in corrupt conduct. The Government has also doubled the number of law enforcement agencies under the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and doubled the resources available to the Commission to oversee Customs. This bill includes two amendments which will assist the Integrity Commissioner in its oversight capacity. One of the agencies that will come under the jurisdiction from 1 July this year is AUSTRAC. This Bill will amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act to ensure that the Integrity Commissioner is able to access all information held by AUSTRAC when it is relevant to a corruption investigation, and grant appropriate protections to that information. The Bill will also amend the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 to allow the Integrity Commissioner to second employees of the Australian Federal Police and other police forces who are not sworn police officers. These officers often have important technical skills which can be of assistance to the Integrity Commissioner in undertaking his or her functions. This Bill will also amend areas of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 to enable more expeditious review of AUSTRAC decisions, harden existing offences, enable AUSTRAC to engage industry secondees, enhance privacy protections, and strengthen financial intelligence by adding the Commonwealth Clean Energy Regulator and the Integrity Commission of Tasmania as designated agencies. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill also contains amendments to improve the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of people smuggling offences in Australia. This Government has always been of the view that minors don’t belong in adult jails. And that is why the former Attorney-General, the Honourable Nicola Roxon MP ordered a review of people smuggling cases where age was in doubt. 28 cases were re-examined, following requests from the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Indonesian Government, using improved age determination processes that were not available when age was raised in these cases. As a result of the review, 15 crew were released early from prison on licence as there was a doubt they may have been minors on arrival in Australia, two crew were released early on parole, three crew completed their non-parole periods and eight crew remain to serve their sentences, as there was no evidence supporting suggestions they were minors at the time of their arrival. Consistent with the view that wrist x-rays are no longer an adequate means of determining age, the Bill will remove wrist X-rays as a prescribed procedure for determining whether people smuggling crew are minors. Further, by amending the Migration Act, this Bill will specify that the prosecution bears the onus of proof in establishing age. This is consistent with current practice and ensures that there is no ambiguity on who bears the onus of proof, where age is contested during a prosecution. These amendments will implement recommendations made by Senate Committee inquiries and the Australian Human Rights Commission Inquiry into age determination of people smuggling crew. This Bill also introduces amendments to the evidentiary process for people smuggling trials. It will enable uncontested facts, such as the location of a people smuggling vessel and number of persons on board people smuggling vessels, to be presented to the court through the use of an evidentiary certificate. This will reduce delays in people smuggling prosecutions and ensure that Navy and Customs personnel can focus on protecting Australia’s borders. This Bill ensures that courts are able to take time spent in custody for people smuggling offences, and time spent in immigration detention, into consideration during sentencing for people smuggling offences. The Bill also ensures that Australia can fulfil its responsibilities as a good international citizen by continuing to support international criminal law through assisting international criminal tribunals. The Bill contains proposed amendments to the International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997 and the International War Crimes Tribunal Act 1995 to recognise the ‘International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals’. This new United Nations Tribunal was established by the United Nations Security Council to complete the residual work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. These measures will ensure that Australia can provide the same level of assistance to the new United Nations Tribunal as it completes the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda as we can provide to those two Tribunals. This Bill will also amend the Australian Federal Police Act. Currently, the Australian Federal Police Commissioner has delegated his powers, functions and duties as a proceeds of crime authority to the Manager of Proceeds of Crime Litigation. The Manager leads a team of specialist litigation lawyers that take proceeds of crime action on behalf of the Commissioner. These amendments ensure that the delegation applies to an Australian Federal Police employee performing the duties of the Manager of Proceeds of Crime Litigation while that person is on leave. These amendments also ensure that, when the Manager of Proceeds of Crime Litigation takes leave and another Australian Federal Police employee performs their duties, the lawfulness of any decisions is not open to challenge. Additionally, under the Australian Federal Police Act, arrangements for the provision of policing and regulatory services by Australian Federal Police staff in the external Territories can only be entered into between the Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police and the Administrator of that external Territory. The proposed amendments will extend this provision to allow these arrangements to also be entered into with the Minister responsible for the administration of an external Territory, in addition to the Administrator. An exception is provided in the case of Norfolk Island, where arrangements will continue to be entered into with the Administrator in recognition that the Territory is self-governing. Not all external Territories have an Administrator and, in those which do, the duties and responsibilities of the Administrator vary significantly. This amendment will allow greater flexibility in establishing arrangements for policing and regulatory services and better reflect the current governance arrangements in some of the external Territories, particularly in Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Island. In 2012 the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, was amended to recognise new public sector anti-corruption arrangements in Victoria. Victoria has recently renumbered the relevant legislation and this Bill will amend cross-references in the Interception Act to ensure it correctly refers to the Victorian legislation. In conclusion, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill contains important measures that will ensure that Commonwealth criminal law remains up to date and effective, particularly in combating corruption and protecting the vulnerable victims of serious Commonwealth offences including human trafficking and slavery. MIGRATION AMENDMENT (OFFSHORE RESOURCES ACTIVITY) BILL 2013 The purpose of this bill is to implement the Government's commitment to ensure that all Australian jobs are regulated under Australian migration laws. This is with a view to ensuring that the definition of the migration zone in the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) captures foreign workers working in Australia's offshore resources industry. In May 2012, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in the case of Allseas Construction S.A v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 529 (Allseas). The Court found that Allseas' pipe-laying vessels and the non-citizens working on these vessels were not within or working within the migration zone as defined under the Migration Act. This means that the workers on board those vessels did not require a visa. The offshore resources industry is a significant and growing contributor to Australia's economy, with billions of dollars of value added to the economy thousands of Australian workers employed. The Government recognises that in cases of skills shortages, industry needs to bring in foreign labour, but these are Australian resources and Australian jobs. The Australian community expects all Australian jobs to be regulated by Australian laws. The gaps in the Migration Act, exposed by the Allseas case, undermines the integrity of Australia's migration program and the visa regime regulating work entitlements. Without regulation there is a risk that foreign workers involved in the exploration and exploitation of Australia's natural resources and who therefore form part of the Australian employment sector are working under conditions and receiving wages that are below Australian standards. This reduces work opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents, as well as non-citizens who hold relevant visas permitting work. It also puts businesses that only engage workers who hold valid visas to work at a competitive disadvantage, leading to perverse incentives to stage as much development offshore as possible to avoid the requirements of the visa system. On 15 October 2012, the former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship announced that the government would legislate to amend the Migration Act and clarify the situation regarding workers in Australia's offshore maritime zones to address the decision of Allseas. Following this announcement, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship commenced a review on how best to do so. The Migration Maritime Taskforce (the Taskforce) was developed to conduct this review and explore options to determine the most appropriate way to ensure foreign workers in Australia's offshore maritime zones come within the ambit of the Migration Act. The Allseas decision reduced the number of workers in the offshore resources industry captured by the Migration Act. This, combined with other limitations in the Migration Act's operation offshore, has left a significant gap in Australia's ability to regulate the conditions in its offshore resources industry, and to regulate which foreign workers are employed on these valuable national assets. The Government is committed to maintaining the security of Australia's borders. Under the current legislative framework, the Government has an incomplete picture of the number and identity of foreign workers in Australia's offshore maritime zones. This is in part due to the absence of a regulated visa regime to capture those engaged in Australia's offshore maritime zones and the corresponding migration information. This incomplete information has security ramifications. The June 2012 Report of the Offshore Oil and Gas Resources Sector Security Inquiry recognised that visa security checks are one of the only ways Australia is able to examine non-citizen workers in this security-sensitive industry. While it recognised that visa character checks have their limits, in their absence, the Government has no information at all about some of these workers. During the development of its recommendations, the Taskforce sought extensive advice to ensure that the bill would adhere to relevant international conventions relating to the law of the Sea. In the context of international law, it has been confirmed that Australia has jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to apply its immigration laws to foreign nationals in the Australia's offshore resource industry. There has also been extensive stakeholder consultation on this problem, with the offshore resources industry, unions and other Commonwealth agencies. More recently, the government has consulted on the findings of the Taskforce and the issue which informed our decision to implement the recommendations of the Taskforce. More consultation will follow as we engage with stakeholders to develop supporting regulations for this change. There has been a lot of discussion on the best way to effectively address the problem of unregulated work in Australia's Offshore Resources sector. This bill deals with the practical actions that are necessary to create real, effective tools to deal with this problem. This bill implements the key recommendations of the Taskforce. The Taskforce found that any question as to whether a person was in the migration zone or not should not be solely dependent on where that person was physically located (for example, whether that person was physically on an Australian resources installation) but also dependent on the sorts of activities that person was conducting. The amendments in this bill will regulate foreign workers participating in offshore resources activities by deeming them to be in the migration zone, which enlivens the requirement for them to hold a visa under the Migration Act. In terms of selecting offshore resources activities, the Taskforce recommended the development of a legislative solution that would comprehensively administer the activities of the offshore resources industry comprising the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Minerals Act 1994. In addition to these two acts, the bill will create a power for the Minister to make a determination in writing for the purposes of defining offshore resources activity. This will provide the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship with the flexibility to declare certain activities administered by other regulatory schemes as offshore resource activities for the purposes of the new deemed migration zone. This would include projects that take place in areas that are within the coastal waters of the States and the Northern Territory and not regulated at the Commonwealth level. The legislative measures will supplement the current framework under the Migration Act which already includes Australian resources installations and Australian sea installations as part of the migration zone. Together, this new comprehensive framework will ensure that workers in Australia's offshore resources industry are regulated under the Migration Act and required to hold specific visas. Individuals who engage in offshore resources activities in Australia's offshore maritime zones will be subject to existing compliance measures in the Migration Act that address breaches of work and visa conditions. A specifically-tailored visa pathway for offshore resource workers will be developed in conjunction with stakeholders to meet the needs of industry groups. It is proposed to prescribe this visa in the Migration Regulations 1994. More consultation will take place as this visa is developed to ensure that industry gets the flexibility it needs while ensuring that Australian conditions are protected. A series of sensible arrangements will be put into place, to ensure that the transition to the new framework is as smooth as possible. These include: a delayed commencement of these amendments until early 2014 to educate and consult industry and to provide industry with ample time to organise appropriate visas; granting Special Purpose Visas to offshore resource workers in offshore maritime zones upon commencement for a limited time to regulate their migration status It is important to implement these changes as soon as possible to give certainty to the offshore resources industry and workers. The Government understands that industry needs certainty as they develop commercial contracts and run their businesses. Where there are skills shortages and the Australian workforce cannot provide the required labour in Australia's offshore resource activities, there will always be a need for foreign workers. However, this need should not be allowed to undermine Australian working conditions and should not happen without the oversight of Australian law as is currently the case. These are Australian resources and Australian jobs. The resources are governed by Australian laws, the jobs should be too. I commend the bill to the Senate. PUBLIC GOVERNANCE, PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY BILL 2013 The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013 (PGPA Bill) would, if passed, establish the framework necessary for a modern public sector; the framework needed for a modern government. It will establish a Commonwealth financial framework that is simple, adds value for all and is easy to use. The PGPA Bill is the cornerstone of a broader reform agenda to modernise government and create a streamlined and adaptable public sector that is able to meet Australia's changing needs into the future. The current Commonwealth financial framework, comprising the Financial Management and Accountability Act1997(FMA Act)and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997(CAC Act), has been in place since 1998. These Acts have served the public sector well. But in the 15 years since in the current financial framework commenced the demands on the public sector and the expectations of the community have changed significantly. We have seen our financial framework slip from world's best practice over a decade ago to being adequate today. The deficiencies with the current framework will, over time, become an increasing drag on the performance of the public sector. For example, the current FMA Act is highly prescriptive, and yet at the same time is silent on the management of risk. The existing framework is also very linear – it is focused on straight lines of vertical authority and creates significant hurdles to citizen centric service delivery and collaborative working practices both across government and between the government and other sectors. It is the view of this Government that the Commonwealth's financial framework should underpin a productive and innovative public sector that is able to adapt to increasing community demands and changing circumstances, while still retaining robust systems of management and accountability proportionate with the relevant level of risk. Reflecting this, and recognising the short comings in the current framework, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation announced the Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review (CFAR) on 8 December 2010. CFAR was tasked with identifying opportunities for reform in the public sector financial framework that would improve productivity, performance, accountability and risk management. Informed by significant consultation with the public, private, not-for-profit and academic sectors, CFAR identified opportunities for reform that would: raise public sector productivity; enhance the public sector's potential for innovation; promote high standards of stewardship and accountability; improve public sector performance in delivering the policy outcomes sought, and deserved by Australian citizens; and reduce red tape and the compliance burden imposed on those who partner with the Government in delivering services to the public. The PGPA Bill will provide the legislative architecture for maximising the opportunities identified by CFAR. The new single Act would strengthen public sector capability by creating a coherent and consistent approach to governance, performance and accountability within the Commonwealth. Unlike the current two Act framework, the PGPA Bill would, as far as practicable, apply a consistent principles-based framework to all Commonwealth entities. There are several key principles that form the basis for the reforms proposed in the PGPA Bill. These principles are: 1. Government should operate as a coherent whole 2. Public resources are public resources, and a common set of duties should apply to all resources handled by Commonwealth entities 3. Performance of the public sector is more than financial 4. Engaging with risk is a necessary step in improving performance. Briefly, the key elements of the PGPA Bill are: First, independence: The PGPA Bill does not alter the operational independence of entities, as provided in an entity's enabling legislation. Rather, the Bill emphasises the prominence of enabling legislation and seeks to create a consistent resource management framework applicable to all Commonwealth entities. Second, uniform duties: The new single Act would introduce a common set of duties. The duties would apply to all officials who use or manage public resources. This reflects community expectations that public resources will be managed prudently and efficiently. A number of these duties align with the fiduciary duties contained in the Corporations Law, and have also been developed drawing on requirements under the Public Service Act Code of Conduct. The benefit of drawing from these sources is to promote mobility across the private, not-for-profit and public sectors, and also facilitate greater partnering across the leadership levels of entities. The benefits of this are already evident in the context of bodies under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act.This Bill will ensure such benefits are achieved across the full spectrum of Commonwealth entities. Third, planning and evaluation: The PGPA Bill seeks to link the key elements of resource management to establish a clear operational cycle of planning, measuring, evaluating and reporting results to Parliament, Ministers and the public. In particular, the Bill will, for the first time, explicitly recognise the value-add of rigorous planning, performance monitoring and evaluation that goes beyond financial reporting. The Bill would achieve this by, among other things, requiring entities to develop a corporate plan to monitor, assess and report performance to a set of transparent standards. Fourth, risk management: Risk management is a key feature of modern management. The public sector deals with risk every day and at all levels, from senior managers to the front line of service delivery. Eliminating risk is not practical, and so the public sector needs to manage with risk by engaging with it. Additionally, acceptance of manageable risk is a necessary element of innovation. When managers do something new, when they work out a better way to deliver a service to the public, or develop a new policy option, it will involve risk. Something untried always will. But, within the right risk framework, this is precisely the innovation we want to foster in the public sector - it is the approach that will drive performance and better outcomes. To recognise this, the PGPA Bill seeks to place a greater focus on risk than has been the case under the current FMA Act and CAC Act framework. The Bill seeks to bring about cultural change by placing a duty on entities to establish appropriate systems of risk oversight and management and by introducing the principle of earned autonomy – a model for escalating internal regulation - where appropriate. Earned autonomy involves being able to tailor regulatory approaches to individual entities, based on clear risk metrics. The approach is akin to world leading practices in regulation and compliance adopted by APRA, ASIC and the ATO. Fifth, cooperation: Given the increasing complexity of service delivery and the needs of the community, the PGPA Bill seeks to encourage cooperation between Commonwealth entities themselves, and partners such as the States and Territories and the not-for-profit sector. The current framework is not set up to handle arrangements spanning jurisdictions and economic sectors. The PGPA Bill seeks to enable entities to deliver services and solutions across these boundaries, in a more timely and efficient manner, by placing a positive duty on the heads of entities to encourage partnering and also to consider the effect of compliance burdens when dealing with partners. This will be particularly important for the not-for-profit sector as it plays an increasingly important role in delivering the services that many Australians rely on. Sixth, accountability: The PGPA Bill seeks to strengthen and simplify accountability under the Commonwealth's resource management framework through: a greater emphasis on performance reporting in the legislation; greater clarification of the relationship between ministers and Commonwealth entities; and greater clarification in annual reporting. The PGPA Bill reform package is to be implemented over several years to allow Commonwealth entities to fully integrate the new framework, and also to allow for appropriate testing and refinement. In this regard, the Government commits to submit all the rules that will support this legislation for appropriate parliamentary committee scrutiny. We believe that introducing and establishing the legislative framework is the first step in the transition to a modern government. Once the legislative framework is in place - and with the aforementioned parliamentary oversight - the Government will progressively introduce the rules required to give effect to a number of provisions. Additionally, following a recommendation from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA), the Bill provides that an independent review will be conducted once it has been in operation for three years. The review is to be conducted in consultation with the JCPAA, and will assess the effectiveness of the reforms, considering whether further improvements can be made going forward. This demonstrates the Government's commitment to ongoing improvement within the public sector, to ensure that Australia maintains an effective resource management framework. The PGPA Bill represents the first step towards modernising the Commonwealth public sector so that it continues to meet the changing needs of the community. I commend the Bill. SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PUBLIC HOUSING TENANTS' SUPPORT) BILL 2013 This Bill will implement a Housing Payment Deduction Scheme to help reduce homelessness for public housing tenants (including State or Territory owned and managed Indigenous housing) who are in serious rental arrears that could lead to eviction or housing abandonment. The new scheme, to be implemented in 2014, responds to concerns from the community and all levels of government about property abandonments, evictions and homelessness due to rental arrears. Each year, hundreds of public housing tenants, including families with children, are evicted or abandon their homes because of arrears. As public housing is generally the most affordable housing option available, these people may end up in specialist homelessness services, staying with family or friends, or sleeping rough. Clearly, this is stressful for the individuals and families involved. It is also disruptive and costly for governments and welfare groups, and can lead to long-term homelessness. When vulnerable families are involved, it can also place pressure on child protection services. Welfare organisations sometimes end up paying rent for public housing tenants so they don't face eviction – money that could be freed up for other welfare purposes. People with complex problems such as gambling, substance abuse or mental health issues may require support services to help them address personal problems which can lead to non-payment of rent. This scheme is designed to work alongside government-funded financial counselling and other available support services, to ensure that tenants continue to be housed safely and affordably while they get the help they need to sustain their tenancy. For people who have problem levels of public housing arrears, the new scheme will allow rent and utilities legally required to be paid under their public housing leases to be deducted from their welfare payments and paid directly to their public housing landlords. Existing systems do not always address the problem of eviction due to non-payment of public housing rent. The voluntary Rent Deduction Scheme, which is already in place for some payments made by the Department of Human Services, gives public housing tenants the choice of having their rent and other costs automatically deducted from their payments. This service is used by most public housing tenants. However, as it is a voluntary arrangement, tenants may cancel the deductions – and those tenants often go on to accumulate arrears, risking their tenancies. The Housing Payment Deduction Scheme made possible by this Bill will help prevent high levels of arrears from being accumulated. It will reduce evictions and property abandonments from public housing. This carefully-considered initiative flows from commitments made by the Australian Government and State and Territory Governments in the National Affordable Housing Agreement, and the Australian Government's White Paper on Homelessness, The Road Home: a National Approach to Homelessness. The legislation introduced today has also benefited from valuable comments made on the Bill during a recent exposure draft process, and the Government places on record its gratitude to the many State and Territory agencies, community organisations and individuals who contributed their views and expertise in this important area. The new scheme will be implemented through amendments to the social security law and the family assistance law, supplemented by legislative instruments on some matters of detail. This will make the scheme more flexible and responsive, while allowing for scrutiny by Parliament, as legislative instruments can be disallowed by either House of Parliament. The scheme is a preventative measure to stop the build-up of arrears, leading to eviction, and has been designed so it will not be used to undermine sound tenancy management processes in States and Territories. Importantly, the Bill will allow the Minister to have oversight of how the scheme is administered by States and Territories. Before a public housing lessor is listed in a legislative instrument as being able to participate in the scheme, the Minister will need to be satisfied that there are appropriate processes in place in jurisdictions for reviewing decisions and in dealing with matters relating to leases. The factors which the Minister must take into account are listed in the Bill, and go to ensuring that decisions are transparent, that reasonable action has been taken to recover arrears, that tenants' individual circumstances are taken into account, and that they are informed of their rights and available advice and support services. The Minister will also have the power to revoke approval of a public housing lessor under the scheme if the conditions are no longer being met. Not all tenants of public housing will be put onto the scheme. Before a person who is a leaseholder in public housing can be put onto the scheme, there will have to be more than a specified amount owing. The specified amount owing, to be set out in a legislative instrument, will be four weeks' rent. To avoid the possibility of deductions for a person starting and stopping repeatedly each time they repay their arrears, the Bill allows for a public housing lessor to make a subsequent request to apply for a limited period of 12 months after a person's arrears have been repaid. This will give the person more time to get the help they need to re-establish a pattern of regular rent payments once compulsory deductions have been discontinued. The recent exposure draft of this Bill contained a provision which allowed for people who had a history of rental arrears to be included in the scheme as a preventative measure. In response to stakeholder concern that this provision could be unfairly used to include tenants whose personal circumstances had changed, this basis for requesting deductions under the scheme has been removed from the Bill as introduced. Housing costs which can be deducted are limited to rent, rent arrears and household utilities where included under the lease. Maintenance debt incurred as a result of property damage will not be included in response to stakeholder concerns that these debts can be contentious and may cause hardship for victims of domestic violence. Requests will only be able to be made after reasonable action has been taken by State and Territory lessors to recover rental arrears. This will require, as a minimum, that the tenant has been given appropriate notice and advice on their rights of review and available support services. Deductions under the scheme can only be made from payments (as set out in a legislative instrument) that include a rate component for recipients' housing costs. Lump sum special purpose payments such as the clean energy and pension supplements will not be available for deductions, to ensure tenants receive the full benefit of these payments. The Bill contains important safeguards to protect the interests of tenants. These include a fixed cap on the proportion of a person's welfare payment that can be deducted. This cap includes the component for rent plus an amount for arrears up to a maximum of 35 per cent. The purpose of the cap is to provide an upper limit on the amount that can be deducted to ensure the majority of the person's payment is available to meet their other needs. The cap will operate alongside other provisions in the Bill, ensuring that public housing lessors have in place processes that take into account tenants' individual circumstances and give them an opportunity to be heard before a request is made. Deductions under the scheme will stop as soon as the person has paid their arrears (plus an additional 12 months) or when they no longer lease public housing. We have sought to introduce efficiencies by assigning responsibility for aspects of the scheme to the government agency which is best placed to undertake it. Centrelink will administer the 35 per cent cap on how much of a person's payment can be deducted and accept requests from public housing lessors that are in the proper form. It will be up to State and Territory housing authorities to ensure that the legal requirements in relation to the making of a request have been met and to review any decisions about leases. This will build on the existing systems of State and Territory housing authorities – who, because of their tenancy management responsibilities, are best placed to understand the individual circumstances of tenant – with the added oversight by the Commonwealth of tenancy management and review processes at the State or Territory level. To ensure the consistent operation of the Housing Payment Deduction Scheme with the income management regime, if a request is made under the scheme in relation to a person who is subject to income management, the Secretary will be able to take action under the income management provisions to meet the request. This Bill takes a significant step towards addressing the problem of evictions and homelessness among Australia's public housing tenants, by providing a means by which arrears can be managed. The scheme strikes the right balance between achieving this objective, and ensuring that appropriate tenancy management practices are upheld and tenants are given the right supports to help maintain their tenancies. THERAPEUTIC GOODS AMENDMENT (2013 MEASURES NO.1) BILL 2013 I am pleased to introduce the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No.1) Bill 2013 which amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. The purpose of this bill is to make a number of minor but important changes that will streamline and improve the operation of the regulatory scheme for therapeutic goods under the Act. Most of the amendments are of a minor, technical nature, designed to ensure, where appropriate, consistent regulatory treatment of the different types of therapeutic goods including prescription, over-the-counter and complementary medicines, therapeutic devices, biologicals and medical devices. Many of the changes, including a new offence, standardise or replicate existing regulatory requirements so that common regulatory rules and processes apply to all classes of therapeutic goods under the Act. Two new measures included in the bill are intended to reinforce the objects of the Act concerning the quality, safety, efficacy and timely availability of goods intended to have a therapeutic use. The first is to include a power for the Minister for Health to make a legislative instrument the effect of which will be to exclude products from the definition of 'therapeutic goods' and thus remove them from regulation under the Act. The definition of 'therapeutic goods' in the Act is very broad and can capture products wherever claims are made suggesting that they can modify any physiological process in persons. Increasingly, health and wellbeing claims are being made in relation to products for which public health is not, or is not likely to be, an issue. Some recent examples of goods for which therapeutic use claims have been made include mattresses which contain bacteria spores designed to reduce the effects of dust mites and 'power band' bracelets, which were claimed would boost a wearer's balance, strength and flexibility. Consumer protection may be a more appropriate regulatory focus for these products than the more prescriptive therapeutic goods framework contained in the Act. The kind of matters that the Minister would take into account when considering whether to exclude products from regulation under the Act may include: whether the product is of a kind that has the potential to harm a person's health; whether the application of the regulatory requirements under the Act that are designed to test the safety, quality, efficacy and performance of a product for it to be supplied in Australia would be appropriate to a product of that kind; and whether the kinds of risks to which the public might be exposed from the supply of the product (for instance, unsupported therapeutic claims) can be more effectively managed under other Commonwealth or state and territory laws. Determinations made will take into account all relevant factors for the product in question. Any instrument made by the Minister to remove products from the operation of the act will be subject to Parliamentary review through the disallowance process. This new power will allow the Minister to respond flexibly, on a case by case basis, to ensure that products that are not suitable for regulation under the act can readily be removed. The new power cannot be used to expand the range of goods coming within the definition of 'therapeutic goods'. The second new measure is to provide specific power for the Secretary of the Department of Health to remove goods that are not in fact 'therapeutic goods' from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (the Register). Circumstances can arise where products are on the Register although they were never, or were, but are no longer, therapeutic goods. This can come about, for instance, because sponsors of complementary medicines and low risk medical devices can list their goods in the Register without pre-screening or assessment by the TGA using an electronic listing facility by certifying as to a range of matters about the goods. As a consequence there can be instances where products are on the Register that are actually foods or which otherwise don't come within the definition of 'therapeutic goods'. It is also possible that goods that were therapeutic goods when they were included in the Register no longer come within the definition when claims of therapeutic use are no longer made. Any decision by the Secretary to remove goods from the Register could only be made after the sponsor of the goods has been given the opportunity to make submissions. The decision will also be subject to both internal review and review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. A new offence will be included for providing to the Secretary false or misleading information in a material particular in connection with a request by the sponsor of therapeutic goods to vary its entry in the Register. Such information can relate to whether the proposed variation will either have the effect of reducing the patient population for which the goods were originally approved (for instance by removing an indication for a medicine) or to demonstrate that the proposed change will not result in any reduction in the quality, safety or efficacy of the goods for the purposes for which they are to be used. It is critical that when making a decision to approve such a request, the Secretary has available accurate information about the goods and the effect of the proposed variation. The proposed offence and alternative civil penalty provisions mirror the sanctions already in place in the act for providing false or misleading information in connection with an application for inclusion of therapeutic goods in the Register. A new ground for the Secretary to suspend or cancel medicines from the Register will be added to the act where its presentation no longer reaches an acceptable standard. It is currently a requirement under the act that the presentation of medicines (which includes the name, labelling, packaging of the goods and any advertising or other informational material associated with the goods) must be 'acceptable' (in the case of registered medicines), or 'not unacceptable' (in relation to listed medicines) for them to be included in the Register. This ensures that those using the medicine are not misled about its use or characteristics or confuse it with other medicines. The Secretary will be able to suspend or cancel the goods from the Register if the presentation of the goods ceases to meet this criterion but only after giving the sponsor the opportunity to make submissions. Such a decision will be subject to internal review and review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The amendments will also streamline some of the processes and regulatory requirements applying to the regulation of different categories of therapeutic goods. For example, the Secretary has under the act various information gathering powers to ensure information and data is available to support the making of regulatory decisions. For instance, the Secretary can suspend or cancel low risk therapeutic goods from the Register (such as complementary medicines) if the Secretary is of the view that certifications given by the sponsor at the time of the inclusion of the goods in the Register were incorrect. These lower risk goods are included in the Register if the sponsor certifies that their goods meet a number of specified requirements including, for example, that they conform to applicable standards, do not have an unacceptable presentation and comply with applicable advertising requirements. Because these lower risk products are included in the Register and are therefore available for supply in Australia without pre-evaluation by the TGA it is important that the Secretary can be satisfied about the correctness or otherwise of these certifications. Amendments in the bill will ensure that the Secretary can request sponsors of all classes of lower risk therapeutic goods – medicines, biologicals and medical devices - to provide information and documents relating to any of those certifications. It is a ground of suspension and cancellation of the product if the sponsor does not provide the material requested. The bill also contains a number of other measures to standardise or clarify the operation of a number of regulatory requirements that support the objectives of the act of securing the safety, efficacy, quality and timely availability of therapeutic goods. For example, it is a requirement for inclusion of therapeutic goods in the Register, a matter in relation to which the Secretary can seek information from a sponsor and a ground for suspension or cancellation of goods from the Register, that the goods comply with relevant advertising requirements. The amendments will make it clear that these advertising requirements include not only relevant advertising provisions in the act itself but also those contained in the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code which is made by the Minister under the act. A new power will be provided for the Secretary to cancel the registration or listing of therapeutic goods from the Register where a sponsor does not respond within the required period to a request from the Secretary to provide specified information or documents about those goods. Such a power is already available to the Secretary in relation to biologicals and medical devices on the Register and provides an important incentive where the Secretary is seeking information from the sponsor when considering whether to suspend or cancel goods from the Register because their quality, safety or presentation may be unacceptable. The Secretary will also have the power in certain circumstances (for instance where therapeutic goods have been cancelled from the Register or in relation to which the Secretary has come to the view that its safety, quality, efficacy/performance or presentation is unacceptable) to require a sponsor or supplier of the goods to provide information about the goods to the public or a class of persons such as health care professionals or patients. Sponsors will also be required to provide the Secretary with information about persons to whom the goods have been supplied. This will assist in the timely dissemination of information relevant to the safety or continued use of the goods. Currently the Secretary is required to publish particulars about various regulatory decisions made under the act (including suspension and cancellation of goods from the Register) in the Commonwealth Gazette. In order to ensure that this information is more readily accessible to the public, consumers, health care professionals, patients and industry, the amendments will give the Secretary the option of publishing that information on the TGA's website rather than in the Commonwealth Gazette. In conclusion, the measures contained in this bill will increase the efficiency of the therapeutic goods regulatory scheme, and make more clear and transparent a number of regulatory processes and requirements applying to the regulation of all classes of therapeutic goods, which will benefit the public, industry and other stakeholders alike. Senator LUNDY 7G6 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. 17:14 Senator LUNDY 7G6 Australian Capital Territory I move that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Question agreed to. Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013, Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013, Student Identifiers Bill 2013 3457

Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013

Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013

Student Identifiers Bill 2013

Report of Legislation Committee 3457 17:15 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on legislation from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, together with the Hansard records of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the reports be printed. COMMITTEES 3458 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 3458 Reporting Date 3458 17:16 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania On behalf of the chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Senator Heffernan, I seek leave to move a motion relating to the presentation of a report by the committee. Leave granted. Senator POLLEY e5x I move: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the final report on Auditor-General's report Nos 26 of 2007-08 and 22 of 2012-13 in relation to Tasmanian forest industry be extended to a later hour. Question agreed to. BILLS 3458 BILLS Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 3458

Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013

Second Reading 3458 17:16 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania I rise to speak to the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 bill. Local government, councils, shires and municipalities right across Australia are an extremely important part of our national governance framework. Despite the fact that there are clear examples of major problems with councils being run by bad or just incompetent people, on the whole local government has delivered good grassroots local solutions to local problems and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome of this bill or the consequent referendum. Like all of levels of government, sometimes the solutions can be worse than the problems, and my role as deputy chair of the Coalition Deregulation Taskforce has certainly seen plenty examples of that thrown up at the local government level. But tackling red and green tape is to the most extent a separate issue to that we are looking at in this place today. So let me make it clear: I am a supporter of local government and the good work done by its elected representatives and employees right across the country, but particularly in regional and rural Australia. It is important that local decisions are made by local bodies that understand the issues from a local perspective. However, it is for that very reason that I am opposed to the change to Australia's Constitution that this bill proposes to put to the people. Despite my opposition to that change, I would not necessarily, in principle, be opposed to the passing of this bill if the consequent question had been treated appropriately to ensure the likelihood that the Australian people were as best prepared as possible to make a fully informed decision. But this clearly will not be the case. As deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, I enjoyed the opportunity to hear from constitutional experts, bureaucrats, local governments and other interested parties throughout the inquiry process, which ended earlier this year. What was patently obvious to me from that inquiry was that the government has seriously mishandled the process leading up to the announcement of this referendum. Putting aside the subject matter of this proposed referendum for a minute, it is my view that no proposed change to our constitution should be put to the people unless all practical and reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the Australian people are best equipped to make its decision on that question on a fully informed basis. Our constitution is a core pillar, providing support for the robust and stable democracy that is Australia, which is now one of the oldest democracies in the world. Stability of government, combined with strong adherence to the rule of law, is a rare thing, and the fact that we as a nation have achieved that for so long, at least in large measure, is because our constitution works. Although I recognise change may from time to time be desirable or even necessary, I firmly believe we should not promote change to our constitution lightly and certainly not on an uninformed basis. I suspect Australians inherently agree, and this is why referenda questions have so often failed to get up. The evidence also suggests that where people do not have the benefit of a full understanding of the question, their tendency is to vote no, and this possibly also reflects the inherent understanding of Australians that the document does work for Australia and they are not going to agree to change it unless they are absolutely convinced that there is very good reason. The question of some form of recognition of local government in our constitution has been in the public discourse for decades. Indeed, the question has been put in referenda in 1974 and 1989—both times failing. However, in recent times two factors have driven the renewal of this debate and have ultimately led to this bill being before this place today. The first is the impact of the Pape and Williams High Court cases, the decisions in which cast serious doubt over the constitutionality of some forms of direct funding of local government programs by the Commonwealth. The issues raised by these cases are real and not disputed by any mainstream constitutional experts, including those who do not support this proposed change. However, as I will touch on later, their impact does not, in my view, pose any threat to ongoing funding of local government programs by the Commonwealth, as constitutionally valid methods of doing so continue to exist. The second driver is the deal done by the Independents and the Greens with the government in order to obtain confidence on the floor of the other place following the last election, which included the government agreeing to put the question we are looking at today to the people during the term of this parliament. As mentioned, I have a view of the advisability of agreeing to that question and will be voting accordingly, if required to, on referendum day. As such, that view also informs my decision that this bill should not be passed. But, as I firmly believe in democracy, I would be far less stridently opposed to the passage of this bill and the posing of the question if, indeed, the process leading up to today had been properly handled. As it has not, I have far less confidence that the Australian people will have the necessary exposure to and understanding of the arguments for and against to make a fully informed decision. My lack of confidence is only enhanced by the fact that the government has taken the unprecedented step of grossly, disproportionately funding the yes case compared to the tiny amount made available for the no campaign. Precedent, indeed the law as it stood, required equal public funding on issues of constitutional change, reflecting the very serious nature of asking people to consider changing the document at the foundation of our democracy. It is bad enough that the government has decided to fund it disproportionately, but it is a real snub to the Senate that it has chosen to set that proportionality only on the basis of the vote on the floor of the other place. The other place and this place are treated equally in terms of constitutional change. Deciding to ignore the result of the coming vote in this place when setting the proportions exposes the contempt Labor has for the Senate and the vital role it plays in our democracy. Let us take a look at what has occurred since September 2010 when the government agreed with the Greens and Independents to hold a referendum on this issue. In August 2011 the government formed the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government to identify options for the constitutional recognition of that level of government and to report on the level of support for such recognition among stakeholders and across the broader general community. The expert panel's final report in December 2011 stated that: The majority of panel members support a referendum in 2013 subject to two conditions: first, that the Commonwealth negotiate with the States to achieve their support for the financial recognition option; and second, that the Commonwealth adopt steps suggested by ALGA necessary to achieve informed and positive public engagement with the issue, as set out in the section of this report on the concerns about a failed referendum … Steps include allocating substantial resources to a major public awareness campaign and making changes to the referendum process. As such, the expert panel was supportive of a 2013 referendum on financial recognition of local government through a change to section 96 of the Constitution provided those two conditions were met. The first condition was negotiation with the states to achieve their support for the government's proposed question. The second was to take steps as recommended by ALGA to achieve informed and positive public engagement with the issue. The expert panel's final report was delivered in December 2011, almost two years prior to the latest possible date for the next federal election. As at that date, the government had plenty of time to ensure that it took that blueprint, put it in place and proceeded to put the question to a voting public that had been properly equipped with the benefit of a full public education campaign on all the issues. Interestingly, at the first hearing of the select committee in mid-January 2013, evidence was received that even given the latest possible date for an election, then being late November 2013, the prospects of meeting the preconditions set by the government's own expert panel in time to hold the referendum at the same time as the election were not high. This was back in January. Given the nominated date of the election and the time that has since elapsed, the prospect of those preconditions being fully met by 14 September this year is nigh on impossible. As such, a referendum held in conjunction with this year's federal election will almost certainly be held in an environment where potential conditions of stakeholders, including the states, have not been met and where the opportunity to fully inform the voting public through public education and other avenues has not been fully realised. The independent Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government was appointed in August 2011 by the Labor government. It is important to note here the delay of some 12 months or one-third of the current term of the parliament before the government got around to the first stage of addressing the issue. The panel, however, did its job expeditiously, consulted nationally and considered feedback it received from Australians before handing its report to the government in December 2011, some three months later. As mentioned, amongst other findings, the expert panel recommended a number of preconditions be met before proceeding and that the government get busy on ensuring that they were met as quickly as possible. As far as anyone can tell, no action took place towards satisfying those conditions for almost 12 months. One of the recommendations of the panel was the establishment of a joint select parliamentary committee to examine certain issues. The government dragged its heels, not establishing this committee until 1 November 2012, some 11 months after the delivery of the final report of its expert panel. The timing necessarily meant that, once members were appointed and preliminaries taken care of, the work of the select committee would not be completed until well into 2013. This is in fact what occurred with the final report not being delivered until March of this year. As such, the government has demonstrated an extraordinary lack of action to advance the case and cause of this question in a responsible and considered manner. In particular, even recognising the delay in getting up the expert panel, it failed then to follow the panel's recommendations and put in place the preconditions for success it highlighted and that were strongly and publicly supported by other stakeholders, such as the Australian Local Government Association. It was some months after the March 2013 delivery of the joint select committee's final report which urged specific activities be undertaken—again, they were not acted upon—before the government acted to bring legislation before this parliament. As a direct consequence, the time remaining between now and 14 September is likely to be insufficient to put in place the necessary mechanics, education campaigns and other measures highlighted by expert witnesses and bureaucrats as necessary to ensure a fully informed outcome for the referendum question. I am strongly of the opinion that this, like any referendum, should only be considered once a full and proper public education campaign has been conducted. There is strong conclusive evidence that program-specific funding which the Commonwealth currently provides directly to local government may still be provided in full via existing avenues that are constitutionally valid. As such, it is my view that this backs the argument of the existence of valid alternative funding pathways to address the funding uncertainty introduced by the recent High Court cases. This then supports the argument for a reduced imperative to pursue constitutional change. The public should be aware of all such arguments before making their decision. Of course, the great irony is that history shows that when Australians are not fully informed on referendum questions and feel they do not really know enough to make an informed decision they vote no. This is a rational approach and, as mentioned, reflects an inherent and desirable conservatism when it comes to changing a document that is so fundamental to our nation's democratic success. So in their failure to address the issue in a timely manner, the government may well be assisting those of us who do not think this is the answer to the issue raised by the High Court cases. Indeed, it is my view that the failure of the government to take timely action to seek to satisfy the expert panel's recommendations severely undermines the prospects of success and raises questions about the advisability of spending some $50-odd million of taxpayers' funds on posing the question when the timing is now so clearly wrong. This financial expenditure, together with the risk of a lack of informed and positive public engagement with the issue, appears to be unnecessary given the alternative pathways to ensuring ongoing local government program funding should the direct model in fact be successfully challenged in the courts. I will now go to another of the expert panel's conditions that was considered vital to be met before any referendum on this issue was put to the people. Australia is a federation of states and, as the evidence placed before the joint committee attests, the support of state governments can make or break referenda. If state governments have been largely opposed to the change, history proves it has been very difficult for referenda of the past. The expert panel made it clear in December 2011—a long time ago—that negotiations with the states were required to develop a proposal that would attract their support. The committee was told, however, that the government position was that negotiation could not occur with the states until a proposal was developed. But the reality is that the government failed to make best use of the time available to it since December 2011 by failing to undertake such negotiations and that this delay has potentially undermined the prospect of a full and informed referendum proposition being put in 2013. In any event, the expert panel put forward a proposed set of words in its final report in December 2011, and this could and should have formed a starting point for such negotiations at that time. ALGA further refined those words in an attempt to allay concerns voiced by some states. Yet the government again failed to use the refined words as a starting point. We are now less than three months from the nominated date for the election, with neither of the two conditions recommended by the expert panel having been satisfied, despite great opportunity for real and determined attempts to deliver them. The committee's preliminary report was tabled on 24 January this year, and all members of that committee strongly recommended urgent action to engage state and territory governments. Yet nothing was done until sometime around mid-February, around three weeks later, with a request for responses by 4 March 2013. The three-week delay in getting these letters out, in the face of such short time lines and the work needed to be done to conduct a meaningful referendum, when combined with their previous lackadaisical approach to actioning this issue, raises questions in my mind about the government's commitment to meeting the preconditions set by the expert panel—and ALGA—and, hence, their commitment to success of the question. As the government now intend to proceed to hold the referendum together with the 2013 election, it would be open for one to conclude that they are setting the question up to fail or, at the very least, posing the question with a reckless disregard for its success, with their main objective being able to say that they kept their promise to hold the referendum—or maybe their gross imbalance in funding is their attempt to make up for their past failures in this process. Who knows? Despite the inexplicable delays by the minister in seeking to meaningfully engage with the states on this issue, state governments are known to have made statements and comments that are, to some degree, indicative of their thoughts on the referendum question. It is unclear at this point whether any states will be campaigning actively in favour of the referendum, and there almost certainly will be states that will be campaigning actively against the referendum. On the whole, the state concerns seem mostly to relate to the potential impact of proposed constitutional change on state governments' relationships with local government. For example, one state which forwarded correspondence to the committee was concerned that the proposed amendment might later be found by the High Court to give rise to an implied constitutional obligation on the states to maintain particular systems of local government. Evidence received, particularly by constitutional experts at the first hearing, suggested that such concerns may hold some basis. But, if the concerns of some state governments are justified, the acceptance of the proposed constitutional change could have an impact that extended further than intended. This would be a concern to me and underlines why I do not support the proposition itself. Nevertheless, the abject failure of the government to implement detailed engagement with all the states and territories to address and negotiate through any concerns they may hold has undoubtedly contributed to the current level of opposition to or distrust of the proposed change. As mentioned, decisions made by Australians in relation to potential changes to the Constitution should always be made on as fully informed a basis as possible. The desirability of the public being well informed regarding potential constitutional change is even more important given that all Australian citizens are required to vote in a referendum. As such, it is not just those who have taken an active interest in the question but those who are notably disinterested who are required to make the decision. I consider that prior to a change in the Constitution being put to the people, parliament should take all reasonable steps to maximise the likelihood that all voting Australians understand the question and have an opportunity to thoroughly consider the yes and the no arguments before making a decision, including those who would otherwise be disinterested. The constitutional experts who appeared at the hearing provided support for the conclusion that inaction by the government has amplified risks. For example, Professor Williams stated at the hearing in mid-January: But it is a risky course—I certainly agree with that—and not the most desirable course, either. The most desirable course would be that, by this point, more work would have been done over the past months to actually build the level of public recognition, to get the support on board. It is dreadfully late and that itself is a major problem. Bear in mind that that statement was made five months ago. There were a number of other constitutional experts, including those who were actually supportive of the need for the change, who agreed that more time was needed. Professor Brown indicated that, in his view, you needed more than six months to actively and positively engage with the public, yet here we are with less than three months to go. As such, I remain to be convinced that the time left is sufficient to be able to do the proposed constitutional change justice by ensuring a fully informed decision is made. This outcome is even less likely given the announcement this week of the extraordinary decision to not fund the yes/no case equally. As noted, the committee received constitutional evidence that clearly demonstrates that avenues exist for funding currently provided directly to local government to still be provided in full, even in the face of potential judicial findings that some direct payments are not constitutional. The most obvious avenue is through grants through the states, tied on the basis that they must be both passed on in full and subject to use for the programs currently funded, or as directed under future Commonwealth-local government programs. I acknowledge that this may be a less clean avenue than direct payment but accept the evidence that options such as this are constitutional, are available, were the primary source of funding for most of the time since 1901 and that, accordingly, there is no potential risk of loss of funding to local government eventuating from further developments following the Pape and Williams cases. This risk is the argument that has been put forward by most stakeholders as the reason for the need for change. It is, with the greatest respect, clearly a furphy. The threat of further High Court cases which undermine the constitutionality of some payments by the Commonwealth directly to local government are real and likely to succeed in certain circumstances. However, there is no dispute amongst constitutional experts that this in no way limits the ability of the Commonwealth to continue to fund local government through clearly constitutionally valid avenues, primarily through section 96 of the Constitution—that is, through the states—and would have no impact whatsoever on direct funding in areas of clear Commonwealth responsibility. I consider this proposal is counter to the interests of local government local decision making, can certainly lead to the undermining of state powers and to a further centralisation of power in Canberra and that it should not be supported. (Time expired) 17:37 Senator MILNE ka5 Tasmania Well, there goes another coalition no—to the proposition that we should have a referendum to recognise local government in the Constitution. What a shame that is. There was so much hope when the Greens signed the agreement with the Labor government in 2010. One of the key parts of the agreement was that there be would be constitutional recognition for Australia's Indigenous people and constitutional recognition for local government. I am very proud of the work that has been done towards constitutional recognition of Australia's Indigenous people and I congratulate my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert, who has played a key role in advancing that, as a member of the expert panel that worked on the issue. We have respected the recommendation from that expert group to not proceed with a referendum on that matter at this time but to keep on working towards it—to delay it and in the meantime have the Recognise legislation. It is a really proud time, because it means that we have got one step further down the track towards Indigenous recognition. The local government referendum is something that local governments have been campaigning for for a long time, and quite rightly. It is important that we recognise local government in the Constitution. The federal government provides grants to local councils to fund many programs. The one that the community is probably most familiar with is the Roads to Recovery program. Councils have warned that, without federal funding, residents will face either fewer services or higher rates. That is undoubted. Ratepayers are concerned and want to make sure that the federal government can work directly with local government and not have to mediate constantly through state governments. I will come to that a bit later. The Australian Greens have listened carefully to those arguments and we are now standing with local government and the community to secure this important reform. Unlike the coalition, the Australian Greens are 100 per cent behind the yes campaign for the recognition of local government and will be campaigning for that. A yes vote in September, or whenever the election is held, would guarantee the federal government's ability to directly fund local government projects. As I mentioned before, everyone is well aware of the upgrade and repair work that Roads to Recovery has enabled to around 16,000 sites across the country. The federal government also helps to fund services like child care, sporting facilities, community facilities, swimming pools and libraries. The Australian Greens have pledged support for $10 million to fund and facilitate regional arts, many of those dollars to go towards assisting local government to employ cultural officers in their communities. A yes vote will guarantee those services, from which all Australians will benefit. Why do we need this constitutional recognition? The 2009 High Court case Pape v Commissioner of Taxation, followed by the 2012 Williams v Commonwealth case, known as the school chaplains case, have created uncertainty around the ability of the federal government to directly fund local councils. Pape involved a challenge to the Rudd government's payment of bonuses to taxpayers in an attempt to stimulate the economy at a time of global financial downturn. As the Commonwealth has no express or implied power in the Constitution to directly fund local governments, the implication of Pape is that each instance of funding must be linked to a specific Commonwealth head of power. The Pape decision has cast sufficient doubt and restrictions on the ability of the Commonwealth to directly fund local government that a response to the High Court decision is needed. This bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013, makes a simple amendment to section 96 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia to make specific provision in relation to the granting of financial assistance to local government bodies. The change was recommended by the expert panel, on which my former colleague former Senator Bob Brown was a member, and was also recommended by the parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. It is based on extensive consultation with the community, with the states and with local councils. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that direct access to Commonwealth cash for ratepayers is what ratepayers want and is what the community wants. I have looked right around the country at the level of concern about the cost-shifting that goes on when the Commonwealth tries to fund things at the local government level and state governments get involved and the local council gets squeezed. One classic example is the Northern Territory, where the Commonwealth moved to try and provide money to Indigenous communities after the shire amalgamations. The Northern Territory government intervened and the result was that local government was left to fund the services that are necessary in those Indigenous communities, because no-one can sort out who is going to take responsibility and, while they are still arguing over it, local government has to actually deliver the services. This has to be sorted out, and the best way of sorting this out is not to leave local government having to explain which Commonwealth head of power the money relates to and therefore organise it in that way. Why don't we just make this straightforward and clear up this mess, get the state governments out of the way and directly fund what the Commonwealth chooses to fund or what local government and the Commonwealth negotiate? It is clear to me that that is what needs to happen. This is a minimalist change to section 96 of the Constitution. But we all know that agreement from all sides of government is essential if a referendum in Australia is to succeed. The two previous referenda held on recognition of local government failed, in 1974 and 1988, in part due to a lack of bipartisan support at that time. As I have indicated, the Greens are 100 per cent committed to securing financial recognition of local government in the Constitution, but it is pretty apparent now that there is not going to be tripartite support. It is clear that the coalition is not going to support the yes case. I think it is totally irresponsible for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, to play politics with the local government referendum. As he knows, as we know, referenda are notoriously difficult to pass and we need cross-party support to have the best chance of getting this up in the community and explaining the case. When the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, addressed the general assembly of the Local Government Association in 2011, he made a solemn pledge to back constitutional recognition for local government, provided it was minimalist and practical change which secured future federal funding without undermining a state's ability to create and sack councils. That is exactly what is happening. This could not be made more minimalist if you tried. This is yet another example of the Leader of the Opposition going out and giving false hope to a peak body. Everyone knew getting constitutional recognition for local government was part of the agreement between the Greens and the government. The Leader of the Opposition went to speak to ALGA and said yes—but now he is backing off at a great rate. Why is he backing off? Because he cannot get unity in his team. That is why—because there is a rump in the coalition which does not support constitutional recognition. This is a very interesting point and reflects what happened with the Tea Party and the Republicans in the US. When the Tea Party got control of some states, they had moved so far to the right that they could not maintain unity and there was massive infighting. We are already seeing that happening now in the coalition over this local government issue. Barnaby Joyce, the National Party senator, is telling the Local Government Association right now that, were it not for him, the coalition would be out opposing the referendum. In fact they are out there opposing the referendum in spite of him—or with him, who knows? But they are opposing it. We saw that very clearly yesterday when Senator Brandis stood up in here and said they 'would not oppose the question being put'. That is a vastly different proposition. Do you support the referendum being held and the people being allowed to vote on it? That is one question. The second question is: do you support the proposition which is being put? Just lamely saying, 'Yes, we will support the question being put,' but not committing to actively going out and supporting the yes case is absolutely sabotaging the yes case. That is exactly what the coalition are currently doing. They are sabotaging the yes case. I turn now to the fearmongering being done by Liberal state governments, supported by members of the coalition in some cases. Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOQ Order! Senators on my left, we have just had a full speech from Senator Bushby with no interruption at all. I ask that the same courtesy be shown to Senator Milne. Senator MILNE ka5 The fearmongering is putting the proposal in jeopardy. It is simply not true that the bill diminishes the role of the states—which is what is being claimed. Recognition in the Constitution does not alter the fact that local governments are created by and accountable to state governments. This is in the documentation. It shows quite clearly that the law continues to apply. If a state government wishes to sack a council because of malfeasance, corruption or whatever, they will still be entitled to do so. State governments under the law are able to do that and what is being proposed does not put that in jeopardy. As I said, what is being proposed meets exactly the criteria for support the coalition leader, Tony Abbott, set out. He said he would support the proposal if it were minimalist practical change which secured future federal funding without undermining a state's ability to create and sack councils. That is exactly what is on the table. The allocation of funding for the yes and no campaigns reflects the overwhelming bipartisan support for the referendum in the House of Representatives. We understand that the Local Government Association will be driving the yes campaign and I look forward to getting out and engaging with the community to support that campaign. Clearly it is time for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, to get out there and make a very clear statement. If he does not intend to support the yes case, he should get out there and tell local government and the community that he is not going to and he should explain why. He should not allow this murky mess—people hearing them say that they will not oppose the question being put. That is a very interesting way of putting their position. It will confuse people into thinking it means that they are backing the proposition—when clearly they are not. It is, in my view, sneaky language. We want clear language from the coalition on this matter. The coalition have been talking about the proposed funding model as if there were some longstanding precedent for how referenda are funded. That is not the case. For the referendum on Australia becoming a republic, $7½ million was provided for each of the yes and no campaigns and $4½ million was provided for a neutral general education campaign. Before that, referenda had been funded by the Australian Electoral Commission. For the 1988 referendum on local government, parliamentary terms et cetera, the government of then Prime Minister Hawke tried to run a government funded advertising campaign, but the High Court found that this meant that the government was, in effect, running the yes campaign, so the advertising was stopped. There is a long history and various ways of managing the funding issue have been tried. In this case, the expert panel had a look at all the ways previous referenda had been funded—or not funded, noting that there is not a long history of Commonwealth government funding of referenda. The expert panel recommended the funding model which is before the Senate. They did so on the basis of advice from submissions that, without a strong campaign, the risk of the referendum failing is high. The expert panel, on page 2 of their report: The majority of panel members support a referendum in 2013 subject to two conditions: first, that the Commonwealth negotiate with the States to achieve their support for the financial recognition option; and second, that the Commonwealth adopt steps suggested by ALGA necessary to achieve informed and positive public engagement with the issue, as set out in the section of this report on the concerns about a failed referendum. We also know that the Local Government Association proposed that the Commonwealth apportion the funds for the yes and no cases for each referendum based on those parliamentarians voting for and against the bill, and that this funding be equivalent to that provided for elections. That is the basis on which this funding has been determined; it is the recommendation by both the expert panel and the Local Government Association. In my view it is critical that we clarify that this is not an excuse for state governments to beat up all these fake arguments. There is a lot of discussion around Australia about what a mess Commonwealth-state relations are in. There is a lot of criticism of the COAG process, and rightly so. I have said a million times that the COAG process is the big black hole that government shoves issues into to have them disappear off the political agenda. They stay in COAG forever and if they emerge, years later, they are nothing like what was put in there. Around the country people are asking why is there such a poor relationship between the federal and state governments on a whole range of matters. That has come up recently in relation to fixing the mining tax, and many people said it was time we had a rewrite of Commonwealth-state relations, particularly in terms of financial engagement and relationships. State governments are panicking that, if local government gets recognition in the Constitution and local government and the federal government can negotiate directly and on their own terms for particular programs, state governments will be sidelined—they will have less of an ability to cost-shift and less of an ability to muddy the waters so that local government has to pick up the remnants of whatever programs are on offer. The states are feeling quite threatened by this process because it is going to put into the minds of people the question: what is it that state governments actually do in their constituencies? Rather than beat up scare campaigns, state governments have to prove their worth to their local constituencies, and that is a good thing. Let us have the debate about Commonwealth-state relations, but do not let us mix that up with getting rid of the uncertainty that is already there about the Commonwealth and local government relationship. I am sure that, around the country, people are making it absolutely clear that into the future they want the Commonwealth to continue to be able to fund a number of services that local government regard as critical in the community. The community need to get the right information about the minimalist nature of the change and be reassured that it is not going to change a state government's ability to oversee how local government is being managed and they can sack a council if there is corruption or malfeasance. We can then have a vigorous debate around Australia. If the coalition come out and sabotage this by running a no case, they will destroy this and the next federal government, of whatever colour, will be dealing with this very uncertainty and is likely to be facing the outcome of High Court challenges in relation to funding. Frankly, their actions are totally irresponsible and they show yet again that when the Leader of the Opposition says something, even when he writes it down in a speech, you cannot believe it—a couple of years later he will be back and changing that undertaking or abandoning it altogether. I urge the coalition to come out and be clear and front up with the Australian people. The Australian Greens are going to support the yes case. What is the coalition going to do? 17:56 Senator EGGLESTON 4L6 Western Australia I wish to speak in support of the no case for the referendum for recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. Senator Milne has just talked about a rump in the Liberal Party which opposes the constitutional recognition of local government. Last year at the federal council of the Liberal Party in Melbourne a motion was passed almost unanimously opposing the constitutional recognition of local government. That involved most state divisions of the Liberal Party; it was far from a rump of the Liberal Party opposing the constitutional recognition of local government. I am against the constitutional recognition of local government because I believe such an amendment is unnecessary as Commonwealth government funding can be provided to the states for any purposes including under section 96 of the Constitution. This referendum, while portrayed as involving a simple amendment to the Constitution, could seriously undermine our federalist system. It is claimed that a 12-word addition to section 96 of the Constitution is required to preserve, for example, Roads to Recovery. I do not think they are necessary, but the additional words proposed are 'to any local government body formed by a law of a state.' These 12 words may seem simple but the implications of their incorporation in the federal Constitution are not. In fact, the incorporation of these words could completely alter our federalist system of government, which has served Australia well since 1901, by leading to a complete change in the relationship between the central government—the Commonwealth—and the state governments, with an increase in the role of local governments in governance at the expense of the state governments. While some people may think this is a good idea, I point out that Australia is a vast country with widely differing regions and small communities whose needs are much more completely understood by their state government than by a government in distant Canberra. The concept of federalism was, and I understand still is, that the Commonwealth has certain designated powers while the state governments, which are effectively regional governments, look after all the other matters such as health, regional development and education. With the states ceding the taxing power to the Commonwealth as an emergency measure during World War II, and the Commonwealth since then retaining that role, the financial relationship between the states and the Commonwealth has changed since Federation so that some Commonwealth funding is provided through the states to local government for many of the services which affect our lives. It is important to remember that local government was deliberately left out of the Constitution by our founding fathers because local government was regarded as an administrative extension of state governments not having a relationship with the Commonwealth, and so it remains today, in effect. Also, let us remember that it was the states which formed the Federation and that the states, as the governments of the differing regions of Australia, remain the cornerstone of our system of government. Why, one must ask, is this question being put again when it has been defeated three times already under ALP governments? Firstly, in 1944 under Curtin; again, specifically on local government, under Whitlam in 1974; and more recently, under the Hawke government. What is behind this, one might well ask? It has been ALP policy since the 1920s to effectively replace the state governments with a series of regional councils directly funded from Canberra, even though it is patently obvious that the existing state governments are best placed to have the resources to service their regions. In January this year, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke called for the abolition of the states, so demonstrating that the ALP policy on the abolition of the states has not changed since 1920. This 2013 referendum proposal is based on the view that the so-called Pape case raises doubt about the Commonwealth's ability to provide funding to local government. However, the Hon. Michael Mischin, Attorney General of Western Australia, has written that, in his view, the Pape case does not preclude the Commonwealth from providing direct funding to local governments for two reasons. Firstly, the Commonwealth can directly appropriate money for local government 'where the expenditure is for purposes within existing Commonwealth powers, which have been expansively interpreted by the High Court'. Secondly, Attorney General Mischin states: Pape does not limit other avenues of funding such as section 96 grants of financial assistance. He further states that 'the Commonwealth's ability to fund local government by this mechanism is effectively unlimited'. Attorney General Mischin goes on to state that 'the Pape decision, especially in constitutional law matters, is open to varying and different interpretations' and this highlights the potential problem of adding what ALGA describes as '12 simple words to the Constitution'—namely, that the High Court may find unexpected references, intentions and meanings in additional words added to the Constitution which may take years of litigation to clarify and the outcome of course may not be what was expected. In my opinion, it is extremely naive to think that the addition of any words to the Constitution is a simple matter. A great example of this has been the High Court's interpretations of the external affairs powers of the Constitution, which has enabled the Commonwealth to greatly expand its jurisdiction within Australian society. I repeat that, according to the WA Attorney General, no doubt on the advice of the crown law department, there is no impediment under section 96 to the Commonwealth providing funds to the states for local government purposes. So if there is no restriction to the provision of funds by the Commonwealth to the states, what is the point of a third referendum from the ALP to write local government into the Constitution unless it is to progress the long-term ALP policy of sidelining the states? Attorney General Mischin's views on this are supported by a number of eminent constitutional lawyers, including Professor Greg Craven, who has argued: It will be sold as a modest change that will boost funding for local governments, but it's really about expanding commonwealth power. It's like a scorpion, small but lethal. Professor Anne Twomey has argued: The sting is in the tail—the 'terms and conditions'. This means that the Commonwealth can intervene in any area of state responsibility, such as health or education, by placing conditions on its funding to the state. Further, Professor Cheryl Saunders has argued: We should think again on the terms of 'recognition' of local government by constitutional referendum in September … This is not a good idea. It is correct, as several premiers have argued, that it undermines the authority of the states in areas of state responsibility. The muddle that is Commonwealth-state relations, which urgently needs sorting, should not be further complicated by a measure of this kind. There are a few other points which need to be referred to and which already have been to some extent in this debate. Firstly, referendum information will not be posted to the registered addresses of an elector but will go as 'to the householder' mail, where in my opinion it is likely to be thrown out unread. One must ask, if that is the case, could it be that the proponents of the legislation do not acknowledge that electors have a right to be informed before voting and they simply hope that people will go along and donkey-vote, and perhaps enough will vote yes for this to get through? I think it is a very real and severe criticism of the government that they are not proposing to post the material to the electors' official addresses. Some question whether equal funding will be provided to the yes and no cases. Again, I think that if there is not equal funding, as it appears there will not be, that is a very a severe criticism of the government and clearly shows their bias for the yes case, in that the yes case funding will run into millions of dollars whereas I believe there is barely half a million dollars for official material for the no case. In conclusion, it is my view as a committed federalist that the states remain the best-equipped entities to look after the diverse interests of the many and diverse regions of Australia precisely because they are the regional governments across this huge continent of ours, not bureaucrats based in Canberra. Accordingly, I hope this referendum will be defeated. I think the old aphorism 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' very much applies to this case. 18:08 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Our Constitution must be treated with respect. With the way the Gillard Labor government has handled this proposal to conduct a referendum on the recognition of local government in the Constitution, it is treating our Constitution with contempt. No government should initiate any change to our Constitution lightly. Any change to our Constitution should be based on broad community consensus; it should be based on strong bipartisan support; it should be conducted in a way that is consistent with one of our greatest democratic values, procedural fairness; and, where a proposed constitutional change has implications for the states, it should be based on a broad consensus with the state governments. No government should try to buy a change to our Constitution or stack the decks in favour of one argument over another, using taxpayers' money to fund its side of the argument while effectively ignoring, deliberately disadvantaging and discriminating against the alternative case. Typically, and true to form, the Gillard Labor government has completely mismanaged the process leading to the proposal before the Senate today. Typically, its handling has been divisive, ham fisted and mostly focused on the pursuit of base political objectives in the lead-up to a difficult election for the government, rather than on the genuine pursuit of the national interest and genuine constitutional reform. No change to our Constitution should be pursued on that basis. No change to our Constitution should be pursued like this. This proposal for a change to our Constitution, to be put at the next election, has of course been put twice to the Australian people before over the past few decades. The Australian people have defeated this proposal twice before. The Gillard government, in the way it has approached this proposal for constitutional change, has not made a case to the Australian people that they should change their minds. In seeking to legislate this referendum at this late stage, as the Gillard government is seeking to do, and in seeking to favour the yes case at taxpayers' expense along the way, without having made the case for change, there is no doubt in my mind that the Australian people will return the same verdict as they have in relation to such Labor proposals in the past. There is no broad community consensus. There is no strong bipartisan support. There is no consensus with state governments. And, contrary to Senator Milne's inaccurate and misleading assertions earlier, there is not even consensus with the Labor-Greens state government in Tasmania. There is not even total support for this change across local government. The Gillard government, by pursuing this proposal now and in this way, is also ignoring the advice of its own Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. The government's own panel made this referendum subject to two key conditions. No. 1 is: … that the Commonwealth negotiate with the States to achieve their support … The Gillard Labor government has not. No. 2 is: … that the Commonwealth adopt steps … to achieve informed and positive public engagement with the issue … The Gillard Labor government has not. Even those who strongly support this referendum, including the government's own expert panel, made the point that certain things should happen first. But they did not happen. That is of course why this referendum legislation should not be pursued at this time—certainly not now and certainly not in this way. On the best available interpretation, the Gillard government has left it too late to put the case for changing our Constitution to the Australian people properly and in time, because of its characteristic incompetence. It is more likely that the recommendations of the expert panel were deliberately and consciously ignored. Even the Australian Electoral Commission, the objective and independent statutory arbiter when it comes to the proper conduct of contested elections and referenda, warned the Gillard government not to pursue a change to our Constitution at this election if it were initiated after 1 March this year. The Australian Electoral Commission pointed out that if it started referendum related preparations after 1 March, it would leave: … insufficient, or no, time in a truncated timetable, that is one commencing 1 March 2013 … It is now 19 June 2013, more than three months after that date, and the election, on the current timetable, is less than three months away. The Australian Electoral Commission also pointed out that in rushing the process, by initiating it so late in the piece, the government is exposed to an elevated level of criticism by stakeholders and the wider public of the way that voters are not effectively informed that the advertising campaign is biased to one side. And of course, since then we have found out that the government is doing even more to inappropriately and unfairly stack the decks in favour of its own argument and against the alternative point of view. Indeed, the Australian Electoral Commission said in its submission in relation to the expert panel inquiry that a truncated time frame like the one we have now will 'jeopardise the AEC election preparations'. That is pretty damning advice from the independent objective umpire, yet still the Gillard Labor government is pressing ahead—with a change to our Constitution no less—regardless. That is why the coalition's official position is that this referendum should not be proceeding at this time. It is too late to change the Constitution in an appropriate and respectable way. What we have said is that if, despite our objections, the government insists and persists with putting this legislation to a vote now, we will not oppose it, leaving the judgment and the merits and the question on changing the Constitution to the Australian people. But, of course, the government should not be pursuing a change to the Constitution in the way that they are doing now. It is not right. We do support the principle of putting beyond doubt the capacity of the Commonwealth to provide direct financial assistance to local government. I am not convinced that this is the best way to do that. Importantly though, our position is that the next election should be a referendum on the world's largest carbon tax, Labor's failed mining tax and the incompetent Gillard Labor government—not on local government. We have made very clear that at this next election the coalition will be campaigning for a change of government, not for a change to the Constitution. If this legislation passes, it will again be up to the Australian people to decide how they want to respond to the referendum question on local government, as they have before. I, along with my coalition colleagues, will be campaigning for a change of government that Australia so desperately needs, not for a change to the Constitution. As part of this second-reading debate the coalition is moving a very important amendment to force the government to provide equal funding for both the yes and the no cases. This should really be a no-brainer. There should not even be any argument about this. If the government does want to pursue this proposed change to our Constitution of course there should be equal funding for both the yes and the no cases. That is the established convention; that is the well-established precedent; that is what has happened in the past; that is what the Australian people would expect to happen. If the Gillard government were truly interested in a genuine expression of the public will on this, that is what it would do. In fact, if our Prime Minister had any political judgment, even from her point of view, from the point of view of somebody who wants to achieve a successful yes vote, quite frankly the best thing she could have done would have been to ensure equal funding to both sides of the argument. In acting the way she has, the Prime Minister is offending Australians' highly developed sense of fair play. She is feeding people's natural distrust of government by pursuing change to the Constitution in this way. In acting the way she has, the Prime Minister has further undermined her own cause and, again, divided the nation. As well as treating our Constitution with contempt by basing its decision on how much funding to allocate to each case only on the vote in the House of Representatives, the government is also treating the Senate with contempt. No senator in this chamber should allow themselves to be complicit in this. No self-respecting senator would allow themselves to be complicit in this. To summarise, a change to our Constitution should not be pursued in the way the Gillard government is pursuing. We do not approve of the way the Gillard government has handled this. Given how late we are in the electoral cycle, this should not be happening. If the government insists on pressing ahead with this legislation, we have said that the coalition will not oppose it. However, we will be putting our trust in the Australian people to get this judgment right again, because at the next election we will not be campaigning for a change in our Constitution; we will be campaigning for a change of government. The next election should be a referendum on a very bad government which has well and truly lost its way, not on local government. 18:20 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia Following Senator Cormann, I am reminded that in politics adherence to principle is just about everything in public life. You can respect someone you disagree with if they have a principled position. It enables those who have strong views to frame the answers to very difficult questions, making them actually easier to resolve and satisfy. I am one who will not compromise principles that I brought to this place, and that I believe are at the very heart of my political life—my political commitment—and my political party. They include a commitment to faith, stronger families, free enterprise, general freedom, our flag, our Federation and our Constitution. This bill, and I believe, the referendum and the question that is going to be put, undermines our Constitution. I think it undermines the principle of federalism. It is worth reflecting on the words of a Mr Holder from the 1898 debate at the Australasian Federal Convention: … we have harmonized the interests of several states where they differed, and we have provided a Constitution sufficient to provide for the fullest and the most self-reliant government of a free people. We have created an instrument of partnership between us which, I believe, secures the independence of the several states, will provide for the joint control of certain matters, at the same time as it also leaves free and complete self-government on all matters not committed to the central authority. There are those—some of my colleagues for whom I have tremendous respect—who have a view that times have changed since 1898, and indeed they have. But the principle that was applied at the formation of our Constitution to create a Commonwealth of Australia built upon the independence and success of the states was very, very clear, and I do not believe it should be undermined. I do not believe we should be centralising more power in Canberra, because, quite frankly, I think that political organisations that are closer to the people, like state governments and local councils, are often better connected about the needs and wants of a local community than a Canberra based politician or bureaucrat, or even the politicians here who assiduously stay in touch with their communities. They work together hand in hand, and each has a distinct and unique role. I would also like to reflect on a submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation from the Council for the Australian Federation. They said: Australia’s federal structure provides for a number of significant benefits that in fact outweigh [the] perceived costs: The customisation of policies to meet local needs Incentives to innovate and experiment in policy and service delivery Supporting choice and diversity Competition and comparison that supports continuous improvement Greater scrutiny of national policies as a result of the need to achieve cooperation Protection for the individual by checking the concentration of power. They went on: Importantly, the benefits of federalism do not preclude the development of national approaches to common problems. In addition, the federal structure allows for new ideas to be pioneered by one jurisdiction and, if successful, to be adopted by others. As I mentioned before, I am opposed to the centralisation of power in Canberra. The writers of our Constitution recognised, during a critical time in the founding of our country, that the division and separation of powers was needed to help prevent the centralisation of power in any one place. This referendum seeks to change that system of checks and balances. It undermines the principles of federation. It undermines the principle of states' rights. The states, quite frankly, need to be accountable for how they conduct themselves in accordance with our constitutional road map, and they need to stop passing the buck to Canberra. But what concerns me about this constitutional amendment is that Canberra will now be dealing, supposedly, directly with local councils. That gives another arm of our government authorities around the country an opportunity not so much to be held to account but to pass the buck to Canberra. I say to the Australian people that if you think Canberra can resolve all of your problems then you are not asking the right question, because more limited government is in our national interest. More trust in local authorities and communities to determine their own direction and self-direction and more responsibility and accountability from state governments will result in the better governance of your state. I simply have not bought the idea that a bureaucrat or an idea formulated in Canberra is somehow better than one formulated in your local community, because the Commonwealth does not know more about what is necessary in local council areas than local councils themselves. I raise the issue because, with funding from any government—they are not benevolent institutions, let me tell you—there are always conditions. Conditions that the Commonwealth could impose could indeed override aspects of a council's self-determination. We have already have complaints in parts of South Australia that the state government is overriding or insisting upon changes to planning laws or regulations in some local council areas as a condition of funding. Let me tell you that the Commonwealth could intervene and interfere in issues such as that to a much greater and more substantive extent. Any number of strings could be attached to direct federal government funding to local councils, and this has all sorts of implications for local government decisions. Decision making can then be taken out of the hands of locals and passed up the line to someone sitting behind a desk in Canberra. That means Canberra's priorities will come first, rather than the local communities'. As I said, there is a potential for even more buck passing between the three tiers of government. Of course, increased funding and promised efficiencies often do not appear. Extra funding agreements often mean extra regulations. The regulations increase costs and red tape. If there is one thing that this country needs less of it is red tape, quite frankly. The question is, who is ultimately going to end up footing the bill for higher costs and more bureaucracy? It is going to be the taxpayers and the ratepayers of Australia. The other aspect of this referendum is that the current system actually works. It is not broken. There is nothing that stops the federal government from funding local councils through the traditional means that have always been available to it since the 1920s, and that is through the states. In fact, about 80 per cent of federal funding to local governments is provided through the states in this manner. In the last financial year, about $2 billion dollars was provided to local government by the Commonwealth using section 96 of the Constitution. There was also additional, direct funding to local government that bypassed the states but, nonetheless, that is not necessary to achieve outcomes. And why would we risk—or deliberately want to remove—the checks and balances that are inbuilt in our current system simply for political convenience and for an ideological agenda that is driven essentially by the left of the political spectrum, which seeks to impose its decisions and dominate the power-sharing arrangements, because it has not always used that system appropriately. Mr Deputy President, let me make this point: if you want a more egregious example of the misuse and abuse of the power of the Commonwealth, then the bill before us today and the announcement by Mr Albanese about the inequitable funding for the yes/no case demonstrate the point entirely. There has been a consultation about a change to the Constitution, and yet what is being put by this government—and the wording—has changed significantly and substantively from what has been discussed, what has been researched, what has been workshopped and what we have had expert advice on. Constitutional experts have indicated that that has widespread implications for our constitution that have not been robustly tested. But—on a more base note—if we are trusting in the altruism of our Commonwealth and in the benevolence of acting the national interest, there are many examples I could give you where that has not been the case. But in every previous referendum where public funding has been provided, there has been equal funding for the yes case and the no case. You do not have to be on one side of the fence to think that that gives the Australian people a reasonable and fair shot at making the right decision. Let the advocates for either side put their case into the public arena on an equal footing and allow the Australian people to decide. Yet, somehow, fairness, equity, convention, tradition and decency have escaped this Labor government. After a vote was taken in the House of Representatives, and after an agreement had been reached where the facilitation of this bill would go through and there would be registered but limited objection to it, simply so that the AEC, the Australian Electoral Commission, could prepare a case—a no case—Mr Albanese unilaterally announced that $10 million would be given to the no campaign. This is on top of other publicly funded propaganda, and funds that have been provided to external organisations to continue to prosecute the no case. Mr Albanese, in his benevolence, in his equity and in his compassion, gave $500,000—one-twentieth of the amount—to the people who are trying to protect and defend our constitution from those who seek to centralise power in Canberra and take it away from local communities. He said that this was based on the result of the vote. Well, Mr Albanese has ignored another fundamental principle of this place—that is, that the Senate is a very important part of our parliament. It is the states house. We should be sticking up for states' rights here, not undermining them. Yes, we have allegiance to our political parties; yes, we have allegiance to the national interest—but we are here because of the constituents in our states. For Mr Albanese to ignore the vote that is going to take place up here—to virtually say it does not matter—gives you an example of how those who have a flagrant disregard for the checks and balances built into our system, and those who have no respect for convention, for the traditions or for the institutions that have made this such a great country, will behave, should you give them virtually unfettered powers. No decent Australian can concede that there is somehow equity in a decision to fund a no case that benefits the government and, essentially, a decision not to fund to any substantive measure the counter-case, in dealing with our constitutional roadmap—our founding document. This is a document where the checks and balances were established because our forefathers knew exactly what could happen, should we allow power to concentrate in any one place. I make the point for those who are on the yes side that there is no proof that local government would actually be any better off if this referendum passes. There is no proof whatsoever. There is no guarantee that they are going to receive any sort of special status or receive any more funding. According to the Constitutional Reform Unit at the Sydney Law School, overall, local government receives about 84 per cent of its funding from its own revenue sources—rates, service fees, investments and so on; about eight per cent is provided by the federal government; and a further eight per cent or thereabouts by the states. Yes, there are variations among different local councils; some are more reliant on the Commonwealth and state grants than others. However, councils that rely significantly on grants for more than 58 per cent of their revenue represent about 0.4 per cent of the population. The other aspect of this, which I will touch on briefly in the time that I have left, is to reflect on the history of this particular issue in Australia. The Labor party have had a focused, consistent and diligent approach to trying to take power out of local communities and reinstate it in Canberra—they have been doing this since Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister. They have had two previous referendums on this very issue. The first was in 1974: it failed, with just 46 per cent of the vote, and only New South Wales voted in favour. The second referendum, in 1988, failed: it got just one-third of the vote and no states voted in favour of it. It seems as though now is to be 'third time lucky', except that the deck is stacked. The deck is stacked by the ideologues who are insistent upon grasping more power from local communities because they want to be able to tell them what is actually good for them. There has been no history of success of concentrating power in any country around the world. We live in one of the best—if not the best—democracies anywhere in the world. That is because our Constitution has delivered strength and stability through the separation of powers. Whether that is by some quirk of fate, by grand design or by some inherent wisdom in our forefathers I cannot tell you. Labor wants to overturn that. It thinks that the vessel of knowledge in the country resides somehow in this building. It does not. It resides in our communities; it resides in our local councils; it resides in our state governments; and it resides in every individual and family. They elect us to represent their interests. This is not in my community's interest and it is not in my state's interest. We cannot allow it to go through unchallenged. I am on the record as being opposed to this. If you were in any doubt, Mr Deputy President, I am opposed to this referendum. I accept that the question is going to be put. I feel deeply uncomfortable with the injustice that is being put upon the Australian people by the inequity of the decisions of Mr Albanese and the Labor Party. I regret the haphazard, hasty and disingenuous manner in which this referendum question has been hustled through the parliament. As Senator Cormann said, the Australian people are not interested in rendering a verdict on giving more power to the people in here. They are interested in rendering a verdict on how the people in here have used, misused and abused the powers they already have. That is what we should be debating, discussing and advocating between now and 14 September. But, alas, a magnificent distraction to the tune of $10 million of public funding—plus many millions more—has been engineered. I ask the Australian people to reflect upon their own interests. Are they happy with the way that our country has been governed over the last year, two years, three years, five years or six years? Ask yourself that question. Would it have been any different or any better if Canberra could make decisions about who was allowed to build a house in your community or in your street? Would it have been any better if, when you went to see your local councillor and asked them for advice or to get something done in your street, they had to refer it up the line to some bureaucrat in Canberra? Let me tell you: I do not think that it would be. I think the Australian people will emphatically reject this attempt to abuse and radically change our system of government in this country. I will be voting against it. 18:40 Senator BACK J7Q Western Australia I rise to oppose the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 2013. I wish to put into the record the effect of the proposed change to section 96 of the Constitution should the referendum succeed. It would read: During a period of 10 years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State, or to any local government body formed by a law of a State, on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit. If thinking people around Australia, people associated with local government, and communities—particularly in the small-population states of Tasmania, Western Australia and especially South Australia—do not understand the statement 'on such terms and conditions as the parliament thinks fit' then I recommend very, very strongly that they examine it in more detail. That is because there could not be a more dangerous change to this Constitution for the people of the smaller states. In fact, it flies in the face of many of the aspects of the Constitution and, indeed, this chamber in which we sit—it being the states house. As was presented by the professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, Professor Anne Twomey, there are four obstacles to the success of this referendum. They are firstly the need for popular support; secondly the unintended consequences that may emanate from it, thirdly the obvious question of whether it is necessary, and fourthly the question of whether it is for symbolic recognition only. As has been put by those who are interested in this subject, there are two benefit tests that must be applied: it must be demonstrated that there is a problem and it must be demonstrated that any change be seen as a benefit to solving that problem. This referendum fails on both counts. There is no problem to solve, so by definition—ipso facto—there would be no benefit. So what are the proponents, particularly in local government associations around Australia, putting to their ratepayers as validation and justification for taking money out of ratepayers' pockets and putting it into the yes vote for this constitutional change? The first is that they believe in security of funding under section 96. But there is absolutely and utterly nothing that requires change. There is no guarantee that there would be any difference in the funding from the Commonwealth to local government should this amendment be passed, simply because of those words 'on such terms and conditions as the parliament thinks fit'. There is nothing in section 96 now that precludes the Commonwealth government from continuing to fund local governments as they have been funding them for many years. The second justification is the argument about the High Court challenge in the Pape case. What the ratepayers of Australia need to understand is that Pape swung not on section 96 of the Constitution but on section 81. I was privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation, which reported to the Senate in June 2011. A lot of discussion took place around Pape. We had before us officers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and also of Treasury. The department concluded: Taking into account the implications of the Pape decision, the Commonwealth remains able to make grants under its general powers in the Constitution as well as make payments to the states for purposes relevant to their responsibilities, which do include local government currently. … … … The Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet reviewed the constitutionality of Commonwealth payments in the wake of the Pape case and, based on advice from the Attorney-General, found that payments could continue. A similar position was reached by the Western Australian Government and the Council for the Australian Federation. So ALGA had got it wrong. Section 96 guarantees nothing, and Pape was never determined under section 96. The other case that they quote is, of course, Williams in the High Court. When Senator Brandis spoke so eloquently earlier in the chamber today on this matter, he made the observation that Williams did not turn on section 96. In fact, it was the opinion of the judges of the High Court that there was no legislative basis at all for the allocation of funds in Williams. I make the point in terms of road funding, because this is critically important funding. Roads to Recovery was commenced by the Howard government, continued by the Rudd and Gillard governments is paid under section 96. Those payments commenced in 1923 under section 96, and 90 years later the same payments are being made. Therefore, it is clearly obvious that there is no argument based on those from the Australian Local Government Association. I now turn to my own state and the Western Australian Local Government Association. Documentation that was presented recently made the observation by WALGA of what they are or are not seeking. The first thing they said was that they are not asking for Commonwealth takeover. The simple fact is that, under the Constitution at the moment, the Commonwealth has no powers over local governments—no powers at all; absolutely none. Yet what the government are proposing in this referendum is that they will accord to the Commonwealth, to the federal government, the opportunity to provide financial assistance to any local government on such terms and conditions as the parliament sees fit. They are unwittingly passing over to the Commonwealth powers that it currently does not have. Not only would it give Commonwealth some powers; it would give the Commonwealth exhaustive powers. As time develops in this particular contribution, I will make that point more obviously. The second thing they said was that they are not seeking exemption from state control. They need only go to section 109 of the Constitution, which speaks the title 'Inconsistency of laws', and I quote: When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. The local government in WA are saying here that they are not seeking exemption from state control, yet they are passing a circumstance into fact where the Commonwealth would actually have power over the states. The third thing that WALGA said is that they are not pursuing symbolic recognition. It has been said in the past that local government is the foundation of democracy and 'if it fails, democracy will fail'—to quote Robert W Flack. Whether they intend it or whether they do not, the very thing that they are doing with this move, according to symbolic recognition or not, is that they are placing at severe risk local government as we know it in this country today. They are also saying that they do not want to interfere in any way with the Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants. Once again, I come back to the words of the proposed changes to the Constitution and I warn WALGA and those who are the ratepayers around Western Australia that it is the very thing that they are doing. They are putting at risk the possibility of the Commonwealth in its Financial Assistance Grants. They claim it would only lead to minimal expansion of Commonwealth powers. The simple fact at the moment is that, under the Constitution, because local government does not exist, the Commonwealth has no powers. If they think that all they are doing is giving minimal powers, I will in continuation of this debate speak about the relationship between Mr Rudd and Premier Barnett and Ms Gillard and Premier Barnett on health and education. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5v Order! The time for this debate has now expired. Senator Back, you are in continuation. COMMITTEES 3480 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 3480 Report 3480 18:50 Senator BACK J7Q Western Australia On behalf of Senator Heffernan, the chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, I present the report on the Auditor-General's reports Nos 26 of 2007-08 and No. 22 of 2012-13 in relation to the Tasmanian forest industry, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BACK J7Q I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 3480 ADJOURNMENT Renewable Energy 3480 18:53 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania This year I have spoken on numerous occasions in this chamber about how the coalition is increasingly relying on the tactics perfected by the Tea Party movement in the United States. The Tea Party movement, I would remind you, is an example of astroturfing—a fake grassroots movement established by powerful interests supposedly generated by mass public support yet largely designed to serve their own ends. Numerous astroturf movements have been explicitly vocal about environmental issues. Perhaps the most glaring example is the Australian Environment Foundation, which was spun out of the conservative Institute of Public Affairs think tank several years ago. It has quite a history. It has just the sort of history you would expect from a body that had its genesis in the IPA. This is an organisation that has delivered speeches to university students challenging the view that the activities of mankind need to be reined in to avoid the effects of climate change. I bet even those students recovering from festivities the night before could see through those biased claims. This group has also issued media releases with headlines such as 'Dump emissions trading scheme now' and 'Carbon tax hoax begins'. It even went as far as branding the price on carbon: The most expensive and useless public policy since Federation … The Australian Environment Foundation is about instigating fear and distrust. Now I can advise that we potentially have another group employing similar tactics upon us. This is a group called—and, unfortunately, I am not making this up—Stop These Things. Yesterday it held a rally outside Parliament House to protest against renewable energy. Stop These Things has enlisted the support of numerous coalition politicians. In fact, a handful of coalition members spoke at the rally yesterday, including Senator Ron Boswell, Senator Chris Back, the member for Hume, Albie Schultz, and the member for Wannon, Dan Tehan. Senator Boswell told the crowd: There is a lot of pressure in the Coalition party room … there are many others who share our view … It is probably no surprise that the ever-present Alan Jones acted as the master of ceremonies. I am told that he relayed an incredible story about how the Soviets used to send people to the gulags but now we send the gulags to the people. I am sure it made as little sense at the time as it does now. As one economist in the Courier Mail pointed out recently, Stop These Things makes some extraordinary claims. Its website actually states that one of its operatives has intercepted communications from the United States Pentagon stating that 'giant wind turbines are being deployed as weapons of mass destruction'. The site features an experts section that only contains the biography details of one expert—an acoustic engineer called Stephen Cooper. It also has a variety of interesting comments from members of the public in its 'rumour file'. Many of them are probably listening to me right now wearing their tinfoil hats. I am afraid the truth is a lot less interesting than this group would have us believe. In 2011 the Senate Community Affairs References Committee investigated concerns around noise and vibrations from wind farms. The committee examined all the relevant evidence and found that there was no identified link between wind farm noise and adverse human health effects. This is a view also shared by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the South Australian Environment Protection Agency and the Victorian Department of Health. This issue also raises questions about the coalition's stance on wind farms and, indeed, renewable energy generally. It has been suggested in numerous media reports that the coalition is about to backflip on the Renewable Energy Target, a bipartisan commitment to source a fifth of Australia's power from renewable energy by 2020. We have also had the members for Tangney, Hume and Riverina claim during a debate on a motion in the other place that renewable energy does not reduce emissions. This is just incredible. The Gillard government, on the other hand, has a strong commitment to delivering on renewable energy targets. Since Labor came to power, wind capacity in Australia has risen from just over 1,100 megawatts to over 3,000 megawatts. In fact, last year wind farms in this country produced enough electricity to power over one million homes—an incredible achievement that looked impossible not that long ago. This government believes in dynamic climate change policies that drive investment in renewable energy and reduce pollution. It is about long-term vision. It is about planning for the future. It is about caring what sort of planet we leave for future generations. The combination of the carbon price, the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency is delivering results. We hear a lot from the opposition about the price on carbon. Their simplistic misrepresentation of this issue is heartbreaking. If you want the facts, renewable energy generation increased by almost a third within one year of the carbon price. In that same period, emissions in the National Electricity Market were down 7.4 per cent. This has led to a surge in investment in the renewable energy industry and new jobs have been created. Already the Renewable Energy Target has attracted $18.5 billion in new investment to Australia. In addition to this, the scheme as a whole stands to create 30,000 jobs, many of them in regional and rural areas, where clean energy resources are located. What this government has achieved is groundbreaking. We are positioning ourselves at the forefront of new technologies in renewable energy that will attract investment and ensure our long-term economic security. We are creating highly skilled jobs for people in regional areas and playing a crucial role in combating climate change. In contrast, the coalition would like to halt or scrap altogether the Renewable Energy Target, repeal the carbon price and abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. They have also indicated that they want to duplicate state and territory planning requirements over wind farm noise. What they are really doing is creating sovereign risk for renewable energy investment in Australia. My home state of Tasmania is benefiting— Senator Colbeck interjecting— Senator POLLEY e5x Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I would have thought that my colleague from Tasmania would be interested in this. Actually, he could be educated about what is happening in Tasmania. It will be interesting to see where he stands when the people of King Island vote on whether or not they are going to support the wind farm investment on that island. In my home state of Tasmania we are benefiting handsomely from the developments in renewable energy technologies, particularly wind technology. The state has been the recipient of several grants under the Clean Technology Investment Program and the Clean Technology Innovation Program, which have reaped real dividends. These programs have allowed one company, Naturale, to upgrade equipment at its Ringarooma stockfeed supplement manufacturing plant. That project will reduce the company’s site-wide carbon emissions intensity by 46 per cent and will enable the product to be manufactured at a lower overall cost. I would have thought that my Tasmanian colleagues from all sides would welcome that, particularly in the north-east of Tasmania. These things are happening in renewable energy in Tasmania, and it is a great thing for our state. As I mentioned earlier, the residents of King Island are voting on the development of what will be the Southern Hemisphere’s largest wind farm. Residents and landowners will vote yes or no to the proposal to build a 200-turbine wind farm, which will obviously play a significant role in helping Australia meet its Renewable Energy Target. According to Hydro Tasmania, the development will bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the local community as well as infrastructure upgrades and at least 60 jobs. I think it is great that the company elected to send out surveys on this to gauge the level of community support before it goes ahead with a feasibility study. It says it wants 60 per cent approval by the local community. A final decision is expected next week. I am in favour of wind turbines, subject to appropriate planning and environmental control, and I think renewable energy should be embraced in Australia. This government has worked extraordinarily hard to boost investment in the area of renewable energies, and it has worked. If left unchanged, it will continue to drive investment to transform our energy sector over the next decade and beyond. It is certainly something that this country can be proud of. Committee Reports: Government Responses 3483 19:03 Senator BACK J7Q Western Australia I rise this evening to express disappointment in this Labor government. It is a long sad litany. If we rose all the time to give illustrations of this, we would do little else. On this occasion I speak of an abuse of the Senate process by the government. It was almost a year ago to the day—in fact 21 June 2012—that, as the chairman of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee, I stood in this place and presented a report and spoke to the inquiry into higher education and skills training to support agriculture and agribusiness. Perhaps I should spell the words 'agriculture' and 'agribusiness' for those on the other side, because then they might understand them. It is the precedent in this place that the government of the day responds within three months to a committee's report and recommendations. I should say in advance of this that this particular report and its recommendations had universal support from each of the parties involved. There was no dissension. Three months would have been 23 September 2012. I waited, I said nothing, I did nothing and nothing happened. By 13 March this year, we still had no response from the government to the report and recommendations of that inquiry, and to this day, one year later, we still have no interest and no comment—nothing—on the recommendations of a committee report that had universal support throughout. It speaks volumes of the interest of this government in matters agriculture and matters agribusiness. I stand here and listen to comments about food plans and Australia’s role in providing food for the Asian world—what a load of nonsense! The response, or the lack of it, to this report speaks volumes. It has been quoted and has been the subject of tremendous study and comment in the 12 months since it was handed down. There were four main areas in which recommendations were made, all of them relevant to this country and, one would have thought, to the government. There were 11 recommendations in all. The first two related to encouraging a greater understanding by children and teachers in metropolitan and regional centres of the importance of agriculture to our community. In fact, if only Senator Polley had listened yesterday to my comments in relation to the wind turbine debate instead of sitting here and abusing me, she would have heard me say that the gap between rural and urban Australia has never been wider. And these recommendations go exactly to narrowing that gap, but Labor has the view that it has got no votes in the bush, so why would you be concerned in the least about rural Australia? These recommendations were aimed at trying to bring faculties of education and faculties of agriculture together to try instruct young teachers going to work in rural Australia about aspects of the country in which they would be working—and the students they will be teaching—so that even if they then go back to metropolitan areas they will have a greater appreciation. That was totally ignored by the government. The second group of recommendations related to examining options for the most cost-effective delivery of post-secondary skills and higher education in our country, including the most appropriate locations, methods of delivery, seamless movement between skills training and higher education, collaboration between institutions, and relationships between federal, state and other providers. What could be a more worthy group of recommendations than those three? I will give credit to the government in the sense that, at the moment in my home state of Western Australia, we are attempting to again establish a higher education course in agribusiness and agricultural management at the Muresk Institute—where I taught when it was part of Curtin University—a course hopefully to be conducted by Charles Sturt University, and I acknowledge that Commonwealth supported places for that have been allocated by the minister for education. But there is a lost opportunity here to give effect to those areas whose importance we have recognised for years, such as the seamless movement of people from skills level training through to higher education in agriculture and agribusiness. I could give a 20-minute speech on the success that we have had in doing that over time. We need to try to cut down the barriers between federal, state and other providers, to improve the seamless integration and to improve the effectiveness with which education is delivered in this country. Let me remind you again, Deputy President, that nearly every agricultural college and institution in this country has either closed or is at risk of closing, at a time when we are talking about Australia's involvement in the new Asian century and we are talking about bringing students from overseas into Australia to learn about our agriculture and agribusiness. Where are they going to be trained? The third group of recommendations addressed the decline in public investment in research and development in agricultural activity, the association with productivity in the sector and the reduced emphasis on agricultural extension by traditional providers. And what better person to have in front of me now than Senator Colbeck, who has championed this issue over time and has drawn the attention of the minister to the scurrilous reduction in funding for research and the fact that we now have flatlined when it comes to improvements in agricultural productivity in this country? The fourth group of recommendations encouraged the establishment of a national peak industry representative body for the agricultural production and agribusiness sectors. There were a number of recommendations talking about what that peak production body could do. It could bring together all elements—producers, transporters, logistics, universities, academics, higher education, skills development, alumni of the universities and the finance sector as it relates to agriculture and agribusiness. All of them are critically important if we are to see a resurgence of agriculture and agricultural production. Only about 10 per cent of agricultural activity in this country is on the farm itself. From the farm gate to the consumer's plate is the predominant concept. In 1976-77, at the Muresk Institute in Western Australia, we first recognised the need for professional training in that agribusiness sector by creating the agribusiness degree course, which of course burgeoned around Australia. That brings me to one of the primary reasons for conducting this inquiry, and that was the fact that, from all the institutions around Australia, we appear to be graduating about 700 graduates a year for a demand of about 3,500 to 4,000. It is little wonder that we are seeing this reduction in productivity increase. When we look at the age of those engaged in agricultural research in Australia, it is increasing, and they are not being replaced. In the few moments that are left, we should reflect on the importance of this industry to our country. I quote from our report: In 2009–10, the gross value of agriculture, forestry and fisheries was $43.6 billion, or three per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). … … … The turnover of food and beverage processing alone is in excess of $70 billion per year. We are by no means the biggest cattle producer in the world but, because we export two-thirds of the beef that we produce, we are the second-largest beef exporter in the world. Three per cent of the Australian workforce, around 320,000 people, are directly employed in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industries, but, as I have illustrated in the last two minutes, when you go beyond the farm gate—to warehousing, manufacturing, transport, retailing, wholesaling, food examination et cetera—you find about 1.6 million Australians are employed in jobs directly related to agricultural production or the presentation of the product to the consumer. This is a critically important industry. It is an industry that deserved better from this government. This was a bipartisan report that deserved a lot more credibility, a lot more response and a lot more respect. In the time available to this parliament, the 43rd Parliament, there still is the opportunity for the Labor government to give respect to agriculture and agribusiness and to respond to this report. Whistleblowers 3485 19:13 Senator LUDLAM I07 Western Australia I rise tonight to make some remarks about whistleblowers, their importance to democracy and how their treatment reflects on the state of democracy in Australia and in other democracies around the world. I want to dedicate this contribution tonight to a great journalist, Mr Michael Hastings, who reported on whistleblowers and was one of the most genuinely courageous national security journalists working in the United States. I met him in London, in the northern winter, in December 2011. He and I, by coincidence, were on our way to the safe house where Julian Assange was being detained at the time. His death in a car accident in Los Angeles, at age 33, is a loss to all of us. May he rest in peace. I have had something to do with whistleblowers in my time here. I have always been moved by their courage. The decision to blow the whistle has a profound effect on people's lives, and it can be an extremely lonely path. One person that comes immediately to mind for me is Dave Reid, a man who blew the whistle on the shocking state of health and safety standards and the culture at the radioisotope plant at the reactor complex in Sydney, at ANSTO. His revelations prompted inquiries and change, but he lost his job and he has paid a high price for his actions, even though official reports have vindicated his story and recommendation after recommendation have finally cleaned up some of the problems that he was pointing us to. Thank you, Dave. You saw something, you did not turn away and you spoke up—and it cost you. The workers at ANSTO and the people of Sutherland shire are safer for what you did. Private First Class Bradley Manning saw something, and he did not turn away either. He saw war crimes. He had evidence which showed deep and systematic wrongdoing. On 11 March this year we heard in his own words what his motivations were for blowing the whistle. He said in court that he hoped the release would: … spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan. He also said: I believed if the public was aware of the data, it would start a public debate of the wars. Australia deployed troops in these wars. We are still complicit in them and their aftermath—one illegal war and one futile war. Private Bradley Manning did spark a debate. He sparked a debate about whether killing journalists and children by remote control from helicopters is within the scope of international humanitarian law. He presented us all, the global community, with some brutal and haunting truths about how the laws of war and international human rights standards are violated in the ordinary course of conflict. For doing so, he was arrested and placed in an animal cage in Kuwait for months. He was kept naked for many more months with a light perpetually on, but he did not break. Given what he has been through, the dignity of this extraordinary young man—he is 25 years old—is impressive and so is his statement to the court, which I now seek leave to table. This is the declassified statement of Private Bradley Manning to the court proceedings which are underway in the United States at the moment. Leave granted. Senator LUDLAM I07 After three years under harsh conditions, Private Bradley Manning is finally getting his day in court. He says: The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this type of information should become public. I agree with Bradley Manning, who has been incarcerated for three years. I also thank the WikiLeaks publishing organisation, whose editor-in-chief has for one year this week been living in a room about the size of these two Senate wedges where I stand tonight. We learned much about our relationship with the United States government and about our joint efforts with them—such as, for example, the efforts to weaken the treaty to ban cluster bombs. Citizens of this country, and of countries around the world, have the right to know what is being done in our names. Professor John Keane, the author of The Life and Death of Democracy, talks about how vital the media and non-government organisations are to the health of democracy. He calls them the watchdogs, the guide dogs and the barking dogs of scrutiny. Such scrutiny is essential for holding institutions, governments and leaders accountable for their promises—to the standards that we agree and to the rule of law. Somebody that I admire very much and had the opportunity to meet last January, Jacob Appelbaum, has described the price one pays for being a watchdog of democracy and for working to uphold human rights and for peace. He said: I don't have important conversations in the United States anymore. I don't have conversations in bed with my partner anymore. I don't trust any of my computers for anything at all. And in a sense, one thing that it has done is push me away from the work I've done around the world trying to help pro-democracy activists starting an Arab Spring, for example, because I present a threat, in some cases, to those people. And I have a duty as a human being, essentially, to not create a threat for people. In the last week or two we have learned a new name, that of Edward Snowden. He has exposed the scale of surveillance being undertaken by the United States National Security Agency. While some had suspected this and some had said it was probable, we now have a better idea about what nine corporations, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple, said they did not know—that their servers were backdoored by the NSA to collect information on their customers, including us. I am concerned now for the welfare of Edward Snowden, a whistleblower who has done the world a public service. I have put questions to this government on notice this week about whether our customs and immigration services have put a watch on this man to prevent him from entering Australia—as we know the British government have. He has stated that his greatest fear is that nothing changes as a result of his actions and his sacrifice. I found it extraordinary this week in this chamber to note the bipartisan blindfolding which seems to have occurred. Yesterday in this chamber we lost a vote—10 against the rest of the chamber—just to request the Attorney-General to make a public statement in the other place to inform Australians about the degree of our complicity. Perhaps Australia is not complicit. Perhaps we have not engaged in the systematic violations of the rule of law and customary democratic practice that we have seen in the United States. But we are owed that explanation by the Australian Attorney-General. Nobody in here yesterday would make eye contact as they voted that motion down. I will conclude by quoting a great philosopher, Robert Foster of Rap News. He said: Whistleblowers, they leak in the public interest, now what remains to be known is, is the public interested? If so, this might be a good day to exhibit it. Ignorance is choice in the age of the internet. Rogers, Mr Gregory 3487 19:20 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland Last month in Brisbane, my friend Greg Rogers died. A couple of days later, many of his friends—unfortunately I could not be there because, naturally, we were sitting—gathered together in Brisbane to share stories and memories about this extraordinary human being. In her sensitive and very informative obituary in the Sydney Morning Herald, Robyn Sheahan-Bright quoted Greg's literary agent, Margaret Connolly, and said: Working with Greg felt more like play than work. His curiosity about the arts and the world, and his sense of the ridiculous, made me look forward to every conversation. I think what Margaret wrote reflects the thoughts of many people who knew Greg. In the statements made after we lost Greg, many people talked about his wonderful career as a book illustrator and artist—and indeed Greg was an artist. He was born in Brisbane and, as he put it himself many times, he survived Villanova College and then went on to the Queensland College of Art. He trained in graphic art. Then so much of the discussion jumped right to his wonderful career as an illustrator. My first memories of Greg are of working with him in the then Department of Social Security in the Community Liaison Unit in Brisbane. Greg and an extraordinary bunch of people—Jeannette Trefle, Ian Barry and many others—worked together in this unit dedicated to ensuring that people in our community knew about their entitlements from and their responsibilities to Social Security. It was a challenging task and one that we enjoyed so much. I would think Greg Rogers was indeed a reluctant public servant. I do not believe that he felt he was born to work in the public service. But while he was there he brought his talent and his creativity to a team that worked together to ensure that we celebrated a much underrated issue—plain English in government correspondence. There were so many ways that that happened—in newsletters, and in the way we worked with regional offices. I want to mention one example of that before I go on to talk about Greg's sterling career in art. We had a program to ensure that people knew about how the service operated—how you made a claim, how you worked for the system and then how your responsibilities would operate when you were working with the then Department of Social Security. Someone, and I would imagine it was Jeannette Trefle, came up with the idea of having an illustrated book—not something bound down with text but a book. After a number of discussions we came up with the idea of Spot the dog. A small puppy was illustrated working through the government system. Greg spent hours working with a beautiful puppy, a small terrier, who is now famous as Spot, and this product was then produced in Brisbane and put out through the social security network. As my friend Jeanette said, the true test of this booklet was that we did not find any in the rubbish bins. The product was used. It reflected the way a team could work together—share talent, share frustration, but come up with something that worked. Greg finally escaped the public service and went on to work as a freelance illustrator. That was really where his heart was. From then on his talent was acknowledged. He had worked for UQ Press for a number of years with authors doing work on covers and using his distinctive style of art to get messages across. I believe he found his true skill in illustrating children's books. He said, 'Pictures are my first language.' Since his first picture book was published more than 20 years ago, he has pioneered the picture book for older readers as well as for young readers. In 1995, Greg was the first Australian winner of the Kate Greenaway Medal, which is a British award, for his wonderful illustrations of a book called Way Home, written by Libby Hathorn. When Greg won this award his picture and his story were put in The Courier-Mail. That was a magic moment for Greg—he had broken through and his talent was being acknowledged not just worldwide but in his home town of Brisbane. While he was born in Brisbane, in Coorparoo, in 1957, the youngest in a large family, I think his heart was always somewhere else—and I am pretty sure it was New York. I think if Greg could pick where his spirit lived, it would be in the US and probably the great city of New York. After working with other artists on books, he made a distinctive breakthrough in his own career when he started his trilogy, a series of books that began with a wonderful book called The Boy, the Bear, the Baron, the Bard. This was published in 2004 and received the following accolades: one of the New York Times's 10 Best Illustrated Picture Books of 2005; an American Library Association Notable Children's Book of the Year; a 2004 Illustrators Australia award; an Australian and New Zealand Illustration Award for best book; and 2005 shortlist for the Australian Publishers Association Book Design award. That is an amazing list of accolades for this extraordinarily beautiful book. Greg, I want you to know that my nieces, for whom I bought this book and which you autographed, loved it. It was so innovative and exciting. There were no words, just a series of beautifully illustrated pictures. The children then could use their own imagination to work through this extraordinary book. Then the other ones came along. These books—the other two are Midsummer Knight and Hero of Little Street—brought together a lot of Greg's interests. He was truly interested in all things beautiful and historical. These books showed his great love of the arts and especially his extensive knowledge of the 16th and 17th centuries. The trilogy weaved together imagination, art history, Shakespeare and general history in a way that truly captivated young readers. I think that work will continue to live on in the future. Greg also had an absolute passion about early music. He was very generous with this, as well as with his art, because he worked closely with the Queensland Arts Council in travelling to remote areas and encouraging the love and knowledge of beautiful antique music. He widened many of our eyes when we worked with him in this area. Greg was an exciting and wonderful person to be with. He then moved on to produce many other books and work exclusively in art. He came back to Brisbane and set up his own studio, and it was an experience to go to that studio because it was where he lived. Everything around him showed his interest in beauty, his interest in exotic music and arts, and also in teddy bears—he had almost more teddy bears than any one man could ever own. When Greg was diagnosed with cancer three years ago he did not so much work through the process as deny that the problem existed. We laughed together because he referred to the quite extensive treatments that he had to go through as his spa attendance, and he claimed he was the only person ever to put on weight under chemotherapy. Again, he had this joy about life, which he shared although we knew he was working through such pain. It has been said that he had another burst of creativity, and there are unfinished manuscripts which will be published in the future, again showing this wonderful talent for art that he had, nurtured in Brisbane and now shared with the world. Greg is survived by his partner Matt, an American—part of that love for the US—and his brothers Ross and Denis. He has left so much behind as a result of his sharing of so much joy. Not too long before he died, he was humbled by the number of friends who were around him. I said to him, 'You have friends because you deserve them and you make us happy', and he smiled. That was an extraordinarily special moment for me. I hope Greg enjoys that his name has been mentioned in parliament. He always wanted it to happen. I know that he liked having this interest in his work. From all of us, thank you, Greg Rogers. You made our lives better and you will never be forgotten. Senate adjourned at 19:30 DOCUMENTS 3489 DOCUMENTS Tabling 3489